-
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.
1000 different answers
Sorry to disappoint but everyone here will say a different answer without being able to prove squat. I don't care for the M1A2. But it's better than any of that Euro crap (my thoughts
). Soviet armor has had a dismal performance record to date. They talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Just remember before everyone here starts spouting off about how good their equipment is. What is the mission of armor? How does their tank compare in a proven enviroment? That means: Combat. My favorite is the great and wonderful M1A1. It has proven its worth in the last two "wars". Not a single crewman killed except for a few idiots who stuck their heads out of the turret in combat and were shot (Gods way of weeding out the dumb ones). Every tank has its strengths and weaknesses but remember. The M1 is a combination of many different tanks. Gun tube - Germany. Armor - England. Electronics - Japan. Of course we were the smart ones to combine the complete package. When you get right down to it, no matter what, the training is the over riding final say in which equipment performs the best. So on that note, Any US tank will win hands down. The reason is, we use our equipment. Everyone else brags but cower in their own countries and let their tanks moulder away. "Tankers have the biggest guns." "Master Gunners can do it blindfolded"
prantasa said:
Sorry to disappoint but everyone here will say a different answer without being able to prove squat. I don't care for the M1A2. But it's better than any of that Euro crap (my thoughts
). Soviet armor has had a dismal performance record to date. They talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Just remember before everyone here starts spouting off about how good their equipment is. What is the mission of armor? How does their tank compare in a proven enviroment? That means: Combat. My favorite is the great and wonderful M1A1. It has proven its worth in the last two "wars". Not a single crewman killed except for a few idiots who stuck their heads out of the turret in combat and were shot (Gods way of weeding out the dumb ones). Every tank has its strengths and weaknesses but remember. The M1 is a combination of many different tanks. Gun tube - Germany. Armor - England. Electronics - Japan. Of course we were the smart ones to combine the complete package. When you get right down to it, no matter what, the training is the over riding final say in which equipment performs the best. So on that note, Any US tank will win hands down. The reason is, we use our equipment. Everyone else brags but cower in their own countries and let their tanks moulder away. "Tankers have the biggest guns." "Master Gunners can do it blindfolded"
cdat said:
But you fought against enemy equipped mostly with VERY OLD tanks and weapons.
I mean T-55s are I generation tanks while yours are III/IV generation tanks.
It's like knight in armour armed with sword killing blind peasants armed with stick.
Not to mention air supremacy.....
Indeed very honourable fight.
edit: and btw PT-91 > M1a2 + Leo6 + challenger2 + merkava
Last edited:
I...
I still defend the Leopard though it has not seem real combat. It can reach speeds close to the Abrams with a more reliable diesel engine. ( Keep turbine engines OFF the ground I do not trust them ) The Leopard is also being constantly updated with new models but the Abrams has only had two significant models and dont say that means its perfect.
Visuz said:But you fought against enemy equipped mostly with VERY OLD tanks and weapons.
I mean T-55s are I generation tanks while yours are III/IV generation tanks.
It's like knight in armour armed with sword killing blind peasants armed with stick.
Not to mention air supremacy.....
Indeed very honourable fight.
edit: and btw PT-91 > M1a2 + Leo6 + challenger2 + merkava
I still defend the Leopard though it has not seem real combat. It can reach speeds close to the Abrams with a more reliable diesel engine. ( Keep turbine engines OFF the ground I do not trust them ) The Leopard is also being constantly updated with new models but the Abrams has only had two significant models and dont say that means its perfect.
Visuz said:edit: and btw PT-91 > M1a2 + Leo6 + challenger2 + merkava
The Polish tested the Leo2 A4, and it was better in almst every aspect then the PT-91. The precise date is confidental, as Polands is trying to sell the PT-91
madner said:The Polish tested the Leo2 A4, and it was better in almst every aspect then the PT-91. The precise date is confidental, as Polands is trying to sell the PT-91
Well... actually we are not only trying ....we managed to sell lots of that s**t to Malaysia :rofl:
Visuz said:But you fought against enemy equipped mostly with VERY OLD tanks and weapons.
I mean T-55s are I generation tanks while yours are III/IV generation tanks.
It's like knight in armour armed with sword killing blind peasants armed with stick.
Not to mention air supremacy.....
Indeed very honourable fight.
edit: and btw PT-91 > M1a2 + Leo6 + challenger2 + merkava
BUT, we fought!
. T-72, T-62, T-55/54, BTR-50, BTR-60, BTR-70, BMP-1, BMP-2, BRDM-1, BRDM-2. All ex-Soviet Junk. No such thing as "Honor" in modern day combat. Not my fault Huwhatshisname bought crap. We won the air but "they" buried their planes in the sand to avoid destruction. Kind of hard to go one-on-one when your plane is buried! If I knew how to post pictures I CAN prove that! If the battles were one-on-one in the tank battles, then you'd have a valid point BUT since the battles were 1-4/1-5 difference, I think you would agree that the odds were in "their" favor. We didn't have the biggest main guns or the top speed. "We" should of lost. "we" didn't.
Cdat
What do you think about last year's August incident when Abrams was hit and pierced by very small calibre projectile (few milimiteres holes on both side armor)?
What could this be?
I remember a whole thread about it .....but cant find it.
What do you think about last year's August incident when Abrams was hit and pierced by very small calibre projectile (few milimiteres holes on both side armor)?
What could this be?
I remember a whole thread about it .....but cant find it.
Visuz said:
Sorry, I have never heard of this "incident". Is there a picture? If there is, I could most likely tell if this is bullsh*t or not. Unless someone invented and put into effect those "rail guns"? Was the "penetration in the hull? Turret? Skirt? If so, which one? My wife is going to a babyshower this afternoon. Do you know if the thread was OT or not? Gives me a starting point. Damn it!
Now you have me wondering! (madly going over, in over cluttered mind....well if it hit here at this angle......or if it pierced here at this speed.....). Thanks alot. There goes my day of getting anything important done. :wacko:
I am sure that was not a fiction fabricated by journalists.....I remeber there were lot of pictures of that tank and that mysterious holes in side hull armor of that Abrams. Crew didn't suffer but projectile did some damage on interior equipment.
There were a lot of assumptions about that mysterious weapon ....but no one was sure what it was...IIRC thread was in OT but since last year forum was modificated and search function works only with thread posted after that modification.
There were a lot of assumptions about that mysterious weapon ....but no one was sure what it was...IIRC thread was in OT but since last year forum was modificated and search function works only with thread posted after that modification.
Visuz said:
I'm not questioning your sources (OK, yes I am
). I still have contacts/friends at Ft. Knox. WELL versed in armor, since that is their job. They do not recall either.
cdat said:BUT, we fought!
The odds were not 4:1 for the Iraq in tank battles, it was about 1:1. They had much more infantry, and much less everything else.
cdat said:I'm not questioning your sources (OK, yes I am
Well....I hope someone who participated in that thread will find it and post a link.
Visuz said:
I did, but I think the thread has been pruned since then. OT is a big swamp :rofl:
Two arguments
First, about the odds. BULLSH*T! Been there. Done that! Second. On the OT thread on the newest page, there is a thread asking military experts on this exact story. If you follow the link to the Army Times, you can see a slide show of the damage. Without going into details but by just looking at the damage "flow" from start to end....That "super dooper RPG thingy" sure took some turns on the way through the turret. Seems the round would penetrate an item, then turn, hit another item, turn, hit another item, etc. I would guess without any other info, that it was a......UFO! Project "Blue Book" should be notified. Wonder, worry, whatever. I 'can't' prove what happened, but "I" wouldn't trust those photos and story. Also, the hull penetration from the outside isn't shown. The angle of attack is downward. So it actually penetrated Above the skirt, hit near the top of hull. Where it penetrated and hit the turrret basket & NBC hose, isn't near the TC, whose legs were injured. Then it hit the gunners seat back and his flak vest. Then it hit the Gunners leg guard then the systems box. At this point in real life, it would hit the left front fuel tank. But no, it took a 90 degree turn, went to the left rear turret and hit the networks box. Never hit the basket or loader but did hit the other side of hull. It would hit something light, take a turn or whatever and hit another light item. Nothing that it hit would take the tank out of commision. If by the angle of attack from the first two photos, this was real, the round would of went into the turret floor, damage alot of systems and exited out the bottom. Believe what you want. I will say its bullsh*t. Also the "round" missed alot of items that it should of hit by the photos shown. Those items HAVE to be there. They weren't hit. I'd love to see that tank. The people I know, would also love to see that tank. They should of been "in the loop" by now. Almost a year later. They say the story was supposed to be in the "National Inquirer" but actually ended up in the "Army Times". :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
First, about the odds. BULLSH*T! Been there. Done that! Second. On the OT thread on the newest page, there is a thread asking military experts on this exact story. If you follow the link to the Army Times, you can see a slide show of the damage. Without going into details but by just looking at the damage "flow" from start to end....That "super dooper RPG thingy" sure took some turns on the way through the turret. Seems the round would penetrate an item, then turn, hit another item, turn, hit another item, etc. I would guess without any other info, that it was a......UFO! Project "Blue Book" should be notified. Wonder, worry, whatever. I 'can't' prove what happened, but "I" wouldn't trust those photos and story. Also, the hull penetration from the outside isn't shown. The angle of attack is downward. So it actually penetrated Above the skirt, hit near the top of hull. Where it penetrated and hit the turrret basket & NBC hose, isn't near the TC, whose legs were injured. Then it hit the gunners seat back and his flak vest. Then it hit the Gunners leg guard then the systems box. At this point in real life, it would hit the left front fuel tank. But no, it took a 90 degree turn, went to the left rear turret and hit the networks box. Never hit the basket or loader but did hit the other side of hull. It would hit something light, take a turn or whatever and hit another light item. Nothing that it hit would take the tank out of commision. If by the angle of attack from the first two photos, this was real, the round would of went into the turret floor, damage alot of systems and exited out the bottom. Believe what you want. I will say its bullsh*t. Also the "round" missed alot of items that it should of hit by the photos shown. Those items HAVE to be there. They weren't hit. I'd love to see that tank. The people I know, would also love to see that tank. They should of been "in the loop" by now. Almost a year later. They say the story was supposed to be in the "National Inquirer" but actually ended up in the "Army Times". :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The best explanation was a 23mm, that got there trough some chance, fragmenting upon impact. I'm sceptical as well.
You all own me, big time.
Ok. After my last post, I called my old unit. I set up a get together with one of my old Master Gunner buddies. I got ready to drive 157 miles to check out an M1. My wife had other ideas. Needless to say, I went and I'm banned from going home. I went to my old unit, did some measuring and am now at work. Myself and a still active Master Gunner took the photos from the Army Times and a copy of their "offical" story and checked out the tank. We used an M1. The photo is of an M1A1. Were the "round" hit and the parts of the turret are the same on both versions (except for one small detail. We'll get to that later). The round hit on the right side sponson box above the skirt. This box is used to store tools. The round next hit the right side hull. There is no sign of the round or spalling effect leaving the sponson box. Looking at photo #2 it should be visible directly above the round hit. Next photo shows the round entering turret. This "area" is very well protected. In case you didn't know, when you hear about a tank with depleted uranium, it isn't the whole tank. It is 10 tons of added armor. I'll say again. This area is "VERY" well protected, if you get my meaning. Next the round hits the turret basket and TC's NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) air intake hose. Lets see, It punches through solid steel but bends that little piece of steel mesh? WTF? It zips through the densest metal thats workable but has to push the metal basket mesh aside? OK. Next it hits the gunners backrest and flak jacket. OK. Then it zips through UNDERNEATH the main gun, the main gun carriage and all the goodies that go with it. It hits the shield on the left side of turret. Hits the TNB (Turret Networks Box). It misses the three circuit breakers on the right on hits the three on the left. One of those circuits is the turret NBC system (Damn! It sure didn't like the NBC system, did it?) I guess it's a picky projectile since it can avoid somethings and hit others. Last of all it drills a hole in the hull left side. The story states that this round knocked the tank out of commision. I don't know why?! It didn't hit anything effecting the engine or driving capabilities. Believe what you want. I can't prove anything either. From my side, I can't tell you what happened but all those holes did NOT follow a direct path. In fact when looking at the gunners backrest, the only way the tear in the rest could be done that way is if the round went through the gunner. Since he was only "slightly injured", I take it he doesn't have a new hole in his body. My friend is e-mailing Ft. Knox for confirmation. It being Sunday, we won't get an answer back until Monday. I'll update then.
Ok. After my last post, I called my old unit. I set up a get together with one of my old Master Gunner buddies. I got ready to drive 157 miles to check out an M1. My wife had other ideas. Needless to say, I went and I'm banned from going home. I went to my old unit, did some measuring and am now at work.
Myself and a still active Master Gunner took the photos from the Army Times and a copy of their "offical" story and checked out the tank. We used an M1. The photo is of an M1A1. Were the "round" hit and the parts of the turret are the same on both versions (except for one small detail. We'll get to that later). The round hit on the right side sponson box above the skirt. This box is used to store tools. The round next hit the right side hull. There is no sign of the round or spalling effect leaving the sponson box. Looking at photo #2 it should be visible directly above the round hit. Next photo shows the round entering turret. This "area" is very well protected. In case you didn't know, when you hear about a tank with depleted uranium, it isn't the whole tank. It is 10 tons of added armor. I'll say again. This area is "VERY" well protected, if you get my meaning. Next the round hits the turret basket and TC's NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) air intake hose. Lets see, It punches through solid steel but bends that little piece of steel mesh? WTF? It zips through the densest metal thats workable but has to push the metal basket mesh aside? OK. Next it hits the gunners backrest and flak jacket. OK. Then it zips through UNDERNEATH the main gun, the main gun carriage and all the goodies that go with it. It hits the shield on the left side of turret. Hits the TNB (Turret Networks Box). It misses the three circuit breakers on the right on hits the three on the left. One of those circuits is the turret NBC system (Damn! It sure didn't like the NBC system, did it?) I guess it's a picky projectile since it can avoid somethings and hit others. Last of all it drills a hole in the hull left side. The story states that this round knocked the tank out of commision. I don't know why?! It didn't hit anything effecting the engine or driving capabilities. Believe what you want. I can't prove anything either. From my side, I can't tell you what happened but all those holes did NOT follow a direct path. In fact when looking at the gunners backrest, the only way the tear in the rest could be done that way is if the round went through the gunner. Since he was only "slightly injured", I take it he doesn't have a new hole in his body. My friend is e-mailing Ft. Knox for confirmation. It being Sunday, we won't get an answer back until Monday. I'll update then.
Maybe it was just the tankcrew wanting to take a short leave?
edit: And yes, we do own you
edit: And yes, we do own you