[img]http://www.battletanks.com/images/PzKw_VI_Tiger_II-1.jpg[/img]
Most modern tank of WW2.
[img]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Type_94_TK_tankette.jpg[/img]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/M4-sherman-killer-kwajalein.gif[/img]
Type 94 Te-Ke tankette
Japan tried to be all "kawaii" with this thing.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;20959482]The only thing on the BMP-3 that can touch a Warrior or Bradley is the ATGM, the 100mm only fires HE (at a really fucking slow speed might I add, if you saw one coming you could probably dodge it.) and the autocannon cant penetrate their armour. Out of the three if I had to crew one it would be the Bradley, 2nd Warrior if they gave it some more AT capability like a MILAN or TOW on the side or whatever. The BMPs armour is paper thin compared to the other twos.[/QUOTE]
The 30mm RARDEN on the Warrior is famed for its punch, can even take on a T-72 era tank at a fairy decent range if the sides can be hit. The Bradley can do the same but at closer ranges (cannon only). Kuwaiti Warriors have a TOW, and MILAN can be carried by British ones I think. Its not usually, but can be fitted.
@ above post.
Look up some of the Cardon Lloyd tankettes or Morris Martells. Also tiny :P
Not really a tankette, but the Universal (Bren Gun) carrier, love those things. Most produced armoured vehicle in history, used by every combatant in the 2WW.
[QUOTE=Super_Poo;20963386]What did the Russians use in Georgia?[/QUOTE]
They used a shitload of T-72Bs with a few older T-62s and around 30-35 T-72BMs. The T-72 is still a pretty formidable tank if you disregard the performance of the downgraded export models used by Iraq during Desert Storm.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;20964011]T-64 One of my favorute tanks.
It would own a abrams[/QUOTE]
If it's a straight up engagement, an M1's going to win. Besides, the T-64 is one whole generation away from the M1 and its 1A33 FCS pales in comparison to one used in the Abrams. Maybe an M60 would own a T-90A?
Oh this is still alive. I won't be able to post anything else till tomorrow night, but it will be interwar tanks.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;20964382][img]http://www.battletanks.com/images/PzKw_VI_Tiger_II-1.jpg[/img]
Most modern tank of WW2.[/QUOTE]
Modern in the sense more of them were lost to mechanic failures than actually enemy fire?
Slow as fuck, oil leaked like crazy, and the armor was of a lesser quality than the Tiger PzKpfw VI Ausf. E, albeit thicker.
German engineering: when you need a thousand variants of one vehicle, and no spare parts for any of them.
[QUOTE=JETFIGHTER5;20964416][img]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Type_94_TK_tankette.jpg[/img]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/M4-sherman-killer-kwajalein.gif[/img]
Type 94 Te-Ke tankette
Japan tried to be all "kawaii" with this thing.[/QUOTE]
Actually the whole "kawaii" culture didn't appear until [I]after[/I] WW2.
Besides, we had similar vehicles in WW1, we just didn't really continue to use them in WW2, while Japan did.
I did a post on the Panther a while back.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=17709510&postcount=337[/url]
[QUOTE=The Ripper;20966276]Modern in the sense more of them were lost to mechanic failures than actually enemy fire?[/QUOTE]
It's a bitch to rush things that need quality care. :rolleyes:
[quote]Slow as fuck, oil leaked like crazy, and the armor was of a lesser quality than the Tiger PzKpfw VI Ausf. E, albeit thicker.[/QUOTE]
Lesser quality, yet nothing seemed to penetrate it, good point, go on.
[quote]German engineering: when you need a thousand variants of one vehicle, and no spare parts for any of them.[/QUOTE]
German Engineering: When you need something monstrous, devastating, and pioneering excellence in the modern battlefield.
No. Just no. The King Tiger was a useless piece of shit and they could have spent the ridiculos amounts of resources required to make them on something actually worth it like Panthers or Pz.IVs. There's no point having one heavily armoured beast that's barely mobile when you have 30 T-34s flanking your fat arse and preaching the good word into your rear armour.
Russia beat Nazi Germany through sheer numbers, if Germany mixed quality with quantity it would've been a whole different ball game.
I'd charge into battle on a small tank brandishing a Claymore and a luger.
[QUOTE=Tyler_Durden;20969717]I'd charge into battle on a small tank brandishing a Claymore and a luger.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.monkeyboobies.com/gallery/d/219-1/drive+me+closer_+i+want+to+hit+them+with+my+sword.png[/img]
[QUOTE=JETFIGHTER5;20964416][IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Type_94_TK_tankette.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/M4-sherman-killer-kwajalein.gif[/IMG]
Type 94 Te-Ke tankette
Japan tried to be all "kawaii" with this thing.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mastermaul;20969631][IMG]http://15mmvsf.bagofmice.com/vsf/vsfp/Insper/MkVIII-joke-or-test.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7518/3010200894638frog20stac.jpg[/IMG]
?
I enjoyed looking at the tank pictures :3
[QUOTE=OvB;20969787][IMG]http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7518/3010200894638frog20stac.jpg[/IMG]
?[/QUOTE]
I always enjoy the "wat" look of frogs.
Am I the only one to find tanks with explosive reactive armor looks like shit?
Maybe not when they put it everywhere and arrange it nicely, but it looks fucking untidy and ugly on the T-90 somehow.
This thread is relevant to my intrests.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;20964011][img]http://www.enemyforces.net/tanks/t64sh.jpg[/img]
T-64 One of my favorute tanks.
It would own a abrams[/QUOTE]
If it had a straight up engagement, the M1A2 would try to crush it under it's tracks just because it would at least be a bit of a challenge.
I really dig the gas turbine and the audio system of abrams.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;20971137]Am I the only one to find tanks with explosive reactive armor looks like shit?
Maybe not when they put it everywhere and arrange it nicely, but it looks fucking untidy and ugly on the T-90 somehow.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I somewhat agree there.
[img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-72_rd15_2.jpg[/img]
It looks alot nicer on the Degman though:
[img]http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5302/m95degmanlj4pg9.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;20971343]I really dig the gas turbine and the audio system of abrams.[/QUOTE]
While giving the Abrams fast acceleration, a gas turbine really chugs the fuel and its extreme heat means that your supporting infantrymen can't use the rear of the tank as cover. In fact the US Army had a Cummins diesel engine in one of their Component Test Beds for the Abrams.
And 1 thing I hate. The usual US tanks>russian tanks. I hate it when they compare Russia to USA, and everytime the US win with no lost.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;20971652]And 1 thing I hate. The usual US tanks>russian tanks. I hate it when they compare Russia to USA, and everytime the US win with no lost.[/QUOTE]
You gotta owe it to the end of the Cold War and the dismal performance of downgraded export models of Soviet tanks during Desert Storm.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;20971737]You gotta owe it to the end of the Cold War and the dismal performance of downgraded export models of Soviet tanks during Desert Storm.[/QUOTE]
But, I'm pretty sure modern russian armor can defeat US armor now.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;20971790]But, I'm pretty sure modern russian armor can defeat US armor now.[/QUOTE]
We'll never know. It'll all boil down to the skill of the individuals who crew those machines rather than superiority of weapons and equipment. Take a look at the Six Day or Yom Kippur War for example. The IDF was still using WW2 era Centurions and Shermans against modern (at the time) T-55 and T-62 tanks to good effect due to the superior training of Israeli tank crews.
Well, at the time the Centurion was one of the best, if not the best tank in service globally. And Israeli Shermans were very heavily modified, modifications which included a 90mm gun and much thicker armour. They called them Jumbo or Super Shermans I think
[QUOTE=Tac Error;20971532]While giving the Abrams fast acceleration, a gas turbine really chugs the fuel and its extreme heat means that your supporting infantrymen can't use the rear of the tank as cover. In fact the US Army had a Cummins diesel engine in one of their Component Test Beds for the Abrams.[/QUOTE]
Using a tank as a cover while the tank uses it's main cannon is really fucking stupid thing to do.
[IMG]http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/Firing-Danger-Zone.png[/IMG]
[highlight]Indisputably, the best tank ever created.[/highlight]
[IMG]http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/8/8f/ATAT-CHRON.jpg[/IMG]
That would be a walker. I'm pretty sure there are hover tanks in star wars though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
