• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Need help with argument! Best tank?

Need help with argument! Best tank?


  • Total voters
    150
.

.

Sichartshofen, T-72 cannot be described as crap as M1 hasn't faced them. Very few T-72s were exported to Iraq. Iraqis used domestic Asad Babil, which was T-72 clone, with sustandard armor (no ceramics, not even sand rods) and substandard weaponry. See my previous posts about it.


Really?

73 Easting
Reaching 70 Easting at 16:22, 2nd Squadron knocked out a screen of eight Iraqi T-72 tanks. Three kilometers beyond, T-72s could be seen in prepared positions at 73 Easting.

E-Troop consisted of 10 M1 Abrams tanks, 13 M3 Bradleys, two M106 mortar carriers, one M577 command track and a M981 FIST-V. McMaster's unit charged and destroyed the Iraqi tanks at 73 Easting at close range.

E-Troop destroyed more than 20 tanks and other armored vehicles, a number of trucks and bunkers, and took a large number of prisoners with no losses to themselves. In 20 minutes, E-Troop had advanced in constant heavy contact with Iraqi armor from 67 Easting to 74 Easting.

At 18:30, the first of several waves of Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks advanced into the wadi in a bid to escape, directly into G-Troop.

The fighting was so intense that, more than once, only the calling in of artillery and helicopter gunships saved G-Troop. During the six-hour battle, the G-Troop fire support team called in 720 howitzer rounds. By 21:00, G-Troop was desperately short on ammunition and a tank company, “Hawk,” was sent in to relieve them. G-Troop lost one M3 Bradley to Iraqi IFV fire and one soldier, Sergeant Nels A. Moller, the gunner of the Bradley, was killed. Reportedly, the Bradley had depleted its supply of TOW missiles and was laying fire with its 25 mm cannon when it was hit by 73 mm cannon fire from an Iraqi BMP-1.[1]

[edit] 74 Easting and beyond
The British responded decisively with MLRS fire, cannon artillery, and air strikes. This was the start of nearly two days of continuous combat for the British, some of the toughest fighting of the war. In the largest of this series of running battles, the British destroyed 40 enemy tanks and captured an Iraqi division commander.

[edit] The significance of the Battle of 73 Easting

..., the 2nd ACR's three squadrons, along with the 1st Infantry Division's two leading brigades, destroyed two Iraqi brigades (18th Mechanized Brigade and 37th Armored Brigade) of the Tawakalna Division.

The 2nd ACR alone destroyed about 85 tanks, 40 personnel carriers and more than 30 wheeled vehicles, along with several anti-aircraft artillery systems during the battle. The equivalent of an Iraqi brigade was destroyed at 73 Easting...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Really? *words words*

Is that supposed to prove anything? Iraq's main tank still was the T-55 or Type 69, not T-72. Basically, Iraqi army had it's biggest problems in training and morale, not in equipment.

@karl stiner:

Leo 2 sure is a great tank. Definately the best NATO tank in cold war. It has number of issues though, and it's capabilities are sometimes exaggerated.
Also, it's the man, not the machine.

normal_09082007279.jpg


B-PLATOON WORKS IT! :D
 
Upvote 0
Watch out USA russians still have a powerfull army http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2hvObzZt0g&mode=related&search=





It's great that Russia has a good army, but unless y'all plan on heading through the Fulda Gap with it, or blowing down through your No-Longer-Subject 'Stans to get into Iraq, or unless you plan to have a repeat of your last failure in Afghanistan ... what good will it do you?


Only way that you can project power in a meaningful way against a US interest, shy of making the rest of the world attack you, is through naval power. And let me ask you this: when was the last time that your fleet had any real capability to transport troops?

When was the last time that your surface combatants were fully tuned up and ready to go to war?

When was the last time that your SSBN's were deployed?

In short, when was the last time that Russia was, in fact, a naval power?

I know the answers to these questions. I've seen the intel reporting and the overhead imagery.

Let me just say that it's great that y'all're starting up your Backfire / Bear / Blackjack flights, but it's pretty much a meaningless and empty gesture. The Russian bear ... he don't swim so good, these days.
 
Upvote 0
Oh this threads reared its ugly head again :)
Best tank STILL Chally 2 (would be Chally 2E if anyone could afford it)
I'd just love to post meaningful facts and figures to show how good I am at looking up facts and figures, but my decision is based on being a soldier (a real one :cool:) and working with it and on it and going to war supporting it.
Back to my earlier post though, it STILL boils down to the crew to get the best out of any armoured vehicle. Due to the size of our Army (comparatively small) and the frequent operational tours, our guys are very much up to speed on it.

Oh and You Tube....forget it. I did staff college demonstrations with Chally2 and spoke to the crews and support teams for Leo. Its all a con :) you can make a tank appear to be uber leet if you know how to present it. Other countries do it do it and so do we. The really funny thing is comparing notes and finding we both use the same dodges, and the media just lap it up.
Anyway, a good crew in a bad tank can defeat a crap crew in a good tank. Just as important as weapon technology is the tactical ability of the commander, the route skills of the driver plus his ability to get the best from engine,transmission and running gear. The gunnery skills and ability to manage in 'rev modes' of the gunner and finally the speed of the operator plus his close in defence and comms skills.

You can't make a valid judgement over what tank is best by reading books and watching vids, there are so many unquantifyable elements that separate a good tank from a great one. Carry on the debate though as I always enjoy a good one, just try to avoid the sweeping unsupported statements.
 
Upvote 0
Oh this threads reared its ugly head again :)
Best tank STILL Chally 2 (would be Chally 2E if anyone could afford it)
I'd just love to post meaningful facts and figures to show how good I am at looking up facts and figures, but my decision is based on being a soldier (a real one :cool:) and working with it and on it and going to war supporting it.
Back to my earlier post though, it STILL boils down to the crew to get the best out of any armoured vehicle. Due to the size of our Army (comparatively small) and the frequent operational tours, our guys are very much up to speed on it.

Oh and You Tube....forget it. I did staff college demonstrations with Chally2 and spoke to the crews and support teams for Leo. Its all a con :) you can make a tank appear to be uber leet if you know how to present it. Other countries do it do it and so do we. The really funny thing is comparing notes and finding we both use the same dodges, and the media just lap it up.
Anyway, a good crew in a bad tank can defeat a crap crew in a good tank. Just as important as weapon technology is the tactical ability of the commander, the route skills of the driver plus his ability to get the best from engine,transmission and running gear. The gunnery skills and ability to manage in 'rev modes' of the gunner and finally the speed of the operator plus his close in defence and comms skills.

You can't make a valid judgement over what tank is best by reading books and watching vids, there are so many unquantifyable elements that separate a good tank from a great one. Carry on the debate though as I always enjoy a good one, just try to avoid the sweeping unsupported statements.
what kind of aiming system is in this tank
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
2 Peter

You're talking from your point of view, which is - a mighty army will have the abilities to interfere to other countries' affairs and wage wars there, even if those countries are on other side of the globe. Example is the last decade - 3 wars in the Middle East (with 4th comming) and some smaller operations all over the world.
While Russia had only 2 wars (second one was started by terrorist formations, who attacked Dagestan, which is not Chechnya, but completely different region) on its own territory against band formations. It just doesn't have needs to go to, let's say, Chili and bomb the hell out of it, because it had tiran dictator. Russia's army is capable to complete missions in its own sphere of interests (which isn't the whole wide world).
 
Upvote 0
2 Peter

You're talking from your point of view, which is - a mighty army will have the abilities to interfere to other countries' affairs and wage wars there, even if those countries are on other side of the globe. Example is the last decade - 3 wars in the Middle East (with 4th comming) and some smaller operations all over the world.
While Russia had only 2 wars (second one was started by terrorist formations, who attacked Dagestan, which is not Chechnya, but completely different region) on its own territory against band formations. It just doesn't have needs to go to, let's say, Chili and bomb the hell out of it, because it had tiran dictator. Russia's army is capable to complete missions in its own sphere of interests (which isn't the whole wide world).
yes good post Bolt i did follow the war in Chechnya a lot, i seen many clips of that war and i am happy that Russia knocked the hell out of them in the end also guys you can see how fast the Leopard tank can go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-9JoF5o5B4&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyfFMaDN064&mode=related&search=
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It's great that Russia has a good army, but unless y'all plan on heading through the Fulda Gap with it, or blowing down through your No-Longer-Subject 'Stans to get into Iraq, or unless you plan to have a repeat of your last failure in Afghanistan ... what good will it do you?
[...]
What good does your army do to you?
Lo.. uhm winning in Iraq?

Just because not every powerfull country acts imperialistic does not mean that they would not be cappable of it.
 
Upvote 0
Y'all're missing the whole point of this.

Let me bring up the original quote to which I responded:

Cuddles said:
Watch out USA russians still have a powerfull army

The statement 'watch out USA' implies that the Russian army could be a threat, of some sort, to the United States. Short of a massive invasion and a drive through the in-between territories, the only segment of Russian arms that could be a threat to anyone that does not share a contiguous border with them is their strategic rocket forces. Maybe Norway as well, but probably not. They simply do not have the capability to project power away from their borders anymore, and haven't had since the mid 1990's, and it might have been gone as early as, say, 1989 or 1990.

So, you see, I'm not saying that the Russian army is not a very good army - because it is. I'm not saying that it's not perfectly capable of handling any interest that Russia has internally or on its borders - because it is.

I'm just saying that it is not, in any way, by any possible stretch of the imagination, capable of posing any kind of credible threat to any United States interest, short of bashing its way through other independent countries to -reach- a US interest. Which it absolutely could do, but not without causing wars from hell.

And please do recall, if you will, that a war with Russia would be a very different war from what's currently being fought in Iraq. It would not be an insurgency. It would be a flat-out balls to the wall conventional war. And that's the kind of war that the Abrams was designed to fight, and against the army that it was designed to fight.
 
Upvote 0
And you think that there wouldn't be guerrillas in Russia?
Whenever I hear US "interests" I'm close to vomitting - holding the world hostage, yeah great stuff. Russia is threat enough not to be ignored.

I'm happy that there is still Russia and China being some kind of counter weight.



I don't think that Guerillas in Russia would be a problem for the US, because there's no reason for us to invade Russia. *shrug*
 
Upvote 0
yes good post Bolt i did follow the war in Chechnya a lot, i seen many clips of that war and i am happy that Russia knocked the hell out of them in the end

Sorry, off topic a little/

Hmm. That war is not over. It still continues, but it is in sort of news eclipse.

You Sir have very straight opinions without any arguments...That war is not that simple thing, that it could be dealed with one liner. It is a very sad conflict for both, more to ordinary chechnyans though.

I actually find your post bit too light minded. You know, there are people dying there AKA being "knocked the hell out of them" even at the moment:confused:.

(And NO, I don
 
Upvote 0
I don't think that Guerillas in Russia would be a problem for the US, because there's no reason for us to invade Russia. *shrug*

[...]

And please do recall, if you will, that a war with Russia would be a very different war from what's currently being fought in Iraq. It would not be an insurgency. It would be a flat-out balls to the wall conventional war. And that's the kind of war that the Abrams was designed to fight, and against the army that it was designed to fight.

You were the one talking about a war (the way you think it would be) in the first place not me. I only carried the thought a bit further.
 
Upvote 0
You were the one talking about a war (the way you think it would be) in the first place not me. I only carried the thought a bit further.



Yet again, let me point out that this started because Cuddles' statement contained an implied threat. The US has no need to pick a fight with Russia.

Based on this statement - to the effect of 'Watch out, US, the Russian Army is pwnz j00' - I don't think there's been any discussion of NATO, or even the US by itself, coming through the Fulda Gap heading for Russia ...
 
Upvote 0
I knew the peeps involved in that incident personally Stiner, if you have a point to make then do so. It was nothing whatsoever to do with aiming systems. You've crossed the line on this one. If you wish to get ACCURATE info on this feel free to PM me, but if you just wish to bump your gums using tabloid reports of incidents save us both some time eh and don't bother.
yes i wont to know how can they make a [SIZE=-1]mistake like this ??? [/SIZE]if it was nothing whatsoever to do with aiming systems its the crew i hope they never drive a tank again:mad: also i was in the [SIZE=-1]Royal Engineers my self :cool: i just hate to hear things like this[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0
I suggest you study the reports on it which QUITE CLEARLY lay the blame at the feet of the senior officer who told them that there were no friendly callsigns in that area. This was queried and again confirmed. Fog of war and all that. The officer responsible is a Colonel now....
I spent 4 of the very best years of my Army career attached to the unit that lost the tank. I spent 2 years with the unit that shot it. No blame could be attached to them. I know its something that will haunt them for a long long time. I trust no-one else will try to make points from this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It seems that the Abrams and Challenger have faced a tougher opponent than their Eastern Counterparts. Not sure if the Leopard has seen any action...

If it all comes down to crew, then the US or British must have the best in the World... just from experience. Is that a fair statement?


If not show me some moar videos, because me likes me sum videos. :D
 
Upvote 0