Can someone explain to me why the armor on the back of the Abrams is flat? Is it just that rounds are so powerful they just go through anything and there is no point? I've always wondered.
[editline]11:35PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;20926928]That's not a rocket launcher, that's a naval gun.
[/QUOTE]
I think it's actually a rocket.
Fuck all your experimental shit.
I give you Karl-Gerät self-propelled 600mm siege howitzer.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Mortars_Karlgeret_Adam.jpg/800px-Mortars_Karlgeret_Adam.jpg[/img]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Karl6.jpg[/img]
Here's the shell it fired.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Warsaw_Uprising_by_Joachimczyk_-_Dud_in_Adria_-_459.jpg/384px-Warsaw_Uprising_by_Joachimczyk_-_Dud_in_Adria_-_459.jpg[/img]
[editline]12:44AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;20926928]That's not a rocket launcher, that's a naval gun.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong. It's a NAVAL ROCKET launcher. Look it up.
[editline]12:47AM[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-mYxJA_V_8&feature=related[/media]
Mr. tank experts, please review my home country's tank
[img]http://www.armyrecognition.com/Asie/Coree_du_Sud/vehicules_lourds/K1/K1A1_South_Korea_news_31012007_11.jpg[/img]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K1A1[/url]
we literally took every advanced hardware and placed it inside
why do I worry that it won't perform [b][i]that[/i][/b]
Most of the WW1 tanks look like someone threw a bunch of ideas on a table and they made them with hardly any testing...
[QUOTE=Nyaos;20931433]Can someone explain to me why the armor on the back of the Abrams is flat? Is it just that rounds are so powerful they just go through anything and there is no point? I've always wondered.
[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about the very back? or the top part of the back? Or even the very back of the turret for that matter?
[editline]12:25AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;20931571]Mr. tank experts, please review my home country's tank
[IMG]http://www.armyrecognition.com/Asie/Coree_du_Sud/vehicules_lourds/K1/K1A1_South_Korea_news_31012007_11.jpg[/IMG]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K1A1[/URL]
we literally took every advanced hardware and placed it inside
why do I worry that it won't perform [B][I]that[/I][/B][/QUOTE]
From what I can tell just by looking at it, it looks like your average modern NATO main battle tank. (Abrams, Challenger II, Leclerc, Leopard II, etc.)
Sure as hell better than anything the North Koreans have.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20931314][img]http://surbrook.devermore.net/superpics/machines/fortress_tank.jpg[/img]
yargh[/QUOTE]
[I]Call the logistics! We'll need more turrets on this tank![/I]
[QUOTE=Hellghast;20931173][IMG]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb87/muharred/leman-russ.gif[/IMG]
Leman Russ Battle Tank.
You have to admit, if it existed, you'd shit kittens. Fucker has an engine that'll burn ANYTHING.[/QUOTE]
Funnily enough the shape of the Leman Russ hull was inspired by WWI tanks as opposed to WW2 ones.
I see your russ and raise you a
[img]http://www.ifelix.net/gamingblog/wp-content/img_0033.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Nyaos;20931433]Can someone explain to me why the armor on the back of the Abrams is flat? Is it just that rounds are so powerful they just go through anything and there is no point? I've always wondered.[/QUOTE]
You see, the Chobham composite armor used in the M1 tank can only be made as flat plates. It can't be shaped.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;20932365]Funnily enough the shape of the Leman Russ hull was inspired by WWI tanks as opposed to WW2 ones.
I see your russ and raise you a
[img]http://www.ifelix.net/gamingblog/wp-content/img_0033.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I like how they used a shoota for the stubber.
[img]http://i32.tinypic.com/n4y6fd.jpg[/img]
AFVs?
They suck ass.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;20914396]Maybe I'll contribute some.
The KV-IV "Behemoth," a.k.a. "Stalin's Orchestra"
[img]http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?action=attachment&tid=4693&pid=13557[/img]
TL:DR: During WW2, the Russians built an actual land battleship, that failed miserably both in design and application.[/QUOTE]
It's like the three stooges of tankdom. :buddy:
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;20932974]It's like the three stooges of tankdom. :buddy:[/QUOTE]
Except the three stooges didn't break in half, catch fire and explode :v:
[QUOTE=Hellghast;20931173][IMG]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb87/muharred/leman-russ.gif[/IMG]
Leman Russ Battle Tank.
You have to admit, if it existed, you'd shit kittens. Fucker has an engine that'll burn ANYTHING.[/QUOTE]
Well, if we're mentioning kick ass warhammer tanks.
[img]http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Imperial%20Guard/Krieg/superheavies/malcvhbp6.jpg[/img]
[editline]07:36AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kai365;20932994]Except the three stooges didn't break in half, catch fire and explode :v:[/QUOTE]
You must not have watched the blooper reels.
[editline]07:38AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;20932365]Funnily enough the shape of the Leman Russ hull was inspired by WWI tanks as opposed to WW2 ones.
I see your russ and raise you a
[img]http://www.ifelix.net/gamingblog/wp-content/img_0033.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I take your pansy demonic tin can and raise you a
[img]http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Orks/kblasta.jpg[/img]
[editline]07:38AM[/editline]
Now, Warhammer has it's flaws, but you've got to admit they make some mighty fine tanks.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;20933021]Well, if we're mentioning kick ass warhammer tanks.
[img]http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Imperial%20Guard/Krieg/superheavies/malcvhbp6.jpg[/img]
[editline]07:36AM[/editline]
You must not have watched the blooper reels.
[editline]07:38AM[/editline]
I take your pansy demonic tin can and raise you a
[img]http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Orks/kblasta.jpg[/img]
[editline]07:38AM[/editline]
Now, Warhammer has it's flaws, but you've got to admit they make some mighty fine tanks.[/QUOTE]
Technically, that's a self propelled Gun (Dakka Wot Moves) and not a tank, anything that doesn't have a rotating turret is technically a SPG.
Is this thread about IRL tanks, Warhammer, or both?
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;20933409]Is this thread about IRL tanks, Warhammer, or both?[/QUOTE]
It's about everything big, loud, and dangerous.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;20933432]It's about everything big, loud, and dangerous.[/QUOTE]
That leaves it quite open to interpretation...
[IMG]http://imgur.com/KnpN6.jpg[/IMG]
Big? Check.
Loud? Check.
Dangerous? Check.
[QUOTE=killiam;20929233]Sure thing bro
[img]http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/sh/images/kingtiger.jpg[/img]
[/QUOTE]
The Tiger II had a reputation of being unreliable and of poor build quality.
But I can't fault you on that Jagdpanther ;)
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;20933486]That leaves it quite open to interpretation...
[IMG]http://imgur.com/KnpN6.jpg[/IMG]
Big? Check.
Loud? Check.
Dangerous? Check.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/wp-content/2008/12/killdozer.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/5016/killdozer8vhvk1.jpg[/img]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA[/media]
Homemade, bitches.
Holy shit, that Tsar tank was real?!
I thought it was jsut some crazy thing they made up for Toy Soldiers.
Daayym
[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;20915631][IMG]http://www.odms-club.com/convention/PantherTankColor.jpg[/IMG]
Best tank of the Second World War, hands down. Beautiful piece of engineering.[/QUOTE]
Just a shame the side armour was pretty weak compared to the rest of it.
They see me rollin' they hatin'
[img]http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-CardenLoyd-OneManTankette.jpg[/img]
Truth time.
[QUOTE=j-richardson;20916416]dunga dunga!!!
MASTIFF LET'S GO
[img]http://www.snipersystems.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/GolightonMastiffAfghanistan.jpg[/img]
[B]Want.[/B]
time to kick some fucking ass
[img]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_BvS10_Viking_UK_Trials_lg.jpg[/img]
[B]Deathtrap.[/B]
[img]http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/507/AS90_Royal_Artillery.jpg[/img]
[B]Not a tank, gets ripped to shreds by heavy machinegun fire.[/B]
AS90 155mm artillery[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Orkel;20923668]What about the Leopard 2? Alongside the Abrams, Challenger, T-90 and Merkava, it's one of the best main battle tanks in the world.
[img]http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2195/leopard2a48bq.jpg[/img]
A6 model:
[IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/oaywj9.png[/IMG]
[B]Not combat tested, looks promising though.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=jgerm529;20920176]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
[B]
Both of them are meh, the A-10 is only useful if you have 100% air superiority, the Abrams was being knocked out by T-72s.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=evilweazel;20920735]guarantee if the two ever went up against each other, the Abrams would come out on top.
Thank god we will never see that happen though, last thing I want to do if i'm a tanker is shoot at British people :love:[/QUOTE]
Each tank has it's advantages.
The Challenger II, for example, is mother-fuckin' hard as nails and is nigh-on indestructible (the only Challenger II destroyed has been by another Challenger II in a friendly fire incident) and in one incident a Challenger II survived 14 RPG's and a MILAN missile with only minor damage.
On the other hand, I do believe the Abrams has a somewhat superior gun. We Brits sometimes get cocky and claim the Challenger II's is better because it is rifled, but apparently this is actually acts as a limitation.
Overall I consider it to be a very close call, with them both being excellent tanks. I would put them in the top three in the world, along with the Leopard II.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;20933486]That leaves it quite open to interpretation...
[IMG]http://imgur.com/KnpN6.jpg[/IMG]
Big? Check.
Loud? Check.
Dangerous? Check.[/QUOTE]
Is it wrong that I'm trying to locate his penis on that large spherical area where it would normally be?
Looking at the signs behind him you can see why he's in that chair. I reckon he could take on a Tiger 1 if he had a big enough hill to start down.
[QUOTE=Explicit;20933925][img]http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/wp-content/2008/12/killdozer.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/5016/killdozer8vhvk1.jpg[/img]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA[/media]
Homemade, bitches.[/QUOTE]
There's another one, but it was a stolen M60.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;20934605]There's another one, but it was a stolen M60.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AcVSEY2DP0[/media]
Amazing.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;20934306]Truth time.[/QUOTE]
You said M1 Abrams tanks were getting knocked out by T-72s?
Get learned, boy.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting[/url]
[QUOTE=Goblix;20933875]The Tiger II had a reputation of being unreliable and of poor build quality.
But I can't fault you on that Jagdpanther ;)[/QUOTE]
For every 50 king tigers lost, 500 other AFVs were destroyed. Most of the king tigers weren't even destroyed by enemy combat, most ran out of fuel or broke down and were abandoned.
[QUOTE=David29;20934575]Each tank has it's advantages.
The Challenger II, for example, is mother-fuckin' hard as nails and is nigh-on indestructible (the only Challenger II destroyed has been by another Challenger II in a friendly fire incident) and in one incident a Challenger II survived 14 RPG's and a MILAN missile with only minor damage.
On the other hand, I do believe the Abrams has a somewhat superior gun. We Brits sometimes get cocky and claim the Challenger II's is better because it is rifled, but apparently this is actually acts as a limitation.
Overall I consider it to be a very close call, with them both being excellent tanks. I would put them in the top three in the world, along with the Leopard II.[/QUOTE]
The gun on the CR2 is being refitted to the same smoothbore gun as the L2A6.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;20934632]You said M1 Abrams tanks were getting knocked out by T-72s?
Get learned, boy.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting[/url][/QUOTE]
I stand corrected then, must be thinking of another event where Abrams have failed to stand up to something that is clearly inferior. Possibly T-80s though I dont think the Iraqi army even had any of them, they barely had any T-72s to begin with.
Also, lol.
Enemy Fire: 12 Killed, 2+ wounded
Friendly Fire: 57 wounded
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
