-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Those are italian tanks, aren't they?(I see an advertisment for Lavazza, which is italien coffee 
)
)Look at the kid at the far right, and the lady right next to him. *cough* *cough*
General Guisan said:Those are italian tanks, aren't they?(I see an advertisment for Lavazza, which is italien coffee
more likely portuguese: if you google André Carvalho, you get lots of links to a portuguese photographer by that name.
And Lavazza may be italian; but they've got coffee joints everywhere in France... except France never had M60's
Portuguese. The tanks, not the coffee.General Guisan said:Those are italian tanks, aren't they?(I see an advertisment for Lavazza, which is italien coffee
Gwalcmai said:
I'm not going to comment on it other than by noting that the commander's cupola must have been the stupidest invention since multi-turreted land-battleships. You make a heavily armored vehicle only to have its commander inside a cupola that can be blasted off by a 30mm - taking the commander's head with it. Genious.
I think it equals to cdat's notion of the stupidity of having to stick your head out of the cover of armor to shoot.
I'm quite sure it's the M60, though I have no clue if it's the A1 or A3.
But speaking of Pattons, the M60A2 would really rate high in any "ugliest tank of all times" competition:
But speaking of Pattons, the M60A2 would really rate high in any "ugliest tank of all times" competition:
I have never liked the look of any of the early US cold war Tanks, the only one I kind of like is the the M60 in Isreali service with out the standard commandors cupola...
Mr.Penguin
Mr.Penguin
M1A2. Hands down. There really is no EQUAL. And I am NOT saying that because I'm American. I'm saying it because it is true.
But the British Challanger is damn good, and its armor (sorry, I mean armour) is made of the same composite the M1's is, just in a different ratio of what-to-what. The recent Leapords of Germany are hot too. And the Israeli Mkerva is in a class by itself. The Israeli armed forces have to meet a somewhat different mission profile than most western nations and thus their Mkerva while not being full of all the frills as some other tanks out there is first tier in its profile.
But seriously. The M1 series. Hands down. I'm sorry, but it's true. We have a hard enough time destroying it ourselves with our damn Hellfire missles. In fact, such a missile system is more than likely the only way you'll take that thing out right away, first try. You can blast the hell out of an M1 with most known anti-tank weapons system and not do much. You can make a reverse analogy to the Shermans and German tanks. 12 Shermans can blast away at a single Tiger while the Tiger easily picks off each Sherman one at a time (however like a German tank commander once said "It was the thirteenth Sherman that got you!" but that's a different story lol...)
But the British Challanger is damn good, and its armor (sorry, I mean armour) is made of the same composite the M1's is, just in a different ratio of what-to-what. The recent Leapords of Germany are hot too. And the Israeli Mkerva is in a class by itself. The Israeli armed forces have to meet a somewhat different mission profile than most western nations and thus their Mkerva while not being full of all the frills as some other tanks out there is first tier in its profile.
But seriously. The M1 series. Hands down. I'm sorry, but it's true. We have a hard enough time destroying it ourselves with our damn Hellfire missles. In fact, such a missile system is more than likely the only way you'll take that thing out right away, first try. You can blast the hell out of an M1 with most known anti-tank weapons system and not do much. You can make a reverse analogy to the Shermans and German tanks. 12 Shermans can blast away at a single Tiger while the Tiger easily picks off each Sherman one at a time (however like a German tank commander once said "It was the thirteenth Sherman that got you!" but that's a different story lol...)
Actually, the M60A2 was so advanced for it's time, you couldn't 'cost effectively' train a crew to use it. It was entirely to complicated a machine. You'd need the equavilent of a Air Force pilot to use it.
Oh, BTW, the M1A2 sucks donkey balls in Hell for beer money. The M1A1 is better.
cdat said:
Still against the M1A2?
I don't care anymore, I like the Abrams tank in general, I don't care about which model it is.
Cause both pwn.
2076 posts in this thread and counting
M60A3TTS. IIRC, those saw service in the first Gulf War, but the US couldn't be arsed to ship them back home so they sold them to Portugal. Or something along those lines.Exel said:
Gwalcmai said:
No, no, no. Disregard all after: 'Those saw service'. The units (Marines and a few back @$$wards Army units) took them to the Gulf but then whined and complained that they couldn't FIGHT in them. Oh no, not that. So, those units were given some M1's to fight with. Sorry punk @$$ed pussies.
Just look at the thermal shroud on the gun tube and the wind sensor mast on the rear of the turret, silly. Those make it stand out as an M60A3.
cdat, I like your signature...
It shows how the M1 pwns
2080 and counting
It shows how the M1 pwns
2080 and counting
Last edited: