remember that the us has the m1a3-4 at the moment so talking about not updated my ass.
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 | ||||||
yes they may have that but its still probably as cack as all other american tanks.
Simple fact: Not a single M1A2 crewman has ever been killed or severely injured EVER. Few tanks have ever been disabled past the point where they can be salvaged, either. The M1A2 tank has also been declared the best tank in the world (by the american military). Also, the challenger is the "most armored tank in the world" while that may be true, it is not necessarily the most reliable tank, nor does it necessarily have the most range or piercing capability. The abrams is still an extremely effective tank, either way you look at it. As well, a lot of warfare comes down to training. I would bet on an american tank crew winning using an abrams against any other country's tank, just because they are so well trained. And again, the thing about never losing a crewman and only losing a tiny number of tanks to enemy fire truly says that the abrams is a fine tank, despite what much of this thread has said.
Last edited by TheMurf (2006-05-16 23:47:58)
Good tank + Well train crew + Good commander + support = Awesome tankTheMurf wrote:
Simple fact: Not a single M1A2 crewman has ever been killed or severely injured EVER. Few tanks have ever been disabled past the point where they can be salvaged, either. The M1A2 tank has also been declared the best tank in the world (by the american military). Also, the challenger is the "most armored tank in the world" while that may be true, it is not necessarily the most reliable tank, nor does it necessarily have the most range or piercing capability. The abrams is still an extremely effective tank, either way you look at it. As well, a lot of warfare comes down to training. I would bet on an american tank crew winning using an abrams against any other country's tank, just because they are so well trained. And again, the thing about never losing a crewman and only losing a tiny number of tanks to enemy fire truly says that the abrams is a fine tank, despite what much of this thread has said.
That's what you are trying to say?
I couldn't have said it better myself. As a matter of fact, I didn't in the first place, thanks.Superslim wrote:
Good tank + Well train crew + Good commander + support = Awesome tankTheMurf wrote:
Simple fact: Not a single M1A2 crewman has ever been killed or severely injured EVER. Few tanks have ever been disabled past the point where they can be salvaged, either. The M1A2 tank has also been declared the best tank in the world (by the american military). Also, the challenger is the "most armored tank in the world" while that may be true, it is not necessarily the most reliable tank, nor does it necessarily have the most range or piercing capability. The abrams is still an extremely effective tank, either way you look at it. As well, a lot of warfare comes down to training. I would bet on an american tank crew winning using an abrams against any other country's tank, just because they are so well trained. And again, the thing about never losing a crewman and only losing a tiny number of tanks to enemy fire truly says that the abrams is a fine tank, despite what much of this thread has said.
That's what you are trying to say?
I can't believe you guys are still discussing this!
I need around tree fiddy.
Requesting anti-thread support, over!
I've spotted a pointless topic, over!
(annoying VO from your private days) Press CLOSE to kill this stupid thread.
I've spotted a pointless topic, over!
(annoying VO from your private days) Press CLOSE to kill this stupid thread.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Regrettably, it isn't true. A handful of US tankers has been killed while inside their tank. I am aware of two incidents. One of which may not be public information, the other involved a command detonated mine which used a HUGE amount of explosives (on the order of a couple tons of TNT) to punch through the weak armor at the bottom of the tank.TheMurf wrote:
Simple fact: Not a single M1A2 crewman has ever been killed or severely injured EVER. Few tanks have ever been disabled past the point where they can be salvaged, either. The M1A2 tank has also been declared the best tank in the world (by the american military). Also, the challenger is the "most armored tank in the world" while that may be true, it is not necessarily the most reliable tank, nor does it necessarily have the most range or piercing capability. The abrams is still an extremely effective tank, either way you look at it. As well, a lot of warfare comes down to training. I would bet on an american tank crew winning using an abrams against any other country's tank, just because they are so well trained. And again, the thing about never losing a crewman and only losing a tiny number of tanks to enemy fire truly says that the abrams is a fine tank, despite what much of this thread has said.
Nevertheless, the combat record of the Abrams is VERY impressive. On the order of ten troops KIA while in the most combat tested tank of modern times. Truly an enviable record.
I have served in the M1A1 and been in a T72 tank. All I know is that soviet/russian shit looks much better on paper than in reality. A person would be crazy to think that any Tonka Tank is better than the M1A1, this of course includes the T90.
In real life they are POS, like saying a '72 VW bug is better than a '06 VW bug because the engine can be replaced quicker/cheaper, has no radiator, less transmission problems, better gas mileage, elc...... it all sounds good until your driving through the desert in a noisy POS with no AC and a top speed of 60mph without overheating the thing.
Also US munitions are better and more reliable.
As far as any tank being better than another, anymore it does not matter. Tanks aren't needed to take out tanks anymore. They are out dated and will soon be replaced will smaller lighter more mobile equipment with good electronics. Too many $50K shoulder fired weapons with a 1.5+ mile range that can take out $2million dollar tank. Not gonna be anymore great Armor battles like the 1st Gulf War.
In real life they are POS, like saying a '72 VW bug is better than a '06 VW bug because the engine can be replaced quicker/cheaper, has no radiator, less transmission problems, better gas mileage, elc...... it all sounds good until your driving through the desert in a noisy POS with no AC and a top speed of 60mph without overheating the thing.
Also US munitions are better and more reliable.
As far as any tank being better than another, anymore it does not matter. Tanks aren't needed to take out tanks anymore. They are out dated and will soon be replaced will smaller lighter more mobile equipment with good electronics. Too many $50K shoulder fired weapons with a 1.5+ mile range that can take out $2million dollar tank. Not gonna be anymore great Armor battles like the 1st Gulf War.
We should be debating who has the best robotic military equipment. Soon the gov will be calling all bf2 players to control robot fighters, choppers, transports ect.
Last edited by jamestx10 (2006-05-17 11:11:36)
Tanks are not IED proof. I have known a tanker who was KIA at fallujah. I have also seen several dead Abrahms and gone to the funerals of two tankers KIA while they were in their tanks.
BRADLEYS RULE ALL
auto loaders suck
BRADLEYS RULE ALL
auto loaders suck
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-05-17 13:14:42)
the T-72 is better in one area and that is fuel economics.
Copy thatSpark wrote:
Requesting anti-thread support, over!
I've spotted a pointless topic, over!
(annoying VO from your private days) Press CLOSE to kill this stupid thread.
Enemy noob spotting
Request artillary on this target
Copy that
Firing for effect
Over
GunSlinger,
Who filled you with this shit????:
"Something else about that standard Nato 5.56 x 45mm. They call it a tumbler round, as it leaves the barrel it spins top to bottom till it hits its target"
I don't even think ACME made one of these for Loony Tunes.
Who filled you with this shit????:
"Something else about that standard Nato 5.56 x 45mm. They call it a tumbler round, as it leaves the barrel it spins top to bottom till it hits its target"
I don't even think ACME made one of these for Loony Tunes.
Perhaps my facts are a little outdated (I learned this only about a year ago), I'll have to check out your statement. Still, like you said, it's pretty darn impressive, the Americans are obviously doing something right, as much as everyone seems to want to flame it right now. And the thing about the "weak under armor", well, that's just relative, ain't it?whittsend wrote:
Regrettably, it isn't true. A handful of US tankers has been killed while inside their tank. I am aware of two incidents. One of which may not be public information, the other involved a command detonated mine which used a HUGE amount of explosives (on the order of a couple tons of TNT) to punch through the weak armor at the bottom of the tank.
Nevertheless, the combat record of the Abrams is VERY impressive. On the order of ten troops KIA while in the most combat tested tank of modern times. Truly an enviable record.
Last edited by TheMurf (2006-05-17 15:30:49)
Sounds quite convincinig to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56_x_45_mm_NATOMajor_Spittle wrote:
GunSlinger,
Who filled you with this shit????:
"Something else about that standard Nato 5.56 x 45mm. They call it a tumbler round, as it leaves the barrel it spins top to bottom till it hits its target"
I don't even think ACME made one of these for Loony Tunes.
"The 5.56 × 45 mm NATO cartridge with the standard military ball bullet (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 inches (380 to 500 mm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), it will yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the groove around the cylinder of the bullet). The fragments disperse through the flesh causing much more internal injury. The effectiveness of fragmentation seems to impart much greater damage to tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest."
And from an article on spitzer bullets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet
"Once it leaves the barrel, it is governed by external ballistics. Here, the bullet's shape is important for aerodynamics, as is the rotational forces imparted by the rifling. With smooth-bore firearms, a spherical shape was optimum because no matter how it was oriented, it presented a uniform front. These unstable bullets tumbled erratically, but the aerodynamic shape changed little giving moderate accuracy. Generally, bullet shapes are a compromise between aerodynamics, interior ballistics necessities, and terminal ballistics requirements."
But guns are bad.
"With smooth-bore firearms, a spherical shape was optimum because no matter how it was oriented, it presented a uniform front. These unstable bullets tumbled erratically, but the aerodynamic shape changed little giving moderate accuracy."UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Sounds quite convincinig to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56_x_45_mm_NATOMajor_Spittle wrote:
GunSlinger,
Who filled you with this shit????:
"Something else about that standard Nato 5.56 x 45mm. They call it a tumbler round, as it leaves the barrel it spins top to bottom till it hits its target"
I don't even think ACME made one of these for Loony Tunes.
"The 5.56 × 45 mm NATO cartridge with the standard military ball bullet (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 inches (380 to 500 mm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), it will yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the groove around the cylinder of the bullet). The fragments disperse through the flesh causing much more internal injury. The effectiveness of fragmentation seems to impart much greater damage to tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest."
And from an article on spitzer bullets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet
"Once it leaves the barrel, it is governed by external ballistics. Here, the bullet's shape is important for aerodynamics, as is the rotational forces imparted by the rifling. With smooth-bore firearms, a spherical shape was optimum because no matter how it was oriented, it presented a uniform front. These unstable bullets tumbled erratically, but the aerodynamic shape changed little giving moderate accuracy. Generally, bullet shapes are a compromise between aerodynamics, interior ballistics necessities, and terminal ballistics requirements."
But guns are bad.
It is talking about shooting a ball out a smoothbore vs. a spitzer out of a rifle. ie. having a round long and narrow (less wind drag per weight) vs a round ball (more wind drag per weight). Why rifle rounds are able to be shaped the way they are and still be accurate. How could you have been in the military and think that a .223 round from a M16 tumbles as soon as it leaves the barrel???? Now drop and give me 20.
Last edited by Major_Spittle (2006-05-17 16:19:55)
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Sounds quite convincinig to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56_x_45_mm_NATOMajor_Spittle wrote:
GunSlinger,
Who filled you with this shit????:
"Something else about that standard Nato 5.56 x 45mm. They call it a tumbler round, as it leaves the barrel it spins top to bottom till it hits its target"
I don't even think ACME made one of these for Loony Tunes.
"The 5.56 × 45 mm NATO cartridge with the standard military ball bullet (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 inches (380 to 500 mm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), it will yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the groove around the cylinder of the bullet). The fragments disperse through the flesh causing much more internal injury. The effectiveness of fragmentation seems to impart much greater damage to tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest."
But guns are good.
Amen Brother I was a tank commander during the 91 Gulf War, I know first hand what we dished outsilentsin 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.
but they suckSpetz wrote:
russian migs out number american jets 6 to 1shamr0x wrote:
This thread does not take into consideration one very important factor....
Air superiority!
In all major recent wars, the US has had it so there is very little head-to-head of just tanks.
There is nothing more awesome than the A-10 flanked by a couple of Apaches supporting the M1A2s.
commercial airliners are everywhere but there's just so much ramming one can take
this thread is useless, weights, bore sizes etc can only hint at the overall effectiveness of a tank, lethality of a weapon is not determined solely by size, maneuverability is not dtermined solely by weight, range doesn't matter much when you own every square inch of land in your scope, and many of the "superiorities" referenced can be neutralized as a course of retro fitting, training is the single most important factor, and I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned that the abrams was designed to MOVE, the gun actually gets more accurate when the tank is traveling at speed
thats a bit wrong the m1a2 is good but in a tank on tank battle the challenger2 would win . thanks to it's 2 special ability's. 1) the chubbm Armour it is fitted with. in Iraq at the beginning in Basra a challenger lost its track then it was attacked by insurgents, for 12 hours it was pounder with rpg's a total of 19 times and hit with a anti tank missile 1 they recovered the crew and tank and it was operational the next day no lives were lost. i say this is impressive. (2) the tog or target optical gunnery system, it allows the commander to select a target the turret the automatically traverses and lays the gun on target so the gunner can shoot while he is doing this the commander searches for his next target when the first target is destroyed the gun automatically traverses on 2 the next designated target and the process starts again. this means that in the time it takes an enemy gunner to move the turret the challenger 2 has already acquired the target the gunner has probably fired and the next target has been selected.silentsin 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.
ooh yeah i almost forgot in the first gulf was the challenger 1 entered the record books by making the longest tank on tank kill ever recorded at a distance of 2.1 miles the shell was in the air for 3 seconds before destroying the enemy tank
The Abrams without a doubt, some good contenders are the Germand Leopard 2 and the British Challenger 2. I think Italy has a good tank too, I forget the name though.
The Abrams tank uses a similar ceramic armor just like the Challenger. In the Abrams there is also a layer of depleted uranium, a layer of kevlar, and a layer of steel. I'm not totally knowlegable on the Abrams target acqusition system, but they both sound extremely similar.scouseclarky wrote:
thats a bit wrong the m1a2 is good but in a tank on tank battle the challenger2 would win . thanks to it's 2 special ability's. 1) the chubbm Armour it is fitted with. in Iraq at the beginning in Basra a challenger lost its track then it was attacked by insurgents, for 12 hours it was pounder with rpg's a total of 19 times and hit with a anti tank missile 1 they recovered the crew and tank and it was operational the next day no lives were lost. i say this is impressive. (2) the tog or target optical gunnery system, it allows the commander to select a target the turret the automatically traverses and lays the gun on target so the gunner can shoot while he is doing this the commander searches for his next target when the first target is destroyed the gun automatically traverses on 2 the next designated target and the process starts again. this means that in the time it takes an enemy gunner to move the turret the challenger 2 has already acquired the target the gunner has probably fired and the next target has been selected.silentsin 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.
ooh yeah i almost forgot in the first gulf was the challenger 1 entered the record books by making the longest tank on tank kill ever recorded at a distance of 2.1 miles the shell was in the air for 3 seconds before destroying the enemy tank
FALSE!! Several US tankers have been killed during action in Iraq, or during training accidents. And also, Tom Clancy and 5 generals of diffrent countries have named the swedish version of the German Leopard II the most advanced and deadly tank in the world. It's called Stridsvagn 122, and has been battletested in Liberia/Monrovia during the UN occupation. The UN operation in Libera has been declared the most succesful UN operation EVER due to the fact that swedish special forces and Irish rangers are doing everything down there. 2500 UN soldiers have succesfully unarmed 60000-70000 rebels during a 3 year time span, much thanks to the Stridsvagn 122 and the swedish combat vehicle CV9050b. The 9050b was actually made for swedish winter combat, but has shown outstanding statistics in the jungle enviroment of Africa. The M1A2 is an outstanding tank, but it's not godlike, and remember that US tanks during the first and second Gulf war often fought old T-55s, not T-72 and T-80s. Also, the russians stripped all tanks of digital and electrical systems before selling them to Iraq. This includes laser sights and even simple things like radio, and the iraqis never replaced these. This was fatal to the Iraqi tank armed forces.TheMurf wrote:
Simple fact: Not a single M1A2 crewman has ever been killed or severely injured EVER. Few tanks have ever been disabled past the point where they can be salvaged, either. The M1A2 tank has also been declared the best tank in the world (by the american military). Also, the challenger is the "most armored tank in the world" while that may be true, it is not necessarily the most reliable tank, nor does it necessarily have the most range or piercing capability. The abrams is still an extremely effective tank, either way you look at it. As well, a lot of warfare comes down to training. I would bet on an american tank crew winning using an abrams against any other country's tank, just because they are so well trained. And again, the thing about never losing a crewman and only losing a tiny number of tanks to enemy fire truly says that the abrams is a fine tank, despite what much of this thread has said.