ffs people, u dont know jack shit, the CHALLENGER 2 TANK is the best in the world god dammit
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 | ||||||
The T-80/T-90, M1A2, Leopard and Elites beloved Challenger are all evenly matched and it if even came that for some bizzare reason thay all decided to have a fight to the death it would probally come down to tactics and balls. Just look at Germanys conquest of France, they mainly had Panzers 1 & 2 against superior Frence and British tanks and still succeeded(I dont want to hear the French were pussies it aint true!).
And someone said Russia dos'nt have any ground attack planes, they do, I think its called the SU-25.
But if i had to say what the best tank in the world is id say theMerkava MK.4 is probally the best tank in the world. Im surprised no one mentioned it!! or did they lol!
And someone said Russia dos'nt have any ground attack planes, they do, I think its called the SU-25.
But if i had to say what the best tank in the world is id say theMerkava MK.4 is probally the best tank in the world. Im surprised no one mentioned it!! or did they lol!
The Challenger 2 is a peice of junk
YOUR A PEICE OF JUNKVolatile_Squirrel wrote:
The Challenger 2 is a peice of junk
Funny thing....
I would like to cite a phrase from the movie Armagedon (Yeah, Bruce playing golf on a Oil Plattform XD) made by an Russian Space technician (I love this guy*g*), I will roughly translate it as I saw the Movie in German:
"American Technology, Russian Technology. Bah Bullshit it coming from Taiwan anyway *Hits the Engine with nice CLANG)"
In this sense, it isn't really the Technology that matters but the Crew serving within the Tank (and sorry, but I do call the American armored crews Noobs[atleast some] as they have a tendency to listen to music inside the Tank during engagements -> Rammstein's "Feuer Frei" being a first class choice there).
Americans may think they have the superior Technology but their Army is designed for "mass Invasion" e.g. huge numbers of soldiers to wear the enemy down by providing sustained attacks on the ground, after the Airforce lightend the enemy lines).
For example:
Why do US Navy Seals (Using M-4 as standard weapon) operate in groups of atleast 10 to 20 Members?
Or even shot and sink their own RIB during a Co-op Manoveur (sry if iI get the spelling wrong) with German KSK (G36C) and UK SAS (couldn't Identify weapon)
Incomparison german KSK Units are trained to perform operations only rellying on 2- 4 People, the same kind of operations where both americans and english tend to send in a Schoolclass (very spec-ops like).
Other example:
The german Army trains its soldiers to be resourcefull, e.g. Soldiers receive fire arms training on ALL posssible weapons (yes this includes the Heavy weapons aswell) and specialisations are dependent on the enviroment in which the soldiers Operate.
On the other side, the US army gives a Recruit a SAW and says : " now your elligable to call yourself specialist". Worst thing though, the poor lads are only trained in using 1 Weapon (talking about the Main armnement). Ignoring the fact that ammunitions could go out , the barrel turned unusable e.g. all possibilities which might occur on the Battlefield)
Ok, I'm Talking about Infantry mostly here but it is similar with the tanks. I Often DO wonder where the US Army obtains their Tankcrews as most of them are Gung-Ho stylers.
Now going to the "inbetween" argumentation about the Iraq War
If I Remember correctly the american invasion (please don't start to bicker about it, it was an hostile invasion by International Law, and in my opinion the US or the US President should go to Court as War-criminal for this ) was given a specific name, one which actually really represents the aims for this military move.
(O)peration (I)raqi (L)iberation
Yes it might look like an conspiracy theory yet again, but I got this name actually from a American Marine Regimental Movie. Using the standard pictures of cheering Iraqis greeting the US soldiers, and an awesome glimpse at Marine operations(e.g. Cobra's firing, landing boats deploying , Marines preping their gear etc) everything underlined with Heavymetal.
Don't get me wrong, I actually pity the Soldiers down there as they have to cleanup the dirty words of the "chimp". and besides, most of the People forget the reasons for War (economics). The US still has considerable Intrest in the middle eastern Area, mainly for Oil deposits and possible Markets (Remember Somalia?One (not the) Reason why hostilities broke out there was the Worldbank "imposing" the local farmers to stop planting Rice and instead import american rice which was 4 times more expensive then the homegrown one, and people keep wondering why the US got heavy slaps overthere).
I don't mind patriotism but I hate "blind" patriotism(e.g. Southern Baptist church members disguising as Iraqi's in order to bring christianity into the "savage" muslim world->LMAO)
Besides, please don't forget that Information is like a two-sided Blade there are always other views on a topic or matter, which can be both possibly Good or Bad if appropiatly used.......... It's called Propaganda
I would like to cite a phrase from the movie Armagedon (Yeah, Bruce playing golf on a Oil Plattform XD) made by an Russian Space technician (I love this guy*g*), I will roughly translate it as I saw the Movie in German:
"American Technology, Russian Technology. Bah Bullshit it coming from Taiwan anyway *Hits the Engine with nice CLANG)"
In this sense, it isn't really the Technology that matters but the Crew serving within the Tank (and sorry, but I do call the American armored crews Noobs[atleast some] as they have a tendency to listen to music inside the Tank during engagements -> Rammstein's "Feuer Frei" being a first class choice there).
Americans may think they have the superior Technology but their Army is designed for "mass Invasion" e.g. huge numbers of soldiers to wear the enemy down by providing sustained attacks on the ground, after the Airforce lightend the enemy lines).
For example:
Why do US Navy Seals (Using M-4 as standard weapon) operate in groups of atleast 10 to 20 Members?
Or even shot and sink their own RIB during a Co-op Manoveur (sry if iI get the spelling wrong) with German KSK (G36C) and UK SAS (couldn't Identify weapon)
Incomparison german KSK Units are trained to perform operations only rellying on 2- 4 People, the same kind of operations where both americans and english tend to send in a Schoolclass (very spec-ops like).
Other example:
The german Army trains its soldiers to be resourcefull, e.g. Soldiers receive fire arms training on ALL posssible weapons (yes this includes the Heavy weapons aswell) and specialisations are dependent on the enviroment in which the soldiers Operate.
On the other side, the US army gives a Recruit a SAW and says : " now your elligable to call yourself specialist". Worst thing though, the poor lads are only trained in using 1 Weapon (talking about the Main armnement). Ignoring the fact that ammunitions could go out , the barrel turned unusable e.g. all possibilities which might occur on the Battlefield)
Ok, I'm Talking about Infantry mostly here but it is similar with the tanks. I Often DO wonder where the US Army obtains their Tankcrews as most of them are Gung-Ho stylers.
Now going to the "inbetween" argumentation about the Iraq War
If I Remember correctly the american invasion (please don't start to bicker about it, it was an hostile invasion by International Law, and in my opinion the US or the US President should go to Court as War-criminal for this ) was given a specific name, one which actually really represents the aims for this military move.
(O)peration (I)raqi (L)iberation
Yes it might look like an conspiracy theory yet again, but I got this name actually from a American Marine Regimental Movie. Using the standard pictures of cheering Iraqis greeting the US soldiers, and an awesome glimpse at Marine operations(e.g. Cobra's firing, landing boats deploying , Marines preping their gear etc) everything underlined with Heavymetal.
Don't get me wrong, I actually pity the Soldiers down there as they have to cleanup the dirty words of the "chimp". and besides, most of the People forget the reasons for War (economics). The US still has considerable Intrest in the middle eastern Area, mainly for Oil deposits and possible Markets (Remember Somalia?One (not the) Reason why hostilities broke out there was the Worldbank "imposing" the local farmers to stop planting Rice and instead import american rice which was 4 times more expensive then the homegrown one, and people keep wondering why the US got heavy slaps overthere).
I don't mind patriotism but I hate "blind" patriotism(e.g. Southern Baptist church members disguising as Iraqi's in order to bring christianity into the "savage" muslim world->LMAO)
Besides, please don't forget that Information is like a two-sided Blade there are always other views on a topic or matter, which can be both possibly Good or Bad if appropiatly used.......... It's called Propaganda
Last edited by =TEG=Rastah Rapid (2006-01-26 11:06:11)
Sure M1A2 is the way better than T-72, T-80. Russian army dont use T-72s anymore. Last time T-72 were in action was war in Afganistan (USSR). But M1A2 loses its superiority to the T-90. Well I read about old Russian technology and stuff here. Well thats not true. Russian military tecnologies were and still are one of the best in the world. The only problem we dont know about them because these machines are still prototypes and not in the mass production. Its all about money. Lets say that constructors created a newest tank and show it up. Army likes it, but will not buy it from th constructors because... Well Russian army lacks of money. CriTICALLY NO MONEY. Constructors hold their projects and wait for the better time or sell the technology to the West. Thats why we dont see all these new brand Electronic Devices, mass of New Tanks, Helicopters and stuff. They do exist. We just dont know about them. Maybe I'm not a weapons engeneer or specialist, but I was in Russia and know whats going on there.
Very very agree.......... It's called Propaganda
The actual English quote is "American Components, Russian Components, All made in TAIWAN!!" LOL=TEG=Rastah Rapid wrote:
"American Technology, Russian Technology. Bah Bullshit it coming from Taiwan anyway *Hits the Engine with nice CLANG)"
But seriously, not a HUGE tank fan but here are my two cents. M1A2 very good MBT, it is better than the T-72, but you can't really compare because as stated before it is a medium tank therefore a different class. I have heard of the challenger 2 but never seen it in action so therefore i have no opinion, the leopard 2a6 is an extremely good tank, with all the latest gizmos, and possibly superior to the abrams (they have never been head to head) The main thing is the crew. This can make or break a tank. Training, moral, unit cohesiveness, all these things contribute highly to a tanks effectiveness. The US is an extremely effective fighting force. Not better than Canada though lol. anyway the us would have beat the Iraqis in desert storm even if they had had abrams too. they were the better fighting force.
As a side note I know that Canada has Leopard 2 tanks but not sure which version (we have an annoying habit of renaming all our crap so its hard to tell what version of what we have.) EG the M16A2 is the C7 the m4 is the C8 and we have the leopard C2. Before you insult Canada i think it is fucking stupid too but i don't make the rules Prety sure the C2 is NOT the 2A6 most likely whatever its predicessor was. Yes everything canadian has either a C or an animal for a name, i don't know why but if you know what version the tank is give a shout
Well, actually a automatic load don't have to be faster, acctually it aint.
Btw I'm Second Lt. in Swedish Army, tank driver.
Btw I'm Second Lt. in Swedish Army, tank driver.
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.
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.
Last edited by Ilocano (2006-01-26 12:26:11)
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
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
only shity thing about the M1 is thats its powered by a jet engine which is very hot whcih atracts hot seeking missiles....
LOL...you can dispute all you want about who makes the better tanks American's, Chinese, Russians, but the best tanks are made by the Germans. Looking back into history they made far superior tanks in WWI, WWII and I believe the current Leopard tank is far superior to the M1A1 or the M1A2. The Leopard can do everything the M1A1 and A2 can do but it can do it at 70 km/h. Never underestimate the German military engineering. It has always been superior...always have and always will in my opinion.
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 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).
first of all, russia is communist, not socialist. and secondly, WE ARENT FIGHTING RUSSIA! the enemies we are fighting and have been fighting more than likely dont have any of russia's new technology. why would they make it and then just sell it to terrorists? Last i checked the latest they have is the AK-47 (which was made in 1947, hence the 47) and the T-72s and T-80s. Not very new. therefore america's technology cant even be compared to the enemies technology that we are fighting now.
EDIT: actually im not even sure if the terrorists have tanks. but they have all of russia's old machine guns and rifles. the AK-101 hasnt even been sold/traded to any countries which is why only russia has it.
EDIT: actually im not even sure if the terrorists have tanks. but they have all of russia's old machine guns and rifles. the AK-101 hasnt even been sold/traded to any countries which is why only russia has it.
Last edited by silentsin (2006-01-26 12:56:25)
Russia is a communist country huh? From 1990, not anymore
Last edited by Dr.Battlefield (2006-01-26 13:54:24)
actually the challenge 2 tank is the fastest on rugged terrain, and was put into service in 2004, so it the best of the best
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).
yea the british navy is getting 2 new super aircraft carriers to have the new joint strike fighters on
from what i hear, the M1A2 Abrams owns any other tank. in the gulf war M1A2s kicked the shit out of those T-72s. i believe the ratio was about 20 T-72s per one M1A2 Abrams. thats a fucking ratio for you.
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.
First of all the crew is the thing that makes the tank a deadly weapon. If the crew can't work as a team the tank won't function properly making it an easy target on the battlefield. You cannot put 3 - 4 men in a tank and then think it can do anything usefull in a combat situation without giving them a good training under all kinds of conditions. The crew itself should be able to solve all problems they might encounter once their traning is finished, and it takes years. I have been a tankcommander for 5 years now and I'm still a rookie in many aspects of this fine art.
So to fully compare the different types of MBT's you need to have crews of same standards and then compare the MBT's
So to fully compare the different types of MBT's you need to have crews of same standards and then compare the MBT's
This statement was made before and again please read the following[BambiKillerz]Brian wrote:
from what i hear, the M1A2 Abrams owns any other tank. in the gulf war M1A2s kicked the shit out of those T-72s. i believe the ratio was about 20 T-72s per one M1A2 Abrams. thats a fucking ratio for you.
1. This ratio is not summed up(seemingly) during a Tank vs Tank engagement, it's an overall Figure including A2S Kills (e.g. Apache's and A-10's included.)
2. During the large engagements (US forces entering Iraqi territory) they where mostly fighting the Iraqi Regular Army which had in comparison both a lower Training AND Experience level(close to nothing actually). The Iraqi Republican Guard was later faced and proofed to be a bit Harder, due to their relative high level of moral and training(the US forces actually had a hard time pushing them Back).
3. Even the best and most advanced Technology doesn't take you further if facing an reall experienced T72 Tanker
Do americans actually care for the History of their country? Because it seems to me, that "most" americans posting here seem absolute Ignorant in their point of view. This is the "third" Gulf War. the first being a clash between Iraqi and Iranian forces, the second and third being Iraqi vs US.
Besides if you would give those Ratio's would ya mind posting WHERE you got them from? Because if it's a US veteran page, forget the figures, those are mostly biased towards the US government ---> Propaganda
That ratio cannot be possible period. Like I posted before on here imagine 1000 Abrams fighting in Iraq that would mean Iraqis must have 20000 tanks. That is impossible because no one ever sold them that much. That much was never made at all by Russia/USSR. Plus take into account that Iraq also had T-64 which is way prehistoric from early 60s. There's no way that country would have that much armor.=TEG=Rastah Rapid wrote:
This statement was made before and again please read the following[BambiKillerz]Brian wrote:
from what i hear, the M1A2 Abrams owns any other tank. in the gulf war M1A2s kicked the shit out of those T-72s. i believe the ratio was about 20 T-72s per one M1A2 Abrams. thats a fucking ratio for you.
1. This ratio is not summed up(seemingly) during a Tank vs Tank engagement, it's an overall Figure including A2S Kills (e.g. Apache's and A-10's included.)
2. During the large engagements (US forces entering Iraqi territory) they where mostly fighting the Iraqi Regular Army which had in comparison both a lower Training AND Experience level(close to nothing actually). The Iraqi Republican Guard was later faced and proofed to be a bit Harder, due to their relative high level of moral and training(the US forces actually had a hard time pushing them Back).
3. Even the best and most advanced Technology doesn't take you further if facing an reall experienced T72 Tanker
Do americans actually care for the History of their country? Because it seems to me, that "most" americans posting here seem absolute Ignorant in their point of view. This is the "third" Gulf War. the first being a clash between Iraqi and Iranian forces, the second and third being Iraqi vs US.
Besides if you would give those Ratio's would ya mind posting WHERE you got them from? Because if it's a US veteran page, forget the figures, those are mostly biased towards the US government ---> Propaganda
Last edited by Sinyukov (2006-01-26 16:55:49)
umm are you from the US or do you just not like the US=TEG=Rastah Rapid wrote:
This statement was made before and again please read the following[BambiKillerz]Brian wrote:
from what i hear, the M1A2 Abrams owns any other tank. in the gulf war M1A2s kicked the shit out of those T-72s. i believe the ratio was about 20 T-72s per one M1A2 Abrams. thats a fucking ratio for you.
1. This ratio is not summed up(seemingly) during a Tank vs Tank engagement, it's an overall Figure including A2S Kills (e.g. Apache's and A-10's included.)
2. During the large engagements (US forces entering Iraqi territory) they where mostly fighting the Iraqi Regular Army which had in comparison both a lower Training AND Experience level(close to nothing actually). The Iraqi Republican Guard was later faced and proofed to be a bit Harder, due to their relative high level of moral and training(the US forces actually had a hard time pushing them Back).
3. Even the best and most advanced Technology doesn't take you further if facing an reall experienced T72 Tanker
Do americans actually care for the History of their country? Because it seems to me, that "most" americans posting here seem absolute Ignorant in their point of view. This is the "third" Gulf War. the first being a clash between Iraqi and Iranian forces, the second and third being Iraqi vs US.
Besides if you would give those Ratio's would ya mind posting WHERE you got them from? Because if it's a US veteran page, forget the figures, those are mostly biased towards the US government ---> Propaganda