Mine too. I sign every one i give IF i give any Neg Karma. Cant say the same about the rest. the Karma system should require a name, so it can then be taken to PM.Bubbalo wrote:
Well that's funny, 'cos half of my karma's are riddled with insults
hay guys, been doing some evaluation on the subject with a bit of research.
I gotta say there not alot in difference between the M1A2s and a Challanger 2e, Both use the same main gun 120mm smoothebore (i know not all the challanger2s have them yet infact 385 dont as its a new upgrade as of feb 2006). Both use a disel engine althou both are now under further development, the british are staying with a disel but smaller so that the tank can go up to 550km and the american are going for an enhanced gas turbine, although what i do like about the M1A2 is although its a disel engine pack it will run on pritty much anything, petrol, disel, gas although only for small periods.
Smoke discharges and genorators are the same or same methods. Armour is different on an M1A2 DU or deplitated uranium, well as a chally2 uses the secret chobbanam, but again both countries are going for highly developed newer versions, to combat the latest thermo barak weapons etc.(i swear tho that the M1A2 is using chobb armour as they were in iraq!!!) gearing and drive arent too different, and the comms, weapon firing systems, nbc etc the teeth of the tank are pritty much the same as well. But they have to be because of how closely the british and american militaries work, intergrateable comms systems etc. There just called different things such as the british package for command and control of the tank inc comms is bowman, raytheon for the M1A2s. As for the accuracy of the main guns etc "well" (there the same type).
Also other self protection such as the mounted machine guns, similar, except the M1A2 can have two mounted on top of the turret and the challi 2s is being remoted, so thats 1 but can be fired and aimed from within the tank, part of the new air/missile deffence system being intergrated into the challi 2e shouldn't think the M1A2 is going to be far behind.
Just thought id add my two cents in, ps also the new leopard 2a6 has the same 120mm smooth bore gun. altho the armour, gearing and engine packs are very different aswell as the command and control aspect.
PPs
I'm not arguing with anybody, they are both two very awesome pieces of equipment. if your going to neg me leave your details and a decent excuse, but i'm one for learning from mistakes and debating so correct me if im wrong.
I gotta say there not alot in difference between the M1A2s and a Challanger 2e, Both use the same main gun 120mm smoothebore (i know not all the challanger2s have them yet infact 385 dont as its a new upgrade as of feb 2006). Both use a disel engine althou both are now under further development, the british are staying with a disel but smaller so that the tank can go up to 550km and the american are going for an enhanced gas turbine, although what i do like about the M1A2 is although its a disel engine pack it will run on pritty much anything, petrol, disel, gas although only for small periods.
Smoke discharges and genorators are the same or same methods. Armour is different on an M1A2 DU or deplitated uranium, well as a chally2 uses the secret chobbanam, but again both countries are going for highly developed newer versions, to combat the latest thermo barak weapons etc.(i swear tho that the M1A2 is using chobb armour as they were in iraq!!!) gearing and drive arent too different, and the comms, weapon firing systems, nbc etc the teeth of the tank are pritty much the same as well. But they have to be because of how closely the british and american militaries work, intergrateable comms systems etc. There just called different things such as the british package for command and control of the tank inc comms is bowman, raytheon for the M1A2s. As for the accuracy of the main guns etc "well" (there the same type).
Also other self protection such as the mounted machine guns, similar, except the M1A2 can have two mounted on top of the turret and the challi 2s is being remoted, so thats 1 but can be fired and aimed from within the tank, part of the new air/missile deffence system being intergrated into the challi 2e shouldn't think the M1A2 is going to be far behind.
Just thought id add my two cents in, ps also the new leopard 2a6 has the same 120mm smooth bore gun. altho the armour, gearing and engine packs are very different aswell as the command and control aspect.
PPs
I'm not arguing with anybody, they are both two very awesome pieces of equipment. if your going to neg me leave your details and a decent excuse, but i'm one for learning from mistakes and debating so correct me if im wrong.
For get the range rover you need to use one of these.
Bowler Wildcat
Bowler Wildcat
Having the 2 use almost the same equipment does help when parts are needed by both sides.whilsky wrote:
hay guys, been doing some evaluation on the subject with a bit of research.
I gotta say there not alot in difference between the M1A2s and a Challanger 2e, Both use the same main gun 120mm smoothebore (i know not all the challanger2s have them yet infact 385 dont as its a new upgrade as of feb 2006). Both use a disel engine althou both are now under further development, the british are staying with a disel but smaller so that the tank can go up to 550km and the american are going for an enhanced gas turbine, although what i do like about the M1A2 is although its a disel engine pack it will run on pritty much anything, petrol, disel, gas although only for small periods.
Smoke discharges and genorators are the same or same methods. Armour is different on an M1A2 DU or deplitated uranium, well as a chally2 uses the secret chobbanam, but again both countries are going for highly developed newer versions, to combat the latest thermo barak weapons etc.(i swear tho that the M1A2 is using chobb armour as they were in iraq!!!) gearing and drive arent too different, and the comms, weapon firing systems, nbc etc the teeth of the tank are pritty much the same as well. But they have to be because of how closely the british and american militaries work, intergrateable comms systems etc. There just called different things such as the british package for command and control of the tank inc comms is bowman, raytheon for the M1A2s. As for the accuracy of the main guns etc "well" (there the same type).
Also other self protection such as the mounted machine guns, similar, except the M1A2 can have two mounted on top of the turret and the challi 2s is being remoted, so thats 1 but can be fired and aimed from within the tank, part of the new air/missile deffence system being intergrated into the challi 2e shouldn't think the M1A2 is going to be far behind.
Just thought id add my two cents in, ps also the new leopard 2a6 has the same 120mm smooth bore gun. altho the armour, gearing and engine packs are very different aswell as the command and control aspect.
PPs
I'm not arguing with anybody, they are both two very awesome pieces of equipment. if your going to neg me leave your details and a decent excuse, but i'm one for learning from mistakes and debating so correct me if im wrong.
I was of the opinion the Abrams uses a gas turbine to burn fuel ( preferably jet fuel, but it will run on basically any liquid that can be burned ), while the challenges has a classical diesel engine...or am I mistaken ?
doubt its that actor... but it could be the guy they call "it" who listens to classical music while driving high speed
hey dude i didnt say it broke down....i said they smashed the 2 windows for the tank so see.....so the reversed it into a hole and just sat there and not risk going out of the tank.....the tank was fine and has a broken lense and a scratched paint work.....so not it didnt break down!<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
An abrams doesnt break down LOL And it doesnt get close enough to get shot and destroyed. The C2 might be the only tank that could take an Abrams, but Unless it was stolen, you wont ever see it in a war against one. BTW, Have a retired Bud in Manchester who use to drive tanks, he syas the C2 isnt without its many faults. He also said the C1 was so riddled with problems(and so heavy) it wasnt even Battle worthy in HIS opinion. I dont know, because ive never seen one up close, But he sure has.elite wrote:
its armour and speed..and its accurate shot....i was just watching a programme on tanks like an hour ago....and it says the challenger 2 is the best in the world.
it was saying a story in iraq...the tank went in alone and got ambushed and hit its 2 window sites, and it sat in a hole for 10 hours blind...and they shot rockets for 10 hours straight and AT missiles and all the crew heard was small thuds, when they got back the tank was hardly damaged....now u tell me when a abrams has survived such attacks...and i saw a few abrams tanks being destroyed by one!!! rocket...enough said..
yeah it was the periscopes that got busted, does the C2 use direct sight or a camera system for it's drivers like the Abrams?
I think the point of that program was that the C2 was the best 'main battle tank', not sure if this changes the argument much, but if the Abram doesn't come under this classifcation then I guess it would, lots of people said they are two different types...
lol neg karma 'no your retarded the abrams is better '
Didn't think I could be much more unoffensive with that post but you can always be proved wrong, btw mate, it's 'You're retarded, the abrams is better', its less ironic that way.
lol neg karma 'no your retarded the abrams is better '
Didn't think I could be much more unoffensive with that post but you can always be proved wrong, btw mate, it's 'You're retarded, the abrams is better', its less ironic that way.
Last edited by c0rce (2006-07-04 08:58:03)
the abrams is better.......but not by much........but better
the challenger 2 has 2 sights....ne for the driver and one for the commander....the driver fires at one target while the commander finds another target.in basra a few tanks took out 14 tanks in 40 seconds i think, because of its 2 periscopes...
Saw that one to, with swedish conscripts driving!RDMC(2) wrote:
Lol, I once watched a show about tanks, and I said that the Leopard II was the best in the wordl
My last girlfriend was a shooter on a Leopard II during her service!
Last edited by Mackaronen (2006-07-04 11:57:58)
All modern tanks have a sight that the commander can use to see what the gunner sees, also they all can override the gunner's controls. What do you think that the M1A2 uses rail sights for its gunner? infact in the event that the gunner's periscope is disabled he can still aim the weapon with rail sights and quite accurately at that.elite wrote:
the challenger 2 has 2 sights....ne for the driver and one for the commander....the driver fires at one target while the commander finds another target.in basra a few tanks took out 14 tanks in 40 seconds i think, because of its 2 periscopes...
I get the feeling that if half of us took that advice, you'd need to quite your day job..................B.Schuss wrote:
well, mods and admins cannot act on themselves. I am certainly not browsing through 18,000+ karma pages to find karma abusers.
But whenever a possible karma abuse is reported, we get to the bottom of it, that's for sure. So if you feel you are a victim of karma abuse, send us a PM and we will check it out.
excessive insults, personal attacks, threats and racist remarks in karma comments should always be reported. The general forum rules also apply to karma comments.
Plus, it really doesn't bother me that much.
I get loads of nasty/racist karmas, and one positive racist karma which I'd rather not have, but it don't really bother me, if I ever say anything about it it's usually just to let someone that negged me anonymously that I know who did it, or to let whoever negged me that I'm glad I pissed them off