wow you know nothing mate... C2 has a far better kdr than the Abrahmssyntaxmax642 wrote:
Uhhh... our oh so good Abrahms has actually been in a few real battles...Your test is nothing more than showing off your epenis in a Framerate test.ELITE-UK wrote:
ok...
anyone else think that video of the abrams is crappy, all it shows that the tank can move, turn its turret and fire its goddam gun. lets see your oh so good abrams knock 14 tanks out in just over a minute then post it on here!
Abrahms > all
i have infact, but the german tanks were superior, they outranged most allied tanks. the 76mm gun on the firefly had the ability to take out a tiger yes, but the firefly had a very cramped turret causing the reload time to drasticly be low which allowed german Panzer VI users to take them out quicker, also the Tiger had a longer range than most allied tanks. the T-34/85 could penetrate the SIDE armor on a tiger at 1000m, but they would have to flank it, which was hard due to the terrain and the sheer size of the tank, but nontheless both of these tanks were very effective at taking out tigers, so kudos to the fearless allied and axis tankers of ww2.
shit now that we are on the topic of ww2 tanks, or tanks in general. are there any good games featuring WW2 or modern tanks only?
shit now that we are on the topic of ww2 tanks, or tanks in general. are there any good games featuring WW2 or modern tanks only?
Last edited by seymorebutts443 (2007-02-05 16:54:44)
You certainly showed your intelligence when you insulted my nick, but anyway, to prove my point:sdlettonieCZLV wrote:
nah, if you are such a genius, ask your mom to translate you this video, I see that you didnt understand a shit from that, Im sorry, will try to find something equal in English.
Short citate: "T-90 taked shots from 200m from another weapons with different callibr and such as 120mm, none of 6 shots damaged it, then they tested some kind of RPG or what- nothing, armor didnt take any damage... tank drove away without having repaired something... bla bla bla" I dont wanna translate that all, the idea is- DONT POST IF YOU HAVENT SOMETHING NEW TO SAY!
EDIT: T-90 firing range is 5km (5000m) and its similar to power of Abrams cannon. Abrams has uranium shells, T-90 has from Wolfram and there is no difference in armor piercing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A2#Armament
keep in mind i said "CAN"
most people on these forums seem to take "can" as an absolute
I can't find the link right now, but the 85mm gun used on the T-34/85 was able to penetrate 102mm of armor at 1000m, while the frontal armor of the IE's was 100mm at 8 degrees on the turret, 100 mm at 12 degrees on the front superstructure, and 100mm at 35 degrees on the front hull. Make those degrees to 0 and the frontal armor of the IE goes down to under 100mm, which makes it easy for the T-24/85 to penetrate it.seymorebutts443 wrote:
i have infact, but the german tanks were superior, they outranged most allied tanks. the 76mm gun on the firefly had the ability to take out a tiger yes, but the firefly had a very cramped turret causing the reload time to drasticly be low which allowed german Panzer VI users to take them out quicker, also the Tiger had a longer range than most allied tanks. the T-34/85 could penetrate the SIDE armor on a tiger at 1000m, but they would have to flank it, which was hard due to the terrain and the sheer size of the tank, but nontheless both of these tanks were very effective at taking out tigers, so kudos to the fearless allied and axis tankers of ww2.
EDIT: Here's the link: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/guns.asp
Last edited by acEofspadEs6313 (2007-02-05 17:02:31)
Well, theres a game that feautes Air, Land and Sea units based on the best realistic models the developers could make called Battleground Europe.seymorebutts443 wrote:
i have infact, but the german tanks were superior, they outranged most allied tanks. the 76mm gun on the firefly had the ability to take out a tiger yes, but the firefly had a very cramped turret causing the reload time to drasticly be low which allowed german Panzer VI users to take them out quicker, also the Tiger had a longer range than most allied tanks. the T-34/85 could penetrate the SIDE armor on a tiger at 1000m, but they would have to flank it, which was hard due to the terrain and the sheer size of the tank, but nontheless both of these tanks were very effective at taking out tigers, so kudos to the fearless allied and axis tankers of ww2.
shit now that we are on the topic of ww2 tanks, or tanks in general. are there any good games featuring WW2 or modern tanks only?
cdogmn31 wrote:
vidoe good, music sucks
dont u mean BF2? j/kacEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Well, theres a game that feautes Air, Land and Sea units based on the best realistic models the developers could make called Battleground Europe.seymorebutts443 wrote:
i have infact, but the german tanks were superior, they outranged most allied tanks. the 76mm gun on the firefly had the ability to take out a tiger yes, but the firefly had a very cramped turret causing the reload time to drasticly be low which allowed german Panzer VI users to take them out quicker, also the Tiger had a longer range than most allied tanks. the T-34/85 could penetrate the SIDE armor on a tiger at 1000m, but they would have to flank it, which was hard due to the terrain and the sheer size of the tank, but nontheless both of these tanks were very effective at taking out tigers, so kudos to the fearless allied and axis tankers of ww2.
shit now that we are on the topic of ww2 tanks, or tanks in general. are there any good games featuring WW2 or modern tanks only?
I was curious about that too, because I remember there was one for PS quite loong time ago, where you drove a tank, aimed and fired, was pretty nice. I got owned all the time by enemy
I have no clue as to which tank is the "best," and I doubt that anyone can actually prove that their country's tank is the "best." All of them are great, but can't be defined as better than one another IMO.
Plus, I think the KDR of each tank is an unreliable reason for saying that one tank is better than another. M1's KDR is probably going to be higher, because of all the action it sees. From what I've read at Wiki about each tank, they haven't seen as much action, which means fewer losses.
Plus, I think the KDR of each tank is an unreliable reason for saying that one tank is better than another. M1's KDR is probably going to be higher, because of all the action it sees. From what I've read at Wiki about each tank, they haven't seen as much action, which means fewer losses.
Here, Changed the Music...
Only because there arent as many to get killed in real war.... Us wanker americans could lose tanks all day and not feel it... others... well not so much...Vilham wrote:
wow you know nothing mate... C2 has a far better kdr than the Abrahmssyntaxmax642 wrote:
Uhhh... our oh so good Abrahms has actually been in a few real battles...Your test is nothing more than showing off your epenis in a Framerate test.ELITE-UK wrote:
ok...
anyone else think that video of the abrams is crappy, all it shows that the tank can move, turn its turret and fire its goddam gun. lets see your oh so good abrams knock 14 tanks out in just over a minute then post it on here!
Abrahms > all
do you even understand the concept of kdr? and btw 300-0 is kinda what you might call good...
Count to 10 Darren, don't rise to it..... 1,2 fuck it 10!!syntaxmax642 wrote:
Yeah maybe next time the Brits are screaming SAVE US... We just stay out of it.. God knows they cant build an army to save themselves or their dammned Queen...MoonShadow616 wrote:
The Challenger 2 MBT walks all over the M1 Abrams.
I take it your one of these people that think "well if it were'nt for us you Tea drinking Limeys would all be speaking German and eating rather large sausages"!
Well we're not, so don't. Can l also say that we are one of the few Allies that have supported you and don't say you don't need us, because you do, so wibble!
For a Country that can't build an Army to save ourself... we did fucking well takeing back a couple of certain Islands that were close to the enemy that attacked them and were at least 10,000 miles away from us. Yep you guessed it the Falklands.
Please do not damn Her Majesty The Queen/ Head of the Commonwealth. Its damn well not civil!!! However please feel free to insult Tony Blair,the useless git!
Right now where did l put those stress balls!?!
if i'm not mistaken, the brits alone held back the germans during the battle of britain. only a few american civie pilots participated, but for the most part it was the brits and their spitfires and hurricanes.
2nd post in this thread. That guy fucking pwnd all of youacEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Just wait for all of them armchair "tank experts" to come along and start a flame war over what MBT is better, and grab some popcorn.
MAD PR3DICTIN SKILLZ
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
does it matter who has the better tank, we have the airforce to kill any tank around. after that our tanks are just for infantry supression.
Tanks were originally designed for infantry suppression, but they later became usefull as other things. things such as AVREs, demolition vehicles with high calibre guns such as the Centurian AVRE with its massive 165mm demolition gun, or mounted with bridges and dozer blades. another unheard of thing is the recon tank such as the Scorpion, armed with a 76mm gun, the scoripion can traverse boggy terrain and very hilly ground at a good rate of speed. tanks are an all around vehicle and we cannot forget that.
Uhhh... lets see it against an A10 or Apache... pwned...Vilham wrote:
do you even understand the concept of kdr? and btw 300-0 is kinda what you might call good...
Yes yes I know it will never happen... Fun to think about though.