[QUOTE=W0w00t;28790492]damn these fucks piss me off
"alllaaaaahuu akkbaarr, allaahh akkbarrr (boom) ALLAH AKBAR, ALLAHA KBAR!!!!"[/QUOTE]
You piss me off because you don't know what "allahu akbar" means.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;28786699]In future weapons, they showed a vehicle specifically built for running over mines. They advertised to be top-notch technology and I laughed my ass off seeing a gigantic tank with a rotating weedwhacker in the front plowing through some fields.[/QUOTE]
It is funny how they claim all the shit on that show is new when most of it is just reused ideas. Like the vehicle you described.
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/293235478_3fb286d0a5.jpg[/img]
This is a WWII era Sherman.
I don't know which is more appropriate. "Not a single fuck was given that day." or "This is me giving a fuck."
[QUOTE=OBOESHOES;28790988]It is funny how they claim all the shit on that show is new when most of it is just reused ideas. Like the vehicle you described.
[img_thumb]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/293235478_3fb286d0a5.jpg[/img_thumb]
This is a WWII era Sherman.[/QUOTE]
I'd hate to be caught up in the front of the tank, it would probably rip a man to shreds
Nice, but I thought tanks had a really weak underside.
[img]http://images.overvprojects.nl/SS-2011-03-25_01.50.39.png[/img]
rage
"Sir, I think we just ran over a firecracker!"
:v:
[QUOTE=Kommodore;28779540][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er6mOIVwUkA[/media][/QUOTE]
The tank was probably destroyed, but the people inside most likely lived. I was watching the History channel a while ago, and he said his tank was taken out by an IED, he was trapped while the tank was burning. Lived due to the interior armor and ventilation systems, he wasn't harmed at all excluding hearing damage.
[QUOTE=Overv;28792339]Nice, but I thought tanks had a really weak underside.
[img_thumb]http://images.overvprojects.nl/SS-2011-03-25_01.50.39.png[/img_thumb]
rage[/QUOTE]
That was probably one of the main weaknesses someone would focus on when designing a tank, seeing as tanks are by design nearly indestructable, with one single caveat.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;28793296]The tank was probably destroyed, but the people inside most likely lived. I was watching the History channel a while ago, and he said his tank was taken out by an IED, he was trapped while the tank was burning. Lived due to the interior armor and ventilation systems, he wasn't harmed at all excluding hearing damage.[/QUOTE]
After looking into it, if the tank [I]was[/I] damaged by that IED, it would be either of these two incidents:
[quote]On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged from the detonation of an extremely powerful improvised explosive device. The IED consisted of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg, that detonated next to the tank. The tank's driver received lethal injuries from shrapnel. The other three crew members were able to escape.
On December 25, 2005 another U.S. Army M1A1 was disabled by an explosively formed penetrator IED. The IED penetrated through a road wheel, and hit the fuel tank, which left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, SPC Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Overv;28792339]Nice, but I thought tanks had a really weak underside.[/QUOTE]
I thought they were extra reinforced to protect from grenades and mines.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;28795103]After looking into it, if the tank [I]was[/I] damaged by that IED, it would be either of these two incidents:[/QUOTE]
Meh, I was just saying what I heard on the History Channel. I don't know if he was telling the truth about an IED or what. It did have a picture though.
[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;28794792]That was probably one of the main weaknesses someone would focus on when designing a tank, seeing as tanks are by design nearly indestructable, with one single caveat.[/QUOTE]
As long as they keep the explosives away from the glowing bits they should be fine.
Tanks are just awesome. That's all there is to say in the matter, because the reason they came about was because someone said: "hey. I want to have a massive metal vehicle with a big ass cannon on the front."
[QUOTE=Overv;28792339]Nice, but I thought tanks had a really weak underside.
[/QUOTE]
They do, the "belly" armor is always weaker when compared to the front and sides.
off course that is already enough to hold a little firecracker.
Man that was awesome. I wonder if the damage was high.
[QUOTE=Overv;28792339]Nice, but I thought tanks had a really weak underside.[/QUOTE]
Maybe in 1942
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
