Tiger attack helicopter.

2009-08-12 14:23:08

#51

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6715|Purplicious Wisconsin

GR34 wrote:
War Man wrote:
Ioan92 wrote:

/facepalm..
I'll facepalm your ass, and I don't mean that in a gay way.
IMHO fighting old ass Russian tanks (T-62 and other Iraqi tanks) does not really count as battle proven. its like taking an Modern rifle and shooting at guys armed with muskets and saying it battle proven. But yeah leo rocks and M1 is i guess battle proven. I would like to see it go head to head with a real modern tanks not soviet hand-me-downs

I would also like the Abrams go head to head with other modern tanks, hopefully the enemy tanks don't shoot the fuel trucks or the Abrams is a sitting duck. Damn those jet engines that have to be fuel hogs.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2009-08-12 14:28:13

#52

Lai: Member; +186|6152

GR34 wrote:
War Man wrote:
Ioan92 wrote:
/facepalm..
I'll facepalm your ass, and I don't mean that in a gay way.
IMHO fighting old ass Russian tanks (T-62 and other Iraqi tanks) does not really count as battle proven. its like taking an Modern rifle and shooting at guys armed with muskets and saying it battle proven. But yeah leo rocks and M1 is i guess battle proven. I would like to see it go head to head with a real modern tanks not soviet hand-me-downs

M1 is an overated heavy P.O.S.. It is only battle proven because the US can afford proper backup e.g. in the form of logistics or Apaches killing of any serious threat before the Abramss roll in. The design itself is pretty fail. For example, a turbine engine? You might as well put a sign on its ass saying "please insert heat seaking projectiles here".

If I want something heavy, I'd pick a Merkava. Allows me to carry a whole infantry squad as well.

If I want something light fast and high tech, I'd pick a Leclerc.

Or in general, I'd pick a T90. You don't even need fuel, just pour some cheap vodka in it.

SirSchloppy wrote:
What, you only drop the soap for women? So they can put a strap on on and do you?

Gooners wrote:
oh lord

you're into strap ons?

He said TO women not for women

Last edited by Lai (2009-08-12 14:31:39)

2009-08-12 14:29:33

#53

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6633|949

Guys-
If you can't stay on topic, don't post. Only warning.

2009-08-12 14:30:05

#54

Red Forman: Banned; +402|5401

Lai wrote:
I'd pick a Merkava.

My fav tank.

2009-08-12 14:33:36

#55

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6715|Purplicious Wisconsin

Lai wrote:
GR34 wrote:
War Man wrote:

I'll facepalm your ass, and I don't mean that in a gay way.
IMHO fighting old ass Russian tanks (T-62 and other Iraqi tanks) does not really count as battle proven. its like taking an Modern rifle and shooting at guys armed with muskets and saying it battle proven. But yeah leo rocks and M1 is i guess battle proven. I would like to see it go head to head with a real modern tanks not soviet hand-me-downs
If I want something heavy, I'd pick a Merkava. Allows me to carry a whole infantry squad as well..

If you want something you can't transport by air at all. Also the Abram's engine may be quite a fuel hog and generates lots of heat, but it has lots of speed for a tank that heavy to make up for that. Also a T90? That tank is fricken target practice with Western tanks due to it having shitty armor.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2009-08-12 14:33:43

#56

bennisboy: Member; +829|6648|Poundland

War Man wrote:
I'm sure it is a good chopper but it hasn't proved itself in combat compared to the Apache which has.

When the apache wasfirst used it hadn't been proven in combat. Your point fails

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-08-12 14:37:38)

2009-08-12 14:56:47

#57

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6224|Escea

https://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1_WZ10_1.jpg

Looks like a Tiger/Rooivalk cross over. Not the Mangusta.

2009-08-12 15:06:51

#58

Lai: Member; +186|6152

Chinese right? Man they're good at copying.

2009-08-12 15:23:20

#59

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6224|Escea

Wz-10

2009-08-12 16:33:54

#60

Shadow893: lel; +75|6694|England

CosmoKramer wrote:
Finray wrote:
Aww, I thought it was going to be a tiger attacking a helicopter
same thing I thought

2009-08-12 16:44:07

#61

TrueMusou: Member; +36|6162|United States Of Hamerica

Someone shop a tiger attacking a helicopter cause I feel ripped off

2009-08-13 09:20:07

#62

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6715|Purplicious Wisconsin

bennisboy wrote:
War Man wrote:
I'm sure it is a good chopper but it hasn't proved itself in combat compared to the Apache which has.
When the apache wasfirst used it hadn't been proven in combat. Your point fails

When the Apache was first used, we used both it and the cobra(a proven veteran).

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2009-08-14 06:25:17

#63

loubot: O' HAL naw!; +470|6579|Columbus, OH

Mekstizzle wrote:
-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:
SirSchloppy wrote:

yup

I was expecting something like that .gif where the Tiger attacked those dudes on an Elephant, or that Photoshoop'd image of a Great White attacking a dude on a helicopter ladder

http://www.longovicium.com/Contents/ima … attack.jpg

Except a tiger

My two second MS Paint photoshop

https://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j296/loubot/Eurocopter_Tiger.gif

2009-08-14 06:27:28

#64

Jebus: Looking for my Scooper; +218|5766|Belgium

Ioan92 wrote:
GR34 wrote:
Ioan92 wrote:

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper … lock_1.jpg

> all
YES but KA-52 > KA-50
True!

http://maks.sukhoi.ru/media/photo/maks2 … d1d151.jpg

Wow, at first I thought that was a bomb above the chopper lol

2009-08-14 06:40:16

#65

david363: Crotch fires and you: the untold story; +314|6740|Comber, Northern Ireland

War Man wrote:
GR34 wrote:
Bradt3hleader wrote:

Our shit is better

What do the Canadians use?
Lots of other countries weapons are better then the US's take the Challenger II for example

Well we use German Vehicles light vehicles (G-wagon), German tanks. Canadian rifles all be it very similar to the M16/M4, we also use Canadian Designed LAV's based on swiss Piranha we also use the coyote LAV(the Americans use the LAV-25 which was also designed in Canada). Fighter jet wise we use the CF-18 which is Canada's take on the F/A-18, we fly the CH-146 griffin which is again our take of a bell 412 helicopter. Currently Canada has no Attack helicopter but we do have retro fitted Griffins with rockets and such. Canada basically take the best from every country and uses it as our own. We are also getting F-35's
Challenger 2 sucks balls. Now if you said the Leopard 2 is better than Abrams maybe I will believe you, but I prefer something that is battle-proven than something that is said to be good.

challenger 2 sucks balls? it is battle proven and was the only western tank in the 2003 invasion that didnt suffer any loses to enemy fire.

yank shit is shit

2009-08-14 06:52:19

#66

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6622|London, England

Shows how much he knows really when he starts talking about "battle proven" and then goes onto talk about Leopard 2 and then dismisses the Challenger 2.

2009-08-14 08:21:28

#67

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6715|Purplicious Wisconsin

david363 wrote:
War Man wrote:
GR34 wrote:

Lots of other countries weapons are better then the US's take the Challenger II for example

Well we use German Vehicles light vehicles (G-wagon), German tanks. Canadian rifles all be it very similar to the M16/M4, we also use Canadian Designed LAV's based on swiss Piranha we also use the coyote LAV(the Americans use the LAV-25 which was also designed in Canada). Fighter jet wise we use the CF-18 which is Canada's take on the F/A-18, we fly the CH-146 griffin which is again our take of a bell 412 helicopter. Currently Canada has no Attack helicopter but we do have retro fitted Griffins with rockets and such. Canada basically take the best from every country and uses it as our own. We are also getting F-35's
Challenger 2 sucks balls. Now if you said the Leopard 2 is better than Abrams maybe I will believe you, but I prefer something that is battle-proven than something that is said to be good.
challenger 2 sucks balls? it is battle proven and was the only western tank in the 2003 invasion that didnt suffer any loses to enemy fire.

yank shit is shit

The Challenger 2 was hardly in battle compared to the Abrams, that is why it didn't suffer casualties.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2009-08-14 08:27:11

#68

david363: Crotch fires and you: the untold story; +314|6740|Comber, Northern Ireland

how do you reckon that one? it was up against iraqi tanks in basarah

2009-08-14 09:03:32

#69

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6501|so randum

lol warman at blind patriotism.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-08-14 09:07:22

#70

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6224|Escea

Comparing modern western MBT's gets nowhere. They all use the same or highly similar technology and in the case of the Chally and Abrams, the same armour. They will all end up using the same Rheinmetall gun with the exception of the Leclerc and they have all proven their worth on the battlefield.

No tank is impregnable either, that includes Chally's and M1's and both have been damaged or destroyed by IED's and anti-tank missiles.

2009-08-14 10:08:12

#71

Ultrafunkula: Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...; +1,975|6475|6 6 4 oh, I forget

FatherTed wrote:
lol warman at blind patriotism.

Well what can you expect from someone saying this in a WW2 topic?

War Man wrote:
The Russians cared more for reliability and usefulness than style.

Last edited by Ultrafunkula (2009-08-14 10:09:48)

2009-08-14 10:11:20

#72

Noobpatty: ʎʇʇɐdqoou; +194|6355|West NY

loubot wrote:
My two second MS Paint photoshop

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j296/ … _Tiger.gif

Keep working on it.

2009-08-14 10:21:07

#73

loubot: O' HAL naw!; +470|6579|Columbus, OH

Noobpatty wrote:
loubot wrote:
My two second MS Paint photoshop

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j296/ … _Tiger.gif
Keep working on it.

Meh my work is complete. I will leave it for someone else to refine.

2009-08-14 12:38:51

#74

Lai: Member; +186|6152

david363 wrote:
War Man wrote:
GR34 wrote:

Lots of other countries weapons are better then the US's take the Challenger II for example

Well we use German Vehicles light vehicles (G-wagon), German tanks. Canadian rifles all be it very similar to the M16/M4, we also use Canadian Designed LAV's based on swiss Piranha we also use the coyote LAV(the Americans use the LAV-25 which was also designed in Canada). Fighter jet wise we use the CF-18 which is Canada's take on the F/A-18, we fly the CH-146 griffin which is again our take of a bell 412 helicopter. Currently Canada has no Attack helicopter but we do have retro fitted Griffins with rockets and such. Canada basically take the best from every country and uses it as our own. We are also getting F-35's
Challenger 2 sucks balls. Now if you said the Leopard 2 is better than Abrams maybe I will believe you, but I prefer something that is battle-proven than something that is said to be good.
challenger 2 sucks balls? it is battle proven and was the only western tank in the 2003 invasion that didnt suffer any loses to enemy fire.

yank shit tank is shit

Now it rhymes

M.O.A.B wrote:
Comparing modern western MBT's gets nowhere. They all use the same or highly similar technology and in the case of the Chally and Abrams, the same armour. They will all end up using the same Rheinmetall gun with the exception of the Leclerc and they have all proven their worth on the battlefield.

No tank is impregnable either, that includes Chally's and M1's and both have been damaged or destroyed by IED's and anti-tank missiles.

The French claim the Leclerc is the most advanced and generally best tank ever in active service. This is true. It is only half the story though; the thing is a logistical nightmare and even France as the producing country cannot keep more than between one and two thirds of their Leclercs operational at any given time when the country is NOT involved in a continental war.

Personally I think the era of mobile armour is nearing its end, just like the era of the phalanx, chevalier and infantry have ended before. Apart from that conflicts seem to become more and more urban, armour development simply can't keep up with anti armour developments. See the recent war in Lebanon. Demand will rise for faster lighter armoured vehicles with the posibility to transport more troops but without too much compromise in firepower. Imo, the BMP 3 is spot on.

2009-08-14 12:43:10

#75

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6224|Escea

https://almach238.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/metal-gear-rex.jpg

Tbh Metal Gearrr is the next step.

BF2S Forums Tiger attack helicopter.

GR34 wrote:

War Man wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

GR34 wrote:

War Man wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

SirSchloppy wrote:

Gooners wrote:

Lai wrote:

Lai wrote:

GR34 wrote:

War Man wrote:

War Man wrote:

CosmoKramer wrote:

Finray wrote:

bennisboy wrote:

War Man wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:

SirSchloppy wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

GR34 wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

War Man wrote:

GR34 wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

david363 wrote:

War Man wrote:

GR34 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

War Man wrote:

loubot wrote:

Noobpatty wrote:

loubot wrote:

david363 wrote:

War Man wrote:

GR34 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Board footer