Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  Marc15yo [Admin] on Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:13 am

Ok, how many times have you seen this argument over and over again. The leopard 2a6 is the best bla bla bla the abrams is the best bla bla bla no the t-90 is the best or the leclerc, the list goes on. Some say it's a matter of nationality and opinion, some say it's about combat experience, some even say it's about seeing each of them go up against each other in a death match!

I decided to open this topic because it's an absolutely marvelous and intriguing subject. It's also a good way to learn new facts.


I'll start us off with an amazing video. this video will blow your mind away.




About Tanknutdave: Yes he is british but no he does not use his nationality as a determining those facts.
avatar
Marc15yo [Admin]
General of the Army [Administrator]
General of the Army [Administrator]

Posts : 3610
Join date : 2008-01-19
Age : 32
Location : United-States

View user profile http://taow.simulationboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  James100 on Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:20 am

Frankly, Mark There is no "Best Tank"
lol
I mean every tank is a champ in a way, The T-90 For Starters, It's Excellent On Off-Road Surfaces
The M1A2 Is A Nuthead To Break
Leclerc, Quite Speedy
The List Goes On
I'll Check the Vid And See What u Mean
avatar
James100
General [Moderator]
General [Moderator]

Posts : 1294
Join date : 2008-11-09
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  James100 on Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:28 am

What The Hell?!
In the vid it says the Challenger II Is The Fastest?
The Abrams Is 67km/h
While the Challenger II is 59km/h

The Abrams Outruns the Challenger Offroad, And On The Road Alike

The Leopard II Is The Fastest Of Em All

There's Other Wrong info In The Vid, But Overall Good

Though The Guy Who Made It Is Supporting A Lot Of the Challenger, The Abrams Has Tons Of Features He Didn't Mention, As Well As The Leopard.

Again Mark Read My Above Comment, The guy who made the vid must be British tongue
avatar
James100
General [Moderator]
General [Moderator]

Posts : 1294
Join date : 2008-11-09
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  Marc15yo [Admin] on Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:07 am

James, The best tank in the world must not be determined by one factor alone! then there would be at least 10 best tanks in the world. the best tank in the world must be WELL BALANCED in all the factors. The leopard 2a6's and m1a2's armor for example: extemely heavy, top of the line bulletproof. but if we take into account all the other factors like accuracy and agility, there may be some lack here and there. the Challenger 2 does above average on all major characteristics of the "Super Tank".

Yes he is british but i assure you his nationality was not a deciding factor. And i guarantee you he is a tank fanatic, and he did his research, and he knows what he's talking about. he has a whole website devoted to tanks! talk about tank freak.

Yeah i know, it shocked me too when he said the Challenger 2 was the best. But it really seemed to be true. the challenger II does have extreme characteristics. like the fact that it's cannon is one of the most accurate in the world. even though the round loses kinetic energy when fired because the cannon is rifled, It still increases the chances of a "First Hit" which is the most important shot when in a tank on tank situation.And firing range also increases thanks to it's rifled cannon of course.

the challenger II has proven itself in real battles in iraq and has one of the highest scores when it comes to Tank on Tank battle situations. Think about it. Basketball

i myself are not educated enough on this subject, i'm not patriot either, so when it comes to deciding the best tank, i usually try to stay out of it. as much as i love tanks deciding which tank is the best is usually none of my business. i opened this topic because i know it's a "HOT" Topic cherry and is definitely something that needs to be taken into consideration.
avatar
Marc15yo [Admin]
General of the Army [Administrator]
General of the Army [Administrator]

Posts : 3610
Join date : 2008-01-19
Age : 32
Location : United-States

View user profile http://taow.simulationboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  James100 on Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:56 pm

True, Balanced, Sure
But I Meant In Usual Cases
avatar
James100
General [Moderator]
General [Moderator]

Posts : 1294
Join date : 2008-11-09
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  Snake on Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:10 pm

Ah, the classic question

First of all, note that due to human nature, we are biased towards a certain vehicle even if subconsciously (without us consciously knowing or wanting to). On the other hand, one can know more about a certain vehicle's special abilities to it's fullest and not about the "other vehicle", so a perfectly unbiased comparison is impossible from a human standpoint.

Here's a small example of the comment posted by that video creator (TankNutDave) on another similar video:

TankNutDave wrote:beats the Leopard 2 any day of the week

That phrase in itself is rather clear, I'll leave further consideration to your judgment...

That being said, no matter how much we try we can try to be consciously neutral/impartial towards analyzing and comparing a certain tank when in reality we are favoring a certain vehicle (because we know more about it, because we "prefer it", because it was "nationally built", because we worked alongside it, etc).

There is far too much criteria for determining the "best tank in the world", and although that Youtube video haves a great analysis of the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard, it actually only presents a very small portion of data, there are many additional things to mention (specially about the Abrams and Leopard) and haves certain debatable claims.


First off, here is my analysis of the points that video makes:

  1. Firepower
    Youtube Video wrote:The Challenger 2's main gun is rifled, which a small amount of energy escapes through, however the rifling imparts a spin stabilizing the rounds flight increasing range & accuracy over the Leopard 2 & M1-A1/A2 smoothbore main guns.

    This is extremely debatable, the Smoothbore vs Rifled debate is much older than tanks themselves. "Increasing range & accuracy over the Leopard 2 & M1-A1/A2 smoothbore main guns", not at all. To quote Wikipedia on this subject:

    The cannon, in the form of the tank gun, has made the transition from smoothbore to rifled and is moving back to smoothbore. To reliably penetrate the thick armor of modern armored vehicles, a very long, thin kinetic-energy projectile is required. The longer the projectile is in relation to its diameter, the higher the spin rate must be to provide stability. Practical rifling can only stabilize projectiles of a limited length-to-diameter ratio, and these modern rounds are just too long. These rounds are instead formed into a dart shape, using fins for stabilization (see kinetic energy penetrator for information on how this works). With the fins for stability, rifling is no longer needed and in fact the spin imparted by rifling would degrade the accuracy of a finned projectile. The first tank with a smoothbore gun was the Soviet T-62, introduced into service in 1961, and today all main battle tanks except for the British Challenger 2 & Indian Arjun MBT support smoothbores.

    The Rheinmetall 120mm gun was an upgrade over older designs for various reasons:

    - First: The size and capability of the rounds (not to mention the fact smoothbores can fire a much wider array of rounds than rifled guns);

    -Second: The fact that the various rounds are self stabilizing, and also the fact that the smoothbore guns are easier to clean and maintain in a combat situation (logistical concerns).

    -Third: As for the accuracy, the Leopard and M1 series use advanced electronic Fire Control Systems (FCS), laser rangefinders, crosswind sensors and gyroscopes.

    The system automatically takes into account distance to target, crosswind, type of round being fired, speed of our vehicle and enemy targets and turret movement (so it can maintain maximum accuracy on moving targets, target speeds are also calculated so gunners have the best firing solution).
    The gyroscope's purpose is to keep the gun level on target while moving over rough terrain, thus allowing the tank to "fire on the move" even on the most difficult terrains.

    The fact is that there's simply no need for rifling when the projectile stabilizes itself (not to mention the FCS and electronic systems which rapidly determine the best firing solution so the round is extremely precise, ensuring a very high hit probability under most typical circumstances).

    This pretty much means that no, the Challenger 2's main rifled gun does not necessarily have higher accuracy over the Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks which utilize smoothbore main guns.

    Youtube Video wrote:Rifling gives the Challenger 2 the bonus of firing HESH. It can outrange with more lethality any non-rocket assisted round fired by Leopard 2 & the M1-A1/A2. It's detonation sends a shockwave through the armour blowing off a section of inner wall killing the crew and cooking off ammo guaranteeing....
    As well as blowing off the tracks, FCS sensors, sights and communications rendering the enemy tank useless.

    No, it definitely doesn't outrange the latest conventional Leopard/Abrams rounds:

    The HESH L31 projectiles are far slower than the Leopard and Abram's projectiles, the HESH's maximum range is 2,530m and it haves a muzzle velocity of 670 m/s.

    The muzzle velocity of the L/44 (as used on the Abrams and previous Leopards) is far higher, having a velocity of 1,580 meters per second (5,200 ft/s) and a conventionally effective range of 4,000 meters (4,400 yd) when using DM63 rounds.

    When the Leopard uses the Israeli LAHAT (Laser Homing Attack / Laser Homing Anti-Tank) munitions then it haves the extremely impressive range of 8,000 meters (8,700 yd) which is far superior than conventional munitions.

    In fact, there's currently a program called "Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme" in which the current L30A1 rifled guns of the Challenger 2 will be replaced by the new L/55 smoothbore guns which are the standard on the Leopard 2A6.

    The Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme is a programme to replace the current L30A1 rifled gun with the 120mm Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore gun currently used in the Leopard 2A6. The use of a smoothbore weapon allows Challenger 2 to use NATO standard ammunition developed in Germany and the US. This includes more lethal tungsten-based kinetic energy penetrators, which do not have the same political and environmental objections as Depleted Uranium rounds. The production lines for rifled 120mm ammunition in the UK have been closed for some years, so existing stocks of ammunition for the L30A1 are finite.

    A single Challenger 2 was fitted with the L55 and underwent trials in January 2006. The smoothbore gun is the same length as the L30A1, and is fitted with the rifled gun's cradle, thermal sleeve, bore evacuator and muzzle reference system. Early trials apparently revealed that the German tungsten DM53 round was more effective than the Depleted Uranium CHARM 3. The ammunition storage and handling arrangements will need to be changed to cater for the single-piece smoothbore rounds, instead of the separate-loading rifled rounds. In 2006, a figure of £386 million was estimated to fit all Challengers in the British Army with the Rheinmetall gun.

  2. Mobility
    Youtube Video wrote:The Challenger 2 however is the fastest (as well as the Leclerc) off road tank due to it's hydropneumatic suspension. It's nitrogen springing medium is approximately six times more flexible than conventional steel providing a far superior comfortable ride and stable platform giving the Challenger 2 a higher 1st hit ratio for whilst firing on the move.

    The Abrams is faster than the Challenger 2 in both Road and Off-Road Conditions, the Leopard is faster than both the Abrams and Challenger tanks:

    - Challenger 2:
    Conventional Road Speed - 59 km/h (37 mph)
    Off-Road speed (mean cross country) - 40 km/h (25 mph)

    - Abrams:
    Conventional Road Speed - 67.7 km/h (42 mph)
    Off-Road speed (mean cross country) - 48.3 km/h (30 mph)

    - Leopard 2:
    Conventional Road Speed - 72 km/h (45 mph)
    Off-Road speed (mean cross country) - of 50 km/h (31 mph)




    As for the stable platform, as stated above the FCS and electronics on the Leopard/Abrams automatically take account of the changes in terrain and will automatically adjust the main gun elevation so it can normally engage the enemy on the move and on rough terrain.

    As for the "far superior comfortable ride", it is a subjective matter, that expression nearly implies the Leopard and Abrams shake and are uncomfortable which is not the case as far as the crews are concerned.

    In addition the hydropneumatic suspension system is more complex and is more expensive (and more expensive to replace/repair) than the more traditional torsion bar suspension of the Leopard and Abrams which is more economical and more resistant.


Continues on the next post (this one was too big):


Last edited by Snake on Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:40 am; edited 3 times in total
avatar
Snake
General of the Army [Administrator]
General of the Army [Administrator]

Posts : 5707
Join date : 2008-02-11
Location : Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  Snake on Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:02 am

Continuation (last post was too big):

  1. Armoured Protection

    Youtube Video wrote:Sadly the M1-A1/A2 have lost crewmen to IED's.... The Danish Leopard 2 A5DK which is a Leopard 2 A6 without the L55 main gun has also lost a driver to an IED.
    On April 6, 2007 - A Challenger 2 of the 2RTR hit and IED, the driver Steve Shine lost part of his leg and is still serving.
    August 2006 - the driver of a Challenger 2, Trooper Sean Chase, lost three of his toes when an RPG-29 penetrated a non protected area... the same weapon has penetrated the Merkava Mk4 5 times with the sad loss of 10 crewman
    The Challenger 2 is the only tank not to have lost a single crewman and it's armour, Chobham Mk2, AKA Dorchester is still to be defeated.


Actually I'm afraid there's more to it and in fact, and unfortunately the Challenger 2 had crew casualties (let's not turn this into a Youtube-like "bodycount contest" please, as this is a civilized discussion):

  • A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident on 25 March 2003 in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL Tank sending hot fragments into the turret that caused an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank and killing two crew members. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be completely destroyed on operations.

  • As for the RPG-29 incident, the tank was not merely hit on a "non protected area" as the video creator said, it actually took a direct frontal hit (aka, the tank's strongest armor point):

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic


    Report by Daily Telegraph Defense Correspondent Sean Rayment:
    "MOD Kept Failure of Best Tank Quiet" Sunday Telegraph 13 May 2007

    One of the British Army's Challenger 2 tanks was pierced by an Iraqi insurgent missile more than eight months earlier than the Government has previously admitted.

    The Ministry of Defence had claimed that an attack last month that breached a tank's armour was the first of its kind in four years of war in Iraq. But another Challenger 2 was pierced by a powerful rocket-propelled grenade in August last year during an attack that blew off part of a soldier's foot and injured several others.

    The injured soldier's family has accused the Government of a cover-up and demanded to know why soldiers manning Challenger 2 tanks had not been warned of the failings with the tank's armour.

    Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said he would challenge the government on why the Ministry of Defence (MOD) had apparently misled the public over the timing of the first incident in which the hugely robust defences of the Challenger had been breached.

    He said: "Obviously, no armour is indestructible and there is no doubt that the insurgents have increasingly sophisticated technology but it is important in maintaining public confidence that the MOD and the Government tell the truth to the British public."

    The Challenger 2 is reputed to be one of the most sophisticated tanks in the world and those used in Iraq by the British Army are built with Dorchester armour, the composition of which is top secret. The tank is also fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA) at its front that should deflect any weapon fired at its hull.

    The MOD has finally confirmed that the tank's armour was breached last August and has said that an investigation was conducted to discover why the ERA appears to have failed. However, the department refused to comment on its findings, citing security reasons.

    In the August attack, which occurred during an operation to arrest a leading insurgent in the town of al-Amarah, in southern Iraq, the Challenger was damaged when a Russian-made rocket-propelled grenade, known as an RPG-29, defeated the ERA and penetrated the driver's cabin.

    The RPG-29 is a much more powerful weapon than the common type regularly used by insurgents to attack British troops. It is specifically designed to penetrate tank armour, although this is the first occasion on which it has managed to damage a Challenger.

    During the attack Trooper Sean Chance, a 20-year-old serving with the Queen's Royal Hussars, lost half of his left foot; two other crew members were injured.

    The unit's commander described the moment the tank was hit by the missile in a letter he wrote to the wounded soldier in March. The officer wrote: "I recall seeing it (the RPG-29 being fired) and thinking, 'Oh Christ, that's bad.'

    "As it slammed into the hull, I was picked up by the shock wave of the blast and thrown against the back wall of the turret. The explosion singed my eyebrows and burnt my face slightly. The tank was full of acrid smoke and fumes. I became aware of you screaming, 'I'm hit, I'm hit. My foot's off.'

    "Daz (another crew member) and I looked at each other in slight disbelief - after all, what could possibly breach a CR2's (Challenger's) armour?"

    Tpr Chance's mother Kay, 49, from Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, said her son had been told that the Challenger was the best in the world and essentially impenetrable to any weapons the insurgents possessed.

    She said: "Sean often told me he felt totally safe because he was in the best tank in the world. But we now know that is not the case. The Government has covered it up.

    "If I was the mother of the poor soldier who lost his legs last month I would be horrified to think that an earlier attack like this had happened before but none of the soldiers were told about it."

    His brother Luke said that Tpr Chance had been "abandoned" by the Army following his injury. He said: "Sean has been forgotten about. He hasn't received his Iraq medal. He's been told he is going to be medically discharged because of his injury but no one has told him when and what sort of pension he might get. It's a disgrace."

    A spokesman for the MOD said: "We have never claimed that the Challenger 2 is impenetrable. There is no question of a cover-up. Any suggestion that this was the first successful attack against a Challenger 2 tank was given in good faith based on the information available at the time.

    "We would like to reassure the family that lessons were learnt from the incident last August and measures were taken to enhance the protection of our personnel."

    On April 6, a Challenger was damaged by a roadside bomb in Basra. In that attack a soldier lost both his legs. Details of the incident were not made public until April 23, when

    the MOD claimed: "This was the first successful attack on a Challenger 2. It's the first bomb to have damaged it.

  • As for the IED accident in 2007, I'm afraid it essentially means that not even the most well armored tanks are safe from IED's (but fortunately there were no casualties):

    Challenger 2 tank hit in roadside blast

    By Martin Beckford

    23/04/2007

    A heavily armoured British tank has been badly damaged for the first time ever by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

    The Challenger 2, a 62-ton vehicle which is probably the best-protected tank in the world, was hit by the device during a routine patrol in Basra. Its driver is thought to have lost both legs during the attack and has been flown back to Britain for medical treatment, while another member of the crew suffered minor injuries.

    The attack on the tank was followed by the death of another British soldier today in Basra. The soldier from the 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment was killed by small arms fire while providing top cover protection for a Warrior armoured vehicle on a routine patrol in the Al Ashar district of central Basra.

    The Challenger 2 was on patrol in the Hyall Shuala area of western Basra when it was struck by the roadside bomb on April 6, the day after four British soldiers were killed when their Warrior armoured vehicle was blown up.

    It was damaged by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) laid by insurgents, leaving its driver critically wounded and causing minor injuries to another member of the crew.

    A Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed last night: "This was the first successful attack on a Challenger 2, it's the first bomb to have damaged it."

    A soldier was very seriously injured. He has been returned to the UK and is receiving treatment. We won?t comment on his injuries.

    Of the other three crew, one received minor injuries."

    But the MoD denied the tank had been destroyed and insisted it would return to service. The spokesman said: "The vehicle wasn't destroyed. It is being repaired."

    He also denied that the Challenger 2, the British Army's main battle tank, had been damaged by a new type of "shaped charge" IED, which concentrates the force of an explosion.

    The spokesman said: "It is not some sort of escalation. We would dispute the fact that it's a new bomb."

    "It was an improved explosive device and the technology is at least 50 or 60 years old." He added: "No one has ever said the Challenger 2 tank is inpenetrable. We've been at pains to point out a big enough bomb will take out any vehicle. A big enough bomb will go through any armour."

    But Professor Michael Clarke, of the Defence Studies department at King's College London, claimed the damage to the Challenger 2 was "worrying" as its armour is usually "inviolable".

    He said: "Most of the things on a battlefield are not much of a threat to a tank, usually.

    This is worrying, because if there are many of these sorts of very heavy penetrative IEDs around in the area then no vehicle is safe."

    In 2003, two British soldiers in a Challenger 2 were killed in a "friendly fire" incident when their vehicle was hit by shells from another one of the tanks.

    An investigation by the Army Prosecuting Authority later ruled that no one acted negligently during the incident in Iraq, which left Corporal Stephen Allbutt and Trooper David Clarke of The Queen's Royal Lancers dead as well as severely injuring two other soldiers.

    telegraph.co.uk



As for the mentioned Danish Leopard 2 A5 IED incident, other Leopards have been involved in serious IED's incidents before and the crew got out of the situation unscathed and the tanks were repaired and back in service.

Using that single casualty incident to say the Leopard 2 armor is inferior to the Challenger 2's is not a reliable example to say the least (in fact, it's like saying the Leopard tank itself is inferior because of a single, isolated incident), specially since the Leopard's armor itself protected the Danish soldier from instant death, but he unfortunately died from the wounds, just as the British soldiers (which were critically wounded during the IED accidents) could have died, in fact, it could have been a Challenger 2 being hit by the IED during that Leopard accident, it's all a matter of random war probability and such isolated incidents could hardly prove the ineffectiveness of the whole armor system let alone serve as a main example in such comparisons.

  • In an assault on November 2, 2007, a Leo 2A6M hit an IED and survived without casualties: “My crew stumbled upon an IED (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6) M-packet. It worked as it should.” wrote a Canadian officer in an email to German defence officials. Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier denied reports that a Leopard II tank that was struck by an IED was a write-off, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use. “The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard II tanks in several ambushes” and that as a result the Taliban “learned some very harsh lessons” and lost the battle in question “very quickly and very violently.”

  • In October 2007, Denmark also deployed its Leopard 2A5 DKs in support of operations in southern Afghanistan. The Danish tank unit, drawn from the first battalion of the Jydske Dragonregiment (Jutland Dragoons Regiment), was equipped with three tanks and one M113 armoured personnel carrier, with an armoured recovery vehicle and another tank kept in reserve. The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 is fitted with Swedish-made Barracuda camouflage mats, that serve to limit the absorption of solar heat, thus reducing infrared signature and interior temperature. It also has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, whereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been replaced by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" , which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. In this way, the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs.

  • In January 2008, Danish tanks halted a flanking maneuver by Taliban forces near the Helmand River by providing gunfire in support of Danish and British infantry from elevated positions. On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs. The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand Province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. Despite being treated on site by Danish army medics, he died. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded. Beginning on December 7, 2008, Leopard 2 tanks took part in Operation Red Dagger, firing 31 rounds in support of Coalition troops as they recaptured Nad Ali District. A press release from the British ministry of defence claimed the tanks were a decisive factor in the Coalitions success, and praised the accuracy of their fire and their mobility.





As you see, determining the "best tank" is much more complicated than it is popularly thought.

The Challenger 2 is undoubtedly one of the best and finest tanks in the world, but the fact is that there's no "best tank", there's no "invincible tank", if one claims one vehicle to be the "best tank", then he is mistaken because there are far too many debatable factors.

Even if a new tank turned up with an "invincible armor" for it's specific time period, it would be only a matter of time until new weapons could destroy it (be it missiles, rockets or IED's), this is a phenomenon which has happened ever since the prelude of war: new weapons turn up (some of which revolutionary) but they'll be eventually replaced and considered "outdated", given the appropriate time.

_________________
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." -- George Patton
avatar
Snake
General of the Army [Administrator]
General of the Army [Administrator]

Posts : 5707
Join date : 2008-02-11
Location : Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  James100 on Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:24 am

*cough* Don't Say I Didn't Told You So Laughing

Leave It To Snake To Go To Every Detail Thumbs Up!
avatar
James100
General [Moderator]
General [Moderator]

Posts : 1294
Join date : 2008-11-09
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  Marc15yo [Admin] on Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:57 am

Wow snake. You know how to Prove a point. That guy on youtube almost made it believable. i was also surprised when he said the challenger 2 was the best.

Ok so obviously having a rifled cannon dosn't mean squat if you can have a self-stabilizing round. this makes the challenger's cannon being so amazing a lie.

Alright i have to admit, i started reading more of his comments on youtube, this guy is pretty *patriotic* if you know what i mean Suspect

Damn, i wish i could take my damn comment back silent



The Challenger 2 honestly now seems like an 'over-advertised' military product. it's obviously not the best. it's obviously has got nothing special about it, but the MOD, and a lot of people in general, think their tank is indestructible! I mean ok, the challenger 2 has got some tough armor, but nothing to brag about.

Now i knew the Leopard 2a6's armor was a lot tougher than the challenger 2's, i knew the cannons were a lot more lethal, but i thought from watching this vid, that the ch2's range, and accuracy would have been increased (which is obviously not the case). So given all the facts, the CH2 doesn't even have a balanced 'score'.


Ok this whole thing with the MOD covering up those incidents is outrageous. It's like they want to make themselves and others believe their military is perfect. I've been hearing comments around the net of people saying how the british government isn't really taking into the best interest of their troops. Something about how the goverment seems to be letting the troops down a lot. I'm not sure, and i wouldn't really know cuz i don't usually keep up with british news tongue

Ok I know what you mean, by no best tank in the world and all but, we need to keep this topic alive! I say the Leclec is more fitted for future tank on tank battles than the Abrams. try n prove me wrong geek



*cough* Don't Say I Didn't Told You So Laughing

Leave It To Snake To Go To Every Detail Thumbs Up!


I opened the topic cuz i noticed nobody brought it up. i thought it would bring some cool ideas to the table. I wanna keep this conversation going, too bad SNAKE had to come in and ruin it for everyone because of his superior knowledge on military technology
lol!

Well keep going guys, if we can't prove there is a best tank in the world, let's just use this thread to compare/share information and specs on different modern tanks.
avatar
Marc15yo [Admin]
General of the Army [Administrator]
General of the Army [Administrator]

Posts : 3610
Join date : 2008-01-19
Age : 32
Location : United-States

View user profile http://taow.simulationboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  James100 on Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:54 am

Loool Snake's an AYE! In Mil lol

Well He Can Tell You And Tell You Detail By Detail, Other Can Tell You But Dunno To Explain (Like Meh tongue
avatar
James100
General [Moderator]
General [Moderator]

Posts : 1294
Join date : 2008-11-09
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Best tank in the world (u heard me!)

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum