The Tank and other related AFVs. - General

[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] [img]http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee292/dblahag/Tau/IMG_3236.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;20934654]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] The thing is though, the Allies could afford to lose 500 tanks (and sadly crews) for every 50 KTs. The Axis however could not afford to replace 50 KTs. Theres no point building the bestest tank evar if you can only have a handful, when the enemy is throwing thousands of inferior tanks at you. If you put all of the T-90s, CR2s, M1A2, L2A6s and Merkervas in existance on a giant field, and put them up against every T-55, T-62, T-72 and T-80 in existance, fully crewed to the standard of each representive nation, the western forces would lose, easily.

[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. *America's bad take on a better tank* [/QUOTE] Challenger has superior armour. And besides the only thing that can kill a challenger is a challenger. Challenger: 1. Faster on the most extreme war torn ground, although slower than an ABRAMS on road 2. A more advanced firing system than the ABRAMS and a rifled cannon to again improve accuracy 3. If those werent enough I have a few more words to settle this CHOBHAM II ARMOR Oh and the ABRAMS armor is of british design :smug: [QUOTE=Wiki]During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks operating in the Gulf suffered no total losses to enemy fire. In one engagement a Challenger survived 14 hits from rocket propelled grenades and from one MILAN anti tank missile.[/QUOTE]

Don't Challengers go slower than they are able to on roads, namely because if they went full speed, they'd chew the fuck out of the road (thus making it impassible for civilians/support vehicles etc etc)

I think it's just because the suspension is unsuited to a smooth surface v:v:v

[QUOTE=Inplabth;20926072]Nazi Germany had some truly odd designs during WWII. (Revised sentence because the guy above me ninja'd me, and those are the strangest designs I've ever seen) Take, for example the Sturmtiger. This thing had a 380mm rocket launcher. It probably wasn't practical, but imagine looking down the bore of that monster! [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger"]Sturmtiger Wiki Page[/URL][/QUOTE] it was desgined to destroy buildings in one hit

Has anybody mentioned the BMPs yet? BMP-1 [img]http://www.hellas.org/military/army/images/bmp-1.jpg[/img] BMP-2 [img]http://kbptula.ru/eng/bron/light/images/bmp2_1.jpg[/img] BMP-3 [img]http://www.haborumuveszete.hu/rovatok/news/oroszexport2/bmp-3.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;20935089]Don't Challengers go slower than they are able to on roads, namely because if they went full speed, they'd chew the fuck out of the road (thus making it impassible for civilians/support vehicles etc etc)[/QUOTE] Yes, although the M1 has the same problem. Additionally travelling at top speed can damage the drive train, tracks, and injure the crews in both tanks. The main problem with the M1 is logistics. Historians such as Dr Aryeh Nusbacher liken fielding M1's to fighting a pub brawl with your right foot in a bucket. The US has already said they will go back to diesel when they replace for the M1. The M1's turbine offers slight mobility gains but are outweighed by logistical problems. (also, some reports say due to the jet wash from the exhaust vents, supporting infantry in urban areas are unable to stay close to the rear of the tank, and when fitted with TUSK, the infantry are unable to use the phone on the rear of the M1) Dorchester armour on the C2 is superior to the M1's, the C2 remains the only tank in the middle east to serve without a single loss to enemy action. And the new gun for the C2 incorporates the elements of the British cannon with the German one from the 2A6. It is claimed to be the best anti tank gun made. Now the C2 can also be fitted with a remote weapons station which can mount a .50. Although I'm not sure if this replaces the L7 GPMG mount. Don't get me wrong the M1 is a very good tank, I just can't see where the M1 has any distinct advantage. Expect perhaps secondary armament.

[QUOTE=Darkhorse01;20935483] Dorchester armour on the C2 is superior to the M1's, the C2 remains the only tank in the middle east to serve without a single loss to enemy action. And the new gun for the C2 incorporates the elements of the British cannon with the German one from the 2A6. It is claimed to be the best anti tank gun made. Now the C2 can also be fitted with a remote weapons station which can mount a .50. Although I'm not sure if this replaces the L7 GPMG mount. Don't get me wrong the M1 is a very good tank, I just can't see where the M1 has any distinct advantage. Expect perhaps secondary armament.[/QUOTE] The loader gets a GPMG in his station when the .50 is fitted IIRC. Also the americans claim to have "modified" the armour we gave them for the M1A2 in such a way that it is superior to Dorchester, though I've seen no evidence to back up those claims.

[QUOTE=Inplabth;20926072]Nazi Germany had some truly odd designs during WWII. (Revised sentence because the guy above me ninja'd me, and those are the strangest designs I've ever seen) Take, for example the Sturmtiger. This thing had a 380mm rocket launcher. It probably wasn't practical, but imagine looking down the bore of that monster! [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Sturmtiger_frontal.jpg[/img] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger]Sturmtiger Wiki Page[/url][/QUOTE] It was practical, it was a heavy assault tank used to breach fortifications. They used it in the warsaw ghetto uprising, there's a video on youtube

Am I the only one that love modern russian AFVs here? The T-90 is awesome, and I like the BTRs also. Did I mention that the black eagle tank is also fucking badass? [img]http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/640.jpg[/img]

I think it's strange the Sherman (and Firefly edition) tank haven't been shown yet, they weren't stronger then the german tanks in WWII but there were a hell of a lot of them.

[QUOTE=dagoth_ur;20935467]Has anybody mentioned the BMPs yet? BMP-3 [img]http://www.haborumuveszete.hu/rovatok/news/oroszexport2/bmp-3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] The BMP-3 is ugly as fuck. I like the BMP-2 the most of the three.

The [B]Type 99[/B] is fucking cool. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Type_99_MBT_front_left.jpg/800px-Type_99_MBT_front_left.jpg[/img] [B]Hi-res:[/B] [url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Type_99_MBT_front_left.jpg[/url]

Maus/Ratte anyone?

[QUOTE=ToXiCsoldier;20935888]I think it's strange the Sherman (and Firefly edition) tank haven't been shown yet, they weren't stronger then the german tanks in WWII but there were a hell of a lot of them.[/QUOTE] What made the Firefly so special was the gun it had. The British stuck a 17pdr anti tank gun into a normal Sherman (It had to be mounted sideways to fit inside the turret). It was more than capable of knocking out a Tiger, and at a decent range too. Roughly 20~25% of all Sherman's were produced as, or modified into Firefly's, although I'm not sure if that was just in the British/Commonwealth armies, or in the US as well. A British Firefly was credited with the kill of Tiger ace SS-Haupsturmfuehrer Michael Wittmann.

[QUOTE=dagoth_ur;20935467]Has anybody mentioned the BMPs yet? BMP-1 [img]http://www.hellas.org/military/army/images/bmp-1.jpg[/img] BMP-2 [img]http://kbptula.ru/eng/bron/light/images/bmp2_1.jpg[/img] BMP-3 [img]http://www.haborumuveszete.hu/rovatok/news/oroszexport2/bmp-3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] God, when I saw those things I just thought "Beep beep"

[QUOTE=dagoth_ur;20935467]Has anybody mentioned the BMPs yet? BMP-1 [img]http://www.hellas.org/military/army/images/bmp-1.jpg[/img] BMP-2 [img]http://kbptula.ru/eng/bron/light/images/bmp2_1.jpg[/img] BMP-3 [img]http://www.haborumuveszete.hu/rovatok/news/oroszexport2/bmp-3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] BMP Big Mother Pucker

[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] I love this tank. As far as innovation is concerned it's one hell of a unique and tough tank.

If a working, even partly (without the AI) Bolo tank was created, I think I'd just up and kill myself.

i love the challenger 2, it's huge and is the strongest tank in the world it's a beast [img]http://data.primeportal.net/tanks/david_hale/challenger2/Challenger%202.JPG[/img]

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;20922260]There's only been 2 challengers damaged in combat and only one destroyed. In one engagement a Challenger survived 14 hits from rocket propelled grenades and from one MILAN anti tank missile The only damage of that was 2 sights messed up and thrown tracks. Another was hit by around 70 RPG's, coming out from that relatively unscathed. Of the two that were damaged, the most severe injury was the loss of a leg, the next one was loss of three toes, there has been another crewman injured in them but that was minor injuries. Challenger 2 also has a onboard kettle perfect for those mid war cups of tea. It can also fire as accurate while moving as it can while standing still, which few tanks actually can do.[/QUOTE] Also has the longest range confirmed kill on an enemy tank at something like 2 miles.

Challenger 1 got a confirmed kill at 5.1km, I think that's the record.

[QUOTE=Darkhorse01;20936646]Challenger 1 got a confirmed kill at 5.1km, I think that's the record.[/QUOTE] I think that's the one. Thanks.

[QUOTE=Soul-Chicken;20916988][B]FLYING TANK MOTHA FUCKAAAAAa[/B] [img]http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/t-80u%20firing%20in%20midair.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] [img]http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9129/1269387685138.jpg[/img] [i]"It's a good, solid tank"[/i]

[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 there on the pic is more likely a Mark 3 in progression of retrofitting. This is their newest design:[IMG]http://merkava.defense-update.com/merkava-mk4-2.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE=bravehat;20935064]Challenger has superior armour. And besides the only thing that can kill a challenger is a challenger. Challenger: 1. Faster on the most extreme war torn ground, although slower than an ABRAMS on road 2. A more advanced firing system than the ABRAMS and a rifled cannon to again improve accuracy 3. If those werent enough I have a few more words to settle this CHOBHAM II ARMOR Oh and the ABRAMS armor is of british design :smug:[/QUOTE] Ho but they have the same armor. Fapmaterial: the Oplot T-84 [IMG]http://www.russland-online.org/files/oplot_413.jpg[/IMG] And this kickass fucking awesome shit, a modified Leo2EVO! [IMG]http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/tl_files/resources/content-images/news/Leo2Evo_with_ADS_03.jpg[/IMG] God damnit it's fucking hot I could just sex it all fucking day D: Oh my god a japanese faptank AMFG D: [img]http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tk_x.jpg[/img]Jesus christ now we're talking motherfucking modern sweet jesus oh god

satyria what's wrong with you?

[QUOTE=Satyria;20937172]That there on the pic is more likely a Mark 3 in progression of retrofitting. This is their newest design:[IMG]http://merkava.defense-update.com/merkava-mk4-2.jpg[/IMG] Ho but they have the same armor.[/QUOTE] Too bad the Merkava had a poor showing against Hezbollah anti-tank missiles back in 2006. I've heard that they've learned their lesson now and the tank performed considerably in the Gaza Strip.

[QUOTE=Anteep2;20937782]satyria what's wrong with you?[/QUOTE] What? I love tanks. [editline]08:22PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;20938921]Too bad the Merkava had a poor showing against Hezbollah anti-tank missiles back in 2006. I've heard that they've learned their lesson now and the tank performed considerably in the Gaza Strip.[/QUOTE] Indeed! It is now rumored that it is able to handle TWO of those missiles. Kickass. It's extremely defensive, and worse yet: adapted for the geography of Israel, which characterizes things like its speed (35km/h) and survivability of the crew. They say that a good tank can be rebuilt; a good tank crew can not.

[QUOTE=Darkhorse01;20936091]What made the Firefly so special was the gun it had. The British stuck a 17pdr anti tank gun into a normal Sherman (It had to be mounted sideways to fit inside the turret). It was more than capable of knocking out a Tiger, and at a decent range too. Roughly 20~25% of all Sherman's were produced as, or modified into Firefly's, although I'm not sure if that was just in the British/Commonwealth armies, or in the US as well. A British Firefly was credited with the kill of Tiger ace SS-Haupsturmfuehrer Michael Wittmann.[/QUOTE] Yea, but the firefly was born after the landing of Normandy (/Operation Overlord), and indeed, they were deployed especialy to counter the german tanks because the range and damage the 17p could do. The American Shermans were for supporting role for infantry.