[img]http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2006/12/flying_tank.jpg[/img]
Oh you crazy Russians...
[QUOTE=David29;20915742][IMG]http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2006/12/flying_tank.jpg[/IMG]
Oh you crazy Russians...[/QUOTE]
hahahahaha
Isn't really a tank, but you can drive this motherfucker straight up a mountain if you wanted to. Hell, you could probably mount a turret to the top.
Austrian Pinzgauer
[img]http://www.panzerbaer.de/helper/pix/at_lkw_01-5t_gl_pinzgauer_712-002b.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=acds;20914434]That made me laugh quite a lot.[/QUOTE]
Same.
[editline]03:18PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Javascript;20915702]
[IMG]http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/randall/MilitaryVehicles/MVBall2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/randall/MilitaryVehicles/MVBall1.jpg[/IMG]
[/QUOTE]
Doesn't look that bad actually, I wonder how it would have worked in real life.
[QUOTE=Orkel;20915915]
Doesn't look that bad actually, I wonder how it would have worked in real life.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it looks damn cool, but how would you operate such a thing?
It's hard to keep a window or some other kind of visibility in the front, so how would you see? (hey, remote control armored robot balls, anyone?)
Also what if it attacks a fortified position up a hill, could you just give it a push and watch it roll down to it's destruction?
also Cracked has an article on it:
[url]http://www.cracked.com/article_17366_7-wtf-military-weapons-you-wont-believe-they-actually-built.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Orkel;20915915]Same.
[editline]03:18PM[/editline]
Doesn't look that bad actually, I wonder how it would have worked in real life.[/QUOTE]
Heaven forbid they need to go down a hill.
dunga dunga!!!
MASTIFF LET'S GO
[img]http://www.snipersystems.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/GolightonMastiffAfghanistan.jpg[/img]
time to kick some fucking ass
[img]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_BvS10_Viking_UK_Trials_lg.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/507/AS90_Royal_Artillery.jpg[/img]
AS90 155mm artillery
[IMG]http://hosted.wargamer.com/Panzer/panther04.jpg[/IMG]
Arguably the most all-round tank of WWII.
[QUOTE=David29;20914470]I'm grateful for the Soviets. If it hadn't been for them and their development of armour technology, post-war everyone would have continued with the idea of 'let's see who can build the biggest tank with the thickest armour'. The German Monster was just ridiculous...[/QUOTE]
I think they would have to go with mobility eventually though, airplanes killed alot of tanks in the latter period of ww2 when the allies got their air superiority after the battle of britain.
I'm probably not the only one, but I actually love the design of the MK I tank, it looks so goddamn crude and raw and menacing.
OP : I would love to read some about the french tanks used during ww2, if you know anything about them that is.
Not a tank but just as bad ass!
[img]http://www.track-kickers.com/images/ferret-mainL.png[/img]
[B]FLYING TANK MOTHA FUCKAAAAAa[/B]
[img]http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/t-80u%20firing%20in%20midair.jpg[/img]
challenger 2 tank bitches, this thing can go to nearly 40mph.
[img]http://www.enemyforces.net/tanks/challenger2.jpg[/img]
[editline]05:09PM[/editline]
fuck, the thought of that thing racing towards you will make you shit bricks
The thing is, that all tanks after the first world war looks like what they are: Precision tools for warfare.
The first tanks all look like something deranged brits built in their backyards out of scrap and old tractors (pretty close to the truth i guess though), with the intent of maiming as many krauts as possible.
It's like comparing a scalpel to a sledge, and that is what makes the WW1 tanks oh so much cooler.
[QUOTE=Gregah;20916749]I think they would have to go with mobility eventually though, airplanes killed alot of tanks in the latter period of ww2 when the allies got their air superiority after the battle of britain.
I'm probably not the only one, but I actually love the design of the MK I tank, it looks so goddamn crude and raw and menacing.
OP : I would love to read some about the french tanks used during ww2, if you know anything about them that is.[/QUOTE]
The Renault R-35, Somua S-35 (arguably the best allied tank at the time (1940), perhaps the British Matilda MkII, Valentine or Churchill were slightly superior), the Hotchkiss H-39 and the Char B-1 are the important French designs in the early war period. The Char B1 is particularly interesting, very advanced for its time and mounted a 75mm, and a 45mm gun in hull and turret mounted configurations. Some 65mm of armour protection too.
Might be worth noting in 1940 German tanks weren't particularly good. They used a lot of PzKpfw 38's, a captured Czech tank, some 25mm of armour and with a 37.2mm gun. It was among the best they had for the invasion of Poland, Norway and France. In addition to this they used the Panzer II which was only armed with a 20mm cannon. The Panzer III in its early 37mm/50mm gun variants would have been the best they had, but not that common. There were many occasions where German armour in France came up against British armour, such as the Matilda MkII, and were unable to take it out. That said, the measly 2pdr gun the British armed their tanks with at the time was also useless. In 1940 the French had by far, 1), the most, and 2) the best tanks of the time. However, unlike the Germans, the French did not concentrate their armour. Splitting up their armoured formations and assigning them to infantry unit instead. So German tank and anti tank crews had easy pickings. And the British just didn't have enough of their tanks. Now, had the French concentrated their armour into a reasonable force, and counter attacked with the British at Arras, just like the British had asked, the whole French campaign may have been different.
Thread needs more Panzer III's
[img]http://jg3105.k12.sd.us/Event/PanzerIII.jpg[/img]
thread needs more merkava 4's
[img]http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum_pic/israel/Merkava_4_Israeli_army_forum_ArmyRecognition_001.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.co-optimus.com/images/upload/image/2010/l4d-tank.jpg[/img]
Sure it isn't equipped with any kinds of weapons, but it packs quite a [B]punch[/B]
[QUOTE=camper182 V2;20918362]thread needs more merkava 4's
[img]http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum_pic/israel/Merkava_4_Israeli_army_forum_ArmyRecognition_001.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
that shit looks like it should be hovering
[QUOTE=Javascript;20915702][IMG]http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/randall/MilitaryVehicles/MVScooter2.jpg[/IMG]
Not so much a tank, just a... well, it's a moped with a fucking cannon in it. Used by the French (:v:) mid WWII. Yes, they actually killed shit with these abominations.[/QUOTE]
Oh christ I was hoping someone would bring this up. I remember a [U][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=798969"]contraptions thread[/URL][/U] about this haha.
I've been inside a tank in some museum.
Smelled like really old feet.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;20914745]Whoa...never knew that thing existed...I want one
And wheres all the 13 year olds going "OMG teh M1A1/M1A1 Abrams is the best tank evar!"[/QUOTE]
What makes you think it isn't. :colbert:
[QUOTE=evilweazel;20919750]What makes you think it isn't. :colbert:[/QUOTE]
Because the Challenger had a better survival ratio in Afghanistan :smugdog:
just because you all hate America you have to admit how well of a killing machine the Abrams is. I do think it is better then the Challenger no offense.
[img]http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m1a2abrams.JPEG[/img]
and to back up these bad boys we have these rugged motherfuckers
[img]http://www.slcdirect.us/aircraft/A10Warthog2oClock.jpg[/img]
I can hear all of your armor crying
I heard somewhere that Winston Churchill was the head of the Landships committee, if so, hasn't he contributed a lot to modern warfare.
[QUOTE=Hiccuper;20920180]I heard somewhere that Winston Churchill was the head of the Landships committee, if so, hasn't he contributed a lot to modern warfare.[/QUOTE]
The only thing that guy has contributed to is cigar sales, racism and sexism.
[QUOTE=Hiccuper;20920180]I heard somewhere that Winston Churchill was the head of the Landships committee, if so, hasn't he contributed a lot to modern warfare.[/QUOTE]
Yes he was.
No he didn't.
Those aren't tanks, THESE are tanks!
[img]http://kofler.dot.at/40k/units/Imperial_Guard_Cadian_Leman_Russ.gif[/img]
[img]http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m245/conundrum129/baneblade_1.jpg[/img]
Look at those guys faces, thats the look of a motherfucker who KNOWS hes about to get fucked by a REAL tank!
It's a model.
Thats what they WANT you to believe!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
