armyreal.com - Forums

Go Back   ArmyReal.com Forums > Military Discussions > Military Hardware, Gear and Technology
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #21  
Old 06-24-2005, 07:24 AM
js_mac's Avatar
js_mac js_mac is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 694
Default

Hmmm, you seem to be quite certain again.....and now you use the "elite" republican guard as "proof".....what was the challenge in wiping them out? You had the superior HW and manpower.....I just have to quote torspo[fin] from the other thread:

Quote:
"oh.. looky.. there goes anotherone... Pete! could you press the trigger.. my coffee is getting cold"

Heck...even the french could have wiped them out.....


Eh, yeah, I'm certain because I know what I'm talking about. You want to me argue with me again, like you did in the discrimination thread? You fared well in that didn't you?
The republican guard is proof, as they were the only armoured units that posed any threat, and, seeing as you all seem to think the americans have the best tanks, the fact that the british desert rats were used to wipe them out (losing no tanks in the process, i add) proves my point.
You see, it isn't just how good the tank is - it's how good the crew are... an iraqi tank could most likely take out a challenger 2 or abrams if it managed to get up behind it

Your anti-french comments show your lack of knowledge and how you base your admittedly **** knowledge on stereotypes and your own opinions. The french, in fact, are a pretty formidable fighting force. The top 4 most powerful militaries (in order) are the american, russian, british, then french.

but to the matter at hand... m1-Abrams with the latest gear/upgrades is obviosly the best

Why do you think this? Do you even know what the challenger 2 is? No, you don't... you are just (like every other moron on this planet) falling for the american bull**** media praising every aspect of their military.
Reply With Quote

  #22  
Old 06-24-2005, 07:42 AM
torspo[fin]'s Avatar
torspo[fin] torspo[fin] is offline
Brigadier General
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by js_mac

but to the matter at hand... m1-Abrams with the latest gear/upgrades is obviosly the best

Why do you think this? Do you even know what the challenger 2 is? No, you don't... you are just (like every other moron on this planet) falling for the american bull**** media praising every aspect of their military.
i know what Challenger 2 is... its fine modern British tank with ultramodern qualitys and equipment.. and yes.. its good. bit slow tough.

you should know that im not praising every aspect of U.S military...
this is a thread about tanks... and the tank i see is M1-abrams.
its my opinion and you have yours.

in theoretical battle between modern Abrams and challenger 2 i'd say the abrams
would win... IF equiped with DU rounds and armor.. otherwise the table would turn
for the Challenger 2. (im not including the trainning of the crew to this because the equipment is the main point in this thread.)
Reply With Quote

  #23  
Old 06-24-2005, 11:08 PM
andoman_42 andoman_42 is offline
Staff Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Espoo, Finland
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by js_mac

Your anti-french comments show your lack of knowledge and how you base your admittedly **** knowledge on stereotypes and your own opinions. The french, in fact, are a pretty formidable fighting force. The top 4 most powerful militaries (in order) are the american, russian, british, then french.
I have to apologize for writing it a bit unclear. I just took the french as one example. My point was that any army with such a destinct advantage in superior HW would have wiped out the elite republican guard. I ment no disrespect towards the french army.
Reply With Quote

  #24  
Old 06-25-2005, 06:39 PM
sealteam6 sealteam6 is offline
Staff Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 120
Default

Russia ha! thats a laugh they may be good, but britain is way better than them, simply because russia has not had enough funding ever since they stopped being communist
Reply With Quote

  #25  
Old 06-25-2005, 06:42 PM
sealteam6 sealteam6 is offline
Staff Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torspo[fin]
i know what Challenger 2 is... its fine modern British tank with ultramodern qualitys and equipment.. and yes.. its good. bit slow tough.

you should know that im not praising every aspect of U.S military...
this is a thread about tanks... and the tank i see is M1-abrams.
its my opinion and you have yours.

in theoretical battle between modern Abrams and challenger 2 i'd say the abrams
would win... IF equiped with DU rounds and armor.. otherwise the table would turn
for the Challenger 2. (im not including the trainning of the crew to this because the equipment is the main point in this thread.)

theoretically I think an Abrams would win but not without being basly damaged itself, but historically Britain has had better training for its crews so...
Reply With Quote

  #26  
Old 07-18-2005, 07:14 AM
farman19840124 farman19840124 is offline
Recruit
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
Talking

make you **** tool strongly and he will kill anyone if like
he will be the most horribleful killer in the world!
Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old 07-27-2005, 12:19 PM
royal marine's Avatar
royal marine royal marine is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: high wycombe, buckingamshire
Posts: 1,000
Send a message via MSN to royal marine
Default

since when have russia been so good
Reply With Quote

  #28  
Old 07-30-2005, 07:45 PM
sealteam6 sealteam6 is offline
Staff Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 120
Default

They were ok tankwise in WW2 and they have haid some powerful tanks since, their tanks have always had the distinction of being the most heavily armed (Guiness World Records)
__________________
Peace is our profession
Bombing is only a hobby
Reply With Quote

  #29  
Old 07-31-2005, 06:52 PM
BeaufordBuddy BeaufordBuddy is offline
Private First Class
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Baghdad, Iraq
Posts: 24
Send a message via AIM to BeaufordBuddy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sealteam6
yeah the challenger is one mean tank, but did you know that the M1A1 abrams used by the U.S. is plated in Uranium 238, making it the best armored tank. I got the impression that that metal was used in nukes...
Which is why you don't want to be next to one while that sucker is burning.
Reply With Quote

  #30  
Old 08-04-2005, 07:11 AM
Balic Balic is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7
Default

Challenger 2.......some of its components are out performed by other tanks (not many at all though) but its all round sophistication and integration of technology is un matched. It combines agility and speed, radar and stealth, both short range and long range weaponary, heavily armoured and extremely efficient.

Challenger 2, M1a2, Leopard2a5/a6, Ariete, Leclerc, T84, Merkava4, Type 90 etc are all on about the same lenght, they are all very good tanks, as for the superb components, can you tel me how you know this, because it isn't superior in electronics to all of the tanks metioned...

Also, a MBT doesn't have radar and a MBT (especially the Chally2) is far from stealthy.

yeah the challenger is one mean tank, but did you know that the M1A1 abrams used by the U.S. is plated in Uranium 238, making it the best armored tank. I got the impression that that metal was used in nukes...

The Callenger 2 also uses DU in its armor. And I don't think anbody her eis able to tell wat kind of DU is used, and nobody said it automatically makes it the best protected tank in the world, and if it is used in nukes, does that gives you a safe feeling, all those radio-active materials in you tank?

ya the best EVER is the russian t4, as a fact, if the challenger2 or abrams took on this one they'd get ther arses whopped, i know this for a fact cause ther was a worldwide study on it, with tank crews, former tank crews, and historians, and tank experts

Haha, you are funny, the T4 doesn't even exists

it is interesting to think about, however the challenger 2 is the most sophisticated tank, followed by the abrams, and they both are reportedly able to survive a nuclear blast

Nobody said the CHallenger 2 is the most sophisticated tank, it is well known among tankers that the Frenc Leclerc uses the latest electronics in it's C&C + FCS. One agency claimes that the Japanese Type 90 is the most sophisticated tak in the world, but it comes with a cost, ts the most expensive MBT in the world.

I think this tank is good as it is the most polyvalent one I have found, sure some may have better guns, but try to find a tank with 600km range tank. (Challenger 2 is 450km)

The Ukrainian T-84 (Oplot) has a range of 400km, but it can carry 2 fuel drums at the back of the hull, each can carry 200 liters of fuel, thats 400 liters extra fuel, that gives it almost a max range of 600km

actually if u look up the facts, the t4 has some of the best armor, and ya gotta luv that gun

LOL, again, there is no''t4''

the M1-Abram...mostly because the crew.

We weren't talking about its crew where we...
And still I don't think US tankers are better trained than any other Western country tankers.

As far as crew, the british tank crews are absolutely 100% the best in the world - that i am certain off. This is based on the fact that british tanks were used to wipe out the elite republican guard tank divisions of saddam's army in the recent gulf war.

Thats BS ... first off all, most Republican Gaurd divisions where stationed in Baghdad, english troops didn't even get near Baghdad... Second, the Republican Gaurd where driving downscraped T-72's that didn't even have modern night-vision to spot the Challengers or the Abrams, so it where nothing more than sitting ducks waiting to be blown up. Also the T72 is a generation behind the Challenger 2...
Third, if WE are talking about Elite, we are talking about the best of the best, but Iraqi Elite means something like a Britisch tanker that just got out from tankschool...

indeed.. i dont doubt a second that the French couldlt have done the same thing in iraq.

yep, some surces say they have the4th best tank in the world with challenger right behind it on the 5th place.

nowadays it doesnt match up because of the lesser armor since it doesnt use Chobham armour. otherwise very fine tank tough.. near match even with the lesser armor.

The US Abrams used some sort of armor SIMILAIR to that of the Britisch Chobam, it is not the same.
About the Leopard2a5/a6 armor: It combines to types of armor, the first is the Leopard2a4 armor wich consists of multi-layer armor using all kinds of ceramics similair to Chobam armor, atop of this they added hollow armor to the A5/a6 with some sort of panels in it that direct the penetrator to the left or right IF penetrated, s it is a very smart and cheap solution, but it certainly isn't lesser armored than the M1 Abrams or the Chally 1/2

but to the matter at hand... m1-Abrams with the latest gear/upgrades is obviosly the best
MBT there is.. tough the Leopard 2 was better in the early stages of development IMO


Personally I don't like the Abrams engine at all, its a gas-turbine that uses ALOT and than I mean ALOT of fuel (much more than any other tank using a diesel engine) and it is not very reliable, only advatage is that it has some more torque tha the Leopard2a6 (for example) and it doesn't maken much noise, but the fuel consumption is the main disadvantage.

Eh, yeah, I'm certain because I know what I'm talking about.

No, you don't...

The republican guard is proof, as they were the only armoured units that posed any threat, and, seeing as you all seem to think the americans have the best tanks, the fact that the british desert rats were used to wipe them out (losing no tanks in the process, i add) proves my point.

The US Abrams engaged and where enaged by Republican Gaurd troops much more than the Britisch, the Britisch mostly engaged stationary T-55's, and again, the Republican Gaurd isn't much of an opponent for the Chally 2 or Abrams with there downscraped, badly maintained T-72's.

You see, it isn't just how good the tank is - it's how good the crew are... an iraqi tank could most likely take out a challenger 2 or abrams if it managed to get up behind it

Agreed, but really, the fact is that the Iraqi soldiers weren't good trained, so they weren't much of an opponent for the Britisch/American tactics.

Your anti-french comments show your lack of knowledge and how you base your admittedly **** knowledge on stereotypes and your own opinions.

Readig all this you are the one with the ''****'' knowledge on this particulair subject.

Why do you think this? Do you even know what the challenger 2 is? No, you don't... you are just (like every other moron on this planet) falling for the american bull**** media praising every aspect of their military.

Why do you say this, can't you discuss with people without calling them moron?

IF equiped with DU rounds and armor.. otherwise the table would turn
for the Challenger 2.


Nowadays every Abrams (M1a1, M1a2, M1a2SEP) is exuiped with DU rounds AND DU armor, but I think its a matter of who shoots first and on what place.

have to apologize for writing it a bit unclear. I just took the french as one example. My point was that any army with such a destinct advantage in superior HW would have wiped out the elite republican guard. I ment no disrespect towards the french army.

I agree, the Iraqi army just wasn't much.

Russia ha! thats a laugh they may be good, but britain is way better than them, simply because russia has not had enough funding ever since they stopped being communist

Do remember that there infantry divisions alone are probably 10 times bigger than the whole Britisch army, they also have 25.000 tanks (If I'm crrect about 7000 of them are T-90's and T90's) and who knowns how man IFV's, and armored tansport vehicles, this time size DOES matters...

since when have russia been so good

If there was a war between the US and Russia in the Cold War I think Russia (former Soviet-Union) would have had a good change wining.

They were ok tankwise in WW2 and they have haid some powerful tanks since, their tanks have always had the distinction of being the most heavily armed (Guiness World Records)

LOL, maybe in WWII.

Also, during the whole of the cold war, the likely soviet invasion spots were all manned by British armoured divisions, as they were the only divisions of 'Class A' standard under NATO rankings.

Can you give me any source or is it another ''I know this for a fact'' statement?

Last edited by Balic; 08-04-2005 at 07:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:37 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    
·Contact Us   ·Legal   ·Privacy   ·Link To Us    ·Advertise With Us    ·About Us    ·Site Map     
     Copyright 2004-2019 Activv, LLC. All rights reserved. Armyreal.com is a service provided by Activv.
This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.