The Tank and other related AFVs.

[Raiskauskone]

Most people here tend to forget that even old rusty T-72 can beat Abrams easily with single APFSDS round from close range.

[Cobbart]

[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]

There's a reason why it's somewhat scrapped and obsolete.

*hint* It's most unique aspect was also a proverbial death trap for the gunners in the tank *hint*

[David29]

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone;20972542]Most people here tend to forget that even old rusty T-72 can beat Abrams easily with single APFSDS round from close range.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't say much. Many things can beat even the best technology with the right round (or something similar) at close enough range.

For example, a Tetrarch could have probably taken out a Tiger I provided it was close to it and it was fitted with a Littlejohn adapter.

[The Ripper]

[QUOTE=starpluck;20972349][highlight]Indisputably, the best tank ever created.[/highlight]

[/QUOTE]

[img]http://www.vegatransports.com.au/2001/snowspeeder_luke.jpg[/img]

[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Made an alt to break the rules" - TH89))[/highlight]

[ViralHatred]

[img]http://defense-update.com/images/leclerc.jpg[/img]

French Leclerc challenges all motherfuckers.

[TacError]

[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;20972317]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][/QUOTE]

Well of course you don't [i]press your face right next to the tank[/i], it's common sense. As long as the tank blocks enemy fire from reaching or suppressing the infantry no matter the distance, it's cover.

[quote]*hint* It's most unique aspect was also a proverbial death trap for the gunners in the tank *hint*[/quote]

What, the fact that the autoloader could load the gunner's arm into the breech?

[The Ripper]

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;20974369][img]http://defense-update.com/images/leclerc.jpg[/img]

French Leclerc challenges all motherfuckers.[/QUOTE]

Let me guess, it drives faster backwards than it does forwards?

[Joxalot]

[IMG]http://www.forte.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ee-t1-osorio.jpg[/IMG]

EE-T1 Osório, mofucker

But thanks to the americans and the lack of interest from the politics in here, we dont have it

[3v3ryb0dy]

[QUOTE=The Ripper;20974690]Let me guess, it drives faster backwards than it does forwards?[/QUOTE]

Hey, each modern tank has to have it's own unique features...

[Javascript]

[QUOTE=j-richardson;20916416]
[IMG]http://www.snipersystems.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/GolightonMastiffAfghanistan.jpg[/IMG]

[/QUOTE]

What is this and where can I get one

[PEn1s lol]

[QUOTE=LordLoss;20934735]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]

The T-80 is still a Great tank and so is the T-84. The T-80 and T-84 are better then the T-90

[editline]06:29PM[/editline]

[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[/QUOTE]

[img]http://www.pycomall.com/images/P/Su47.gif[/img]
I can hear your land attack plane crying

[Tyler_Durden]

I thought this was a tank thread.

[David29]

[QUOTE=Javascript;20976065]What is this and where can I get one[/QUOTE]

It is a Mastiff and you can get one from Technical Solutions, South Africa.

[Linelor]

[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;20976187]The T-80 is still a Great tank and so is the T-84. The T-80 and T-84 are better then the T-90

[editline]06:29PM[/editline]

[img]http://www.pycomall.com/images/P/Su47.gif[/img]
I can hear your land attack plane crying[/QUOTE]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrAYSxYjbg[/media]

[goon165]

Don't know about you guys but I have a thing for Heavy and Super Heavy WWII era French Tanks.

Take the ARL 44 for example
[img]http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/218217-2/arl0049[/img]

Though built after the War and quickly phased out by better designs I really like it.
it's just the way it combines the features of WWI tanks with it's parallelogram
shaped Tracks and Body with a modern era Turret makes it stand out to me.

Of course being friggin' huge and having a 90mm Naval Cannon doesn't hurt it's charms ether.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARL_44[/url]

It's kinda the same thing with the FCM F1 while having some of those distopian ideas that the WWI tanks seem to give off, the more guns and turrets the better right?.
(well if Stalin's orchestra has taught us anything, no)
[img]http://france1940.free.fr/photos/FCMF1.jpg[/img]
This is one of the crawling monstrosities that the WWI landships inspired and french engineers that designed it had apparently been living under a rock since then. armed with 90mm cannon for it's main gun, a secondary 47mm cannon mounted on the front turret and 6 machine guns it was built as more as a mobile pillbox that could destroy fortified positions rather than being able to duke it out with other tanks. about twenty where ordered but only a wooden mock up was completed by the time the french surrendered to the Germans.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCM_F1[/url]

[BBarnes005]

Bradley: A good and reliable Infantry Fighting Vehicle
[IMG]http://www.military-today.com/apc/m2_bradley.jpg[/IMG]

Stryker Mobile Gun System:(Picture is too big): A Stryker than has a really big gun
[URL]http://www.op-for.com/picture_of_the_day/Stryker155.jpg[/URL]

LAV-25(A Stryker with a Turret, Amphibous)
[IMG]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_LAV-III_Canadian_FOB_Robinson_Afghanistan_lg.jpg[/IMG]
T-95, The Russian Secert Tank(Nobody knows very much about this tank, besides it's name)
[IMG]http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.jpg[/IMG]

[TacError]

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;20978485]LAV-25
[IMG]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_LAV-III_Canadian_FOB_Robinson_Afghanistan_lg.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

That's the LAV III bud, the daddy of the American Stryker.

[BBarnes005]

[QUOTE=Tac Error;20978594]That's the LAV III bud, the daddy of the American Stryker.[/QUOTE]
I have heard alot of people call it the LAV-25.

[MaverickIB]

I think that when it comes down to a face-off between modern tanks, it's more of a "who sees who first" type of thing than a technology superiority type of thing.

A Challenger will beat an Abrams if the Challenger gets the first shot off, and the Abrams will win if it gets the first shot off. This is if both tanks are using the correct ammunition (which I have no doubt they will).

It's a different story if you have multiple engagements at once. I would say a group of Abrams would win against a group of Challengers simply because the Abrams can haul some serious ass; mobility would give them a pretty good advantage. Both are excellent pieces of machinery though.

[TacError]

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;20978639]I have heard alot of people call it the LAV-25.[/QUOTE]

Well they're wrong. The LAV-25 and similar vehicles like the Cougar are based off of the MOWAG Piranha I family, while the LAV III and Stryker vehicles are based off of the more recent Piranha III family.

[evilweazel]

[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;20976187]The T-80 is still a Great tank and so is the T-84. The T-80 and T-84 are better then the T-90

[editline]06:29PM[/editline]

[img]http://www.pycomall.com/images/P/Su47.gif[/img]
I can hear your land attack plane crying[/QUOTE]

You do realize the SU-47 was a tech demo plane, and i'm pretty sure they were never used in real combat.

[goon165]

[QUOTE=evilweazel;20979038]You do realize the SU-47 was a tech demo plane, and i'm pretty sure [B]it was[/B] never used in real combat.[/QUOTE]

there's only one.

[TacError]

Guys, let's not go off topic and ramble on about jets.

[T00THBRUSH]

ITT: Brits and Americans argue about Abrams and Challengers :downs:

[mastermaul]

[QUOTE=goon165;20978354]Don't know about you guys but I have a thing for Heavy and Super Heavy WWII era French Tanks.

Take the ARL 44 for example

Though built after the War and quickly phased out by better designs I really like it.
it's just the way it combines the features of WWI tanks with it's parallelogram
shaped Tracks and Body with a modern era Turret makes it stand out to me.

Of course being friggin' huge and having a 90mm Naval Cannon doesn't hurt it's charms ether.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARL_44[/url]

It's kinda the same thing with the FCM F1 while having some of those distopian ideas that the WWI tanks seem to give off, the more guns and turrets the better right?.
(well if Stalin's orchestra has taught us anything, no)

This is one of the crawling monstrosities that the WWI landships inspired and french engineers that designed it had apparently been living under a rock since then. armed with 90mm cannon for it's main gun, a secondary 47mm cannon mounted on the front turret and 6 machine guns it was built as more as a mobile pillbox that could destroy fortified positions rather than being able to duke it out with other tanks. about twenty where ordered but only a wooden mock up was completed by the time the french surrendered to the Germans.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCM_F1[/url][/QUOTE]

[img]http://www.ginklai.net/images/galerija/3409_797_normandie_06.jpg[/img]

Char 2C, largest tank ever built in physical dimensions. Also French.

[TacError]

[QUOTE=starpluck;20972349][highlight]Indisputably, the best tank ever created.[/highlight]
[IMG_thumb]http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/8/8f/ATAT-CHRON.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE]

I might as well tie a guy to a 50 meter pole holding a giant "shoot me" sign.

[Mr. Someguy]

Japan's new Type 10 looks pretty sweet in my opinion.

[img]http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/63379.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/63378.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/63380.jpg[/img]

[FordLord]

I am not a big fan of tanks, although I am a fan of armored trucks. Such as this International
[img]http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/north_america/united_states/wheeled_armoured/international_5000_truck_Navistar/pictures/International_5000_truck_navistar_united_states_of_america_003.jpg[/img]
I also like older trucks like the M35A2 Deuce and a Half
[img]http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Truckshow/Pics/slides/M35A2%20Deuce%20and%20a%20Half.jpg[/img]
Heres a few more, mostly Fords, because I like fords.
[img]http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fordpickuptruck/images/5-plasan-sand-cat.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.pickuptrucks.com/trucks/IMAGES/news/sd_combat2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.army-technology.com/projects/springer-all-terrain/springer-all-terrain1.html[/img]
This goofy fuck is built on a Ford F350 frame. It may be replacing the Hummers.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Ultra_ap.jpg[/img]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Ultra-ap11.jpg[/img]
A chevy
[img]http://image.motortrend.com/f/features/auto_news/8282273+pheader/112_news011003_army_l.jpg[/img]
Heres a contraption used in WW1 as an army truck
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3580195607_92b04015f1.jpg[/img]
Can't forget Dodge. I have always wanted a PowerWagon. First one was actually a military vehicle, second I don't know the story on.
[img]http://www.hotrodscustomstuff.com/Cars/PowerWagon/PowerWagon-1-01.jpg[/img]
[img]http://image.4wheeloffroad.com/f/9362114/131_0703_11_z+1947_dodge_power_wagon+front_view.jpg[/img]
Alright, I'm done.

[Cobbart]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;20981582]
[img]http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/63380.jpg[/img]
(dunno why it's leaning in this one)[/QUOTE]

Leaning around cover? v:downs:v

[OscarLimaEcho]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;20981582]Japan's new Type 10 looks pretty sweet in my opinion.

[img]http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/63380.jpg[/img]
(dunno why it's leaning in this one)[/QUOTE]

Probably demonstrating some hydraulic pimpass motherfucking tilt system making it easier to climb obstructions.

Or it's just a flat tire, what would I know? :v: