I agree with you on that one. NOthing beats that if you need to take out a tank.Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
RPG7s own M1A2s
Poll
In RealLife The Better Tank is ?
| T72 | 2% | 2% - 9 | ||||
| T80 | 10% | 10% - 35 | ||||
| M1A Abrams | 62% | 62% - 220 | ||||
| others | 24% | 24% - 86 | ||||
| Total: 350 | ||||||
Nothing beats an RPG7 for taking out anything
In real life, the best tank is the XW Ford Falcon!!! END
haha ok just to let you guys know i could kill all of those with one a-10 stafing runPubic wrote:
In real life, the best tank is the XW Ford Falcon!!! END
omg u all go for tanks from your own country, im from uk, challenger 2 is made in leeds, but i seen plenty of documentories and the challenger 2 is the best, followed by m1a2 abrams and leopard tank...
PFFFT
Theres a good tank comparison survey out there (google it) which puts the Leopard 2A6 on top, followed by M1A2 and a japanese tank. Challenger was by no means best.
Theres a good tank comparison survey out there (google it) which puts the Leopard 2A6 on top, followed by M1A2 and a japanese tank. Challenger was by no means best.
challenger 2 is the best, the chart shows how succesful the tanks where in battle, challenger 2 has never been in battle, u r just a stupid noob how knows jack shit
Yea I realize I'm a bit off topic but hey what the hell im not the only one.WildBlueYonder wrote:
Partially right, the Raptor IS in production, but repoduction was severely limited since they cost so f-ing much. The US would use the F-18 and other naval aircraft since they would be launching from carriers haveing little to no ground strips that i'm aware of in Iraq. While The JSF looks extremely similar to the F22 no you are right it is NOT a replacement, just simply made by the same people, it is actually a replacement for the F16, F18, and Harrier jets. As for the challenger, never heard of it till Euro force so i dunno, we don't have it so i don't really care either. We have the german Leopard 2 which is good enough for me, might get to drive one in the near future, if i don't get an F-18 to call my ownmjw wrote:
The Challenger 2 tank has been proved far superior, to any other tank in the world a number of times.
The challenger 2 tank is incredibly powerful, and can take a load of crap aswell.
And as for the guy that said, the JSF/F35 took the raptors place, your wrong. Neither the raptor or the F35 are even in service yet, both are still prototypes and are still undergoing test stages. For example if there was a war right now, the US would most probably use the f18 super hornet and brits and NATO would use either the tornado or the eurofighter (i'm not sure the EF2000 is even service yet).
The F-22 actually entered service last month. I doubt any are in service in Iraq yet, but there are a few bases in iraq that would be able to handle the F-22....As for as using just the F/A-18s, Tornados etc. if there was a war right now..well read for yourself
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013572
I think the best tank is mamooth from Command and Concquer - it had also missiles and lot of energy, and sometimes planes did not take it out.... and it would self repair! So...
I hope we never find out who would win direct combat between US/Russian tank crews... maybe because it would mean we are all busted for good....
<edit>
BTW challengers sucks really - it makes me puke every time I see it.... like it is only good for recycling
[I said this on purpose - i find it amusing how fanatic the brits are on this matter, like a child that is not getting attention ]
I hope we never find out who would win direct combat between US/Russian tank crews... maybe because it would mean we are all busted for good....
<edit>
BTW challengers sucks really - it makes me puke every time I see it.... like it is only good for recycling
[I said this on purpose - i find it amusing how fanatic the brits are on this matter, like a child that is not getting attention ]
Last edited by 1234BGD (2006-01-27 07:33:03)
As for you sir, I've seen a documentary also that rated the top 10 tanks ever based on various reasons which I do not remember. But the challenger was not number one, if I remember correctly it was beatin by the leopard. The M1A2 was also not number one. I do not remember what actually was number one. Oh well.elite wrote:
challenger 2 is the best, the chart shows how succesful the tanks where in battle, challenger 2 has never been in battle, u r just a stupid noob how knows jack shit
One more thing what exactly are you accomplishing by using profanity and name calling? I'm sure you can make a much better point without flaming other posters. Others have their own opinons just like you have yours. Grow up a bit or if anything act a bit more mature.
I sure hope you all are talking about the game. In real life, the RPG7 has a tough time defeating a *properly* armored HMMWV, let alone a MBT.Sinyukov wrote:
I agree with you on that one. NOthing beats that if you need to take out a tank.Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
RPG7s own M1A2s
So, on to the talking. This is from globalsecurity.org:
"Although fielded in 1980, the Abrams remained untested for over 10 years. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, there were concerns that the Abrams would fall victim to the sand and long months of continuous operation without the luxury of peacetime maintenance facilities. There were also doubts about the combat survivability of the extensive turret electronics. Immediately following President Bush's decision to commit US forces to the Gulf region in defense of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, American armored units began the difficult process of relocating to the threatened area. Due to the shear size and weight of the Abrams, the C-5 Galaxy, the largest cargo aircraft in the US Air Force inventory, was only able to handle one tank at a time. This meant that nearly all of the Abrams tanks deployed in the Gulf War were shipped by cargo ship. Although slow in coming, the arrival of the Abrams was much welcomed by Allied forces, as it is capable of defeating any tank in the Iraqi inventory.
The Iraqi Army had a considerable array of tanks, mostly purchased from the former Soviet Union. Chief among these were about 500 T-72's. These modern Soviet tanks were armed with an excellent 125mm smoothbore weapon and had many of the same advanced features found on the Abrams. Despite it's advanced design, the T-72 proved to be inferior to the M1A1's deployed during the Gulf War, and compared more closely with the older M60A3 tanks used there by the US Marine Corps. In addition, Iraq had a number of earlier Soviet models: perhaps as many as 1,600 T-62 and about 700 T-54, both of which were developed in the 1960's. These tanks were widely regarded as clearly inferior to the Abrams, but were expected to be highly reliable mechanically. The Gulf War provided military tacticians with an opportunity to evaluate developments in tank design that had not been available since World War II.
In his book "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait", author Norman Friedman writes that "The U.S. Army in Saudi Arabia probably had about 1,900 M1A1 tanks. Its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground (because of the stabilized gun mount) gave it a capability that proved valuable in the Gulf. The Abrams tank also has… vision devices that proved effective not only at night, but also in the dust and smoke of Kuwaiti daytime. On average, an Abrams outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1,000 meters." The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).
As the Gulf War shifted pace from Operation Desert Shield to Operation Desert Storm, and the preparatory bombardment lifted, U.S. Abrams tanks spearheaded the attack on Iraqi fortifications and engaged enemy tanks whenever and wherever possible. Just as they had done in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Army used it's tanks as fixed anti-tank and artillery pieces, digging them into the ground to reduce target signature. However, this also prevented their quick movement and Allied air power smashed nearly 50% of Iraq's tank threat before Allied armor had moved across the border. After that the Abrams tanks quickly destroyed a number of Iraqi tanks that did manage to go mobile.
The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see. Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.
During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks."
Now, onto the multiple discussions of whether or not a 20:1 ratio is possible or impossible. I would like everyone to go back to their 6th grade math class. A ratio is just that, a ratio. So, if we are to assume that there were 18 American tanks disabled, that means that 320 (18 x 20) enemy (Iraqi) tanks were disabled by American forces. Now boys and girls, is that really that hard to imagine? I realize of course that many, MANY more tanks were destroyed by the American air forces, but 320 is a totally believable number.
So, onto a comparison between the T-80 and M1A2. First of all, no one here has discussed the greatest weakness with ALL the Russian designed tanks since the sixties. In the interest of faster reloading and decreased crew size, the Russians opted for an automated reloading system. In practice, a well trained tank crew of ANY nationality can load just as quickly as the automated system.
Regardless, the problem with an automated system is that it leaves both a live shell and a live powder charge sitting IN THE CREW COMPARTMENT at all times. In the M1A2, shells are stored in a rackmounted container in the back of the tank, sealed behind blast doors. All it takes to cause a catastrophic explosion in a T-72 or T-80 tank is penetration of the armor in the SMALLEST way.
So, now for this vaunted "reactive" armor. Explosive Reactive Armor, or ERA, is only effective against weapons that utilize a chemical (i.e. explosive) manor of destroying an enemy vehicle. Therefore, while ERA might be useful in defeating a HEAT round, it is all but useless against the DU discarding sabot rounds that are fired by the M1A2. These rounds travel at 5,500 fps, meaning that if the ERA is triggered at all (remember, they are designed to be triggered by the explosion of a HEAT round), by the time its triggered, the round has already penetrated the entirety of the armor, and the damage is done.
Additionally, the vaunted "extended range" of the T-80 series of tanks is due to a pair of what are essentially 55 gallon drums that are mounted to the back of the tank by explosive bolts, similar to the external fuel drop tanks carried by figher aircraft on missions that require extended range where midair refueling is impossble. Admittedly, these drums can be jettisoned by the TC with the flip of a pair of switches, but if a simple tracer round from a machine gun hits one, it will ignite the fuel, spilling burning diesel over the air intake of the turbine engine, choking it to death. This is just poor design.
So who has the superior tank, you ask? I'd go with the Abrams. But that's just me. I'm an American, so its all propaganda, right?
edited to correct the velocity of the APFSDS-T round. I initially stated it was 4,250 fps, which is correct for the 25mm version of the round. The 120mm tank round, however, travels at roughly 5,500 fps.
Last edited by blisteringsilence (2006-01-27 08:07:44)
My bad. I should have quoted. And should have definitely stayed on topic. My comments were directed toward Sinyukov (msg 51/59/72) and Rastah Rapid (msg 80). But to lend some credibility to my above statements, I do work for a mega-corporation in direct competition with Halliburton. We do a significant amount of Construction Engineering work, in partnership with most of the major oil industry companies. We are hiring big time now for Saudi Arabia work. And as such, private security (aka mercenaries), is sometimes needed. Corporations are probably a major employer of mercenaries these days.(BRU)Timothy wrote:
What in the world does that have to do about TANKS?Ilocano wrote:
The Iraqi War has never been about WMD, terrorists, or politics. It's plain and simple greed by the mega-corporations. Halliburton and Cheney's cronies are the true source of this war. Global corporations for sometime now have influenced the US Government to send in troops to suppress local populace who opposed these corporations. There will come a time when these Corporations will field there own armies to do there dirty work.
Regarding Halliburton, has anyone looked at it's stock value over the last 5 years. In 2001, it declined from 40'ish to 10'ish. From a low of $10 or so in mid 2001, to now at $73. Halliburton needed a major war. "Rebuilding" Iraq and resupplying the US Military sure helped Halliburton's stock portfolio.
Even though its not the truth, go back on topic.
Try this: Google Exxon and rebels. Do some reading.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr20 … -a12.shtml
12 April 2001
Indonesian president authorises military crackdown in Aceh
"Jakarta is under increasing pressure from Exxon Mobil, the US and overseas buyers to take whatever steps are needed to ensure the reopening of the plant. Last week US ambassador to Indonesia Richard Gelbard visited Aceh to meet with leaders of the separatist Free Aceh Movement (GAM) to urge them to stop targetting the Exxon plant and making threats against employees. During a meeting with the Aceh police chief, he offered US assistance in training police in the province in anti-riot and anti-terrorism methods."
Corporations are running the world now...
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/
The US transnational companies are taking over — and they'll benefit for years to come
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 47,00.html
But sorta back to main topic, BF2 tanks and such. Curious, anyone know if Javelin's were deployed in Iraq. Would be cool to have Javelins in BF2. Perfect AT weapon.
Last edited by Ilocano (2006-01-27 11:07:34)
yeah i saw a video on Military.com with javilins i saw them lauch them at a buliding
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=86314
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=81793
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=72243
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=85575
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=48512
TANKS^^^
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=70020
JAVILINS^^^^
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=81793
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=72243
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=85575
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=48512
TANKS^^^
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. … tent=70020
JAVILINS^^^^
yea the m1a2 maybe voted best because it has been in battle, we have not had the chance to put ours in action, but the challenger is so similar to the abrams, i swear to god its the challenger 2 is the best, i dont know how many times i have to say it
Pay attention goofball neither the M1A2 or the challenger 2 was voted best another tank was. I believe The challenger was ranked number 4, the leapord number 3 and the abrams number 2.elite wrote:
yea the m1a2 maybe voted best because it has been in battle, we have not had the chance to put ours in action, but the challenger is so similar to the abrams, i swear to god its the challenger 2 is the best, i dont know how many times i have to say it
right, when ww3 starts, we shall see who wins then
joke!
I still vote for the Leopard 2A6, I have been on both M1a2 and leopard A5/6.
THe m1 is gas gusler with a huge heat signature from the turbine so the m1 shows up realy nice on IR equipment.
here is the german toy makers link, they make awsome stuff.
PHZ200 best arty piece in the world.
http://www.kmweg.de/
THe m1 is gas gusler with a huge heat signature from the turbine so the m1 shows up realy nice on IR equipment.
here is the german toy makers link, they make awsome stuff.
PHZ200 best arty piece in the world.
http://www.kmweg.de/
What a load of crap!!!Spetz wrote:
2ndLt.Tucker you said the iraqies had the worlds largest air defence system in the world, how does that have bearing the soldiers entered iraq through saudi arabia, and a second note it may have been the largest air defence system but it wasn't operational
only truly operational air defence system in the world is the one in the URAL mountains, and its mainly used for anti balistic missile purposes
america has never fought a well equiped or well trained oponent since WW2, and still you had to resort to the H bomb to win it for you
If not for the US All of mainland Europe would be jacksteping to the Nazi Leaders orders. And as for using the Atomic Bombs, well it save milions of Japanese lifes (ala: Kamikaze).
The US is not perfect by any standard, no one else is either; however, I don't seem to remember anyone calling for help (last hundred years or so) from the Brazilians or French or South Afrikaans etc. A lot of US blood has been spilled to help keep FREEDOM for a lot of the world.
Has anyone looked at the Israeli Merkava 4 MBT?
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/
This would be the perfect BF2 tank-whoring squad vehicle:
The tank is capable of carrying eight infantry soldiers, a Command Group or three litter patients (stretcher casualties) in addition to the tank crew of commander, loader, gunner and driver. The tank is capable of firing on the move at moving targets and has demonstrated high hit probability in firing against attack helicopters using conventional anti-tank munitions.
The gun can fire higher power munitions including new 120mm high penetration projectiles and guided shells. The loader can select semi-automatically the ammunition type.
The range of ammunition includes APFSDS-T M711 (CL 3254), the HEAT-MP-T M325 (CL 3105) and the TPCSDS-T M324 (CL 3139) supplied by the Ammunition Group of Israel Military Industries. The gun is also capable of firing French, German or US 120mm rounds.
The tank is fitted with 7.62mm machine guns and an internally operated 60mm mortar system developed by Soltam Ltd. The mortar can fire explosive and illumination rounds to a range of 2,700m.
For improved reverse driving the driver uses a camera.
The underside of the hull has been fitted with additional armour protection against mines.
The tank can load up in engineers to constantly stay alive. It has guided shells to take out attack helicopters. Mortars to take out covered troops. Maybe weaker than the other MBT's, but would survive due to the engineers.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/
This would be the perfect BF2 tank-whoring squad vehicle:
The tank is capable of carrying eight infantry soldiers, a Command Group or three litter patients (stretcher casualties) in addition to the tank crew of commander, loader, gunner and driver. The tank is capable of firing on the move at moving targets and has demonstrated high hit probability in firing against attack helicopters using conventional anti-tank munitions.
The gun can fire higher power munitions including new 120mm high penetration projectiles and guided shells. The loader can select semi-automatically the ammunition type.
The range of ammunition includes APFSDS-T M711 (CL 3254), the HEAT-MP-T M325 (CL 3105) and the TPCSDS-T M324 (CL 3139) supplied by the Ammunition Group of Israel Military Industries. The gun is also capable of firing French, German or US 120mm rounds.
The tank is fitted with 7.62mm machine guns and an internally operated 60mm mortar system developed by Soltam Ltd. The mortar can fire explosive and illumination rounds to a range of 2,700m.
For improved reverse driving the driver uses a camera.
The underside of the hull has been fitted with additional armour protection against mines.
The tank can load up in engineers to constantly stay alive. It has guided shells to take out attack helicopters. Mortars to take out covered troops. Maybe weaker than the other MBT's, but would survive due to the engineers.
Gonna have to agree with you Medic875. If you realized the loss of life that would have happened if the US had invaded the Japanese main islands, you realize the the H Bombs saved more lives than they killed.Medic875 wrote:
What a load of crap!!!Spetz wrote:
2ndLt.Tucker you said the iraqies had the worlds largest air defence system in the world, how does that have bearing the soldiers entered iraq through saudi arabia, and a second note it may have been the largest air defence system but it wasn't operational
only truly operational air defence system in the world is the one in the URAL mountains, and its mainly used for anti balistic missile purposes
america has never fought a well equiped or well trained oponent since WW2, and still you had to resort to the H bomb to win it for you
If not for the US All of mainland Europe would be jacksteping to the Nazi Leaders orders. And as for using the Atomic Bombs, well it save milions of Japanese lifes (ala: Kamikaze).
The US is not perfect by any standard, no one else is either; however, I don't seem to remember anyone calling for help (last hundred years or so) from the Brazilians or French or South Afrikaans etc. A lot of US blood has been spilled to help keep FREEDOM for a lot of the world.
As far as America not fighting a disciplined Army since WWII - um...I'm gonna have to go ahead and say that's bullshit right there. The NVA was pretty well disciplined, seeing as they'd received a lot of training and equipment from Russia, THE most disciplined Army in the world. As far as our fights, we go where we are called. I don't see any of the European nations such as the UK or Germany hopping, skipping, and jumping to help out the rest of the world with their military might. Hell, even when there was genocide and strife in the Balkans (eastern europe) who had to go in and settle things? The United States. We might not have done a terrific job, but we tried - that's more than I can say for a lot of countries.
Besides, who in the world has a large enough Army to be considered well trained and maintained? Any country that fits under this standard would be in NATO right now. All the others are leftovers from the Cold War or those that still hold onto Communism, such as Korea and Cuba. The only hostile nations with armies are the poor ones, and those countries don't really have the training and equipment budget the US has.
So kudos to you on talking out your ass Spetz.
Last edited by TehSeraphim (2006-01-27 12:37:21)
you guys seemed to forget that US army has been in war only with countries who bought its technology from USSR and it was long outdated..tanks jets everything..
Id like to see how Abrams latest modifications would attack Russian latest models (Black Hawk, T90) or modifications of T80
T-80U-M1 "Bars" (Frog in Russian language).Old T80 heavily modified to fit todays needs.
link for you.In English btw http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/Firms/OZTM/e-bars.htm
Second link about Arena E
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm
Check also http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/Firms/OZTM/e-beagle.htm New Black Eagle (Tshjorniy Orjol) heavy battle tank
You cant say US army is the best in world and most powerful. You have never tested it on China or on Russia.Being on war with 3rd world countries wont show shit. You would lose. Russian weapontechnology is quite equal on most areas and more developed surely in case of tanks.They have also too many tanks. You would need entire NATO to defeat Russia.
Im not russian btw, I have no symphaty against then because I lived in Soviet Union and now Russia is my neighbouring country. But Im able to understand good sides and bad sides of their weapon technology..
Id like to see how Abrams latest modifications would attack Russian latest models (Black Hawk, T90) or modifications of T80
T-80U-M1 "Bars" (Frog in Russian language).Old T80 heavily modified to fit todays needs.
link for you.In English btw http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/Firms/OZTM/e-bars.htm
Second link about Arena E
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm
Check also http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/Firms/OZTM/e-beagle.htm New Black Eagle (Tshjorniy Orjol) heavy battle tank
You cant say US army is the best in world and most powerful. You have never tested it on China or on Russia.Being on war with 3rd world countries wont show shit. You would lose. Russian weapontechnology is quite equal on most areas and more developed surely in case of tanks.They have also too many tanks. You would need entire NATO to defeat Russia.
Im not russian btw, I have no symphaty against then because I lived in Soviet Union and now Russia is my neighbouring country. But Im able to understand good sides and bad sides of their weapon technology..
i dont like russia now they sell to much stuff
How can you say some stupid shit like that.Medic875 wrote:
What a load of crap!!!Spetz wrote:
2ndLt.Tucker you said the iraqies had the worlds largest air defence system in the world, how does that have bearing the soldiers entered iraq through saudi arabia, and a second note it may have been the largest air defence system but it wasn't operational
only truly operational air defence system in the world is the one in the URAL mountains, and its mainly used for anti balistic missile purposes
america has never fought a well equiped or well trained oponent since WW2, and still you had to resort to the H bomb to win it for you
If not for the US All of mainland Europe would be jacksteping to the Nazi Leaders orders. And as for using the Atomic Bombs, well it save milions of Japanese lifes (ala: Kamikaze).
The US is not perfect by any standard, no one else is either; however, I don't seem to remember anyone calling for help (last hundred years or so) from the Brazilians or French or South Afrikaans etc. A lot of US blood has been spilled to help keep FREEDOM for a lot of the world.
20,000,000+ lives have been lost from Soviet Union in WWII so what they don't matter or anything? How can you claim that it was just US that came and destroyed the nazis. As far as I remember reading in books and hearing from people who lived through those times (i.e. my grandmother, grandfather, and my late great grandmothers), by the time US landed for the D-day USSR had already turned the tide and was marching toward Berlin. I personally think that you're comments are offensive to me as a Russian and a great grandson of a Person who went through the entire WWII, Nazi concentration camps and post war imprisonment for allegendly being a traitor. It was not US that won the war, it was not USSR that won the war, It was the world that won that war together. US fought Japan while Europe fought Germany. Later they combined after Japan posed no real threat. Just an FYI.
P.S. By the time US started bombing Germans for the first time, Russians had already turned the tide and were freeing captured cities.
here's a link of the timeline: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t … w2time.htm
One more little edit. Just a thought, but for all of you who actually think US won WWII. The only reason why D-Day or any other onland operation was a success was because Germany was fighting TWO fronts. They were fighting Russia or USSR at that time which was advancing massively with arguably the BEST Medium tanks in that war period T-34/76 and T-34/86s and they were fighting US and Britain on the Western front. Now imagine if USSR fell victim then you guys would have to face Germany in its full might which would not be so easy to Defeat US had three biggest disadvantages in that war. It is a different continent which did not allow imediate resupplies was the first and the second was their armor power (not air power but armor) was weak German SuperTigers would have owned almost anything dished out at them and by the time reinforcements arrived they would have had new tanks waiting. Also Remember the Luftwafe (don't know about the spelling) airpower of Germans? It was the best airforce of WWII and is still considered the defining force of the 20th century. You put this together and Germany was way to powerful for US and Britain to take by themselves which automatically means that US DIDN'T win this war. Plus US was divided fighting to Countries at once. This war was won by All COUTRIES EQUALLY.
Last edited by Sinyukov (2006-01-27 15:26:24)