"Interesting" would be that the MOD and/or Whitehall could think that details wouldn't eventually surface in the public domain.
Other than the RPG-29, are there many examples of man-packed dual warhead AT missiles?
Need help with argument! Best tank?
- Thread starter EvilAmericanMan
- Start date
Other than the RPG-29, are there many examples of man-packed dual warhead AT missiles?
I guess the Challenger 2
I guess the Challenger 2
is off the list as the world's best tank then?
If infantry portable HEAT rocket launchers can penetrate the glacis armour then just how effective is this new dorchester armour against tank gun SABOT and HEAT rounds?
I guess the Challenger 2
is off the list as the world's best tank then?
If infantry portable HEAT rocket launchers can penetrate the glacis armour then just how effective is this new dorchester armour against tank gun SABOT and HEAT rounds?
Oh how tedious. Old news.Check date of release 12 May 07. Then maybe you could check on the ARRSE forums where guys who are in or have recently left the army posted about it about it some time ago.
A couple of points before we all get too carried away: 1, it has NOT been released WHERE the projectile hit , at the moment it is conjecture. 2, how many RPG's, Tank rounds, GW weapons have been fired at and hit Challys? How many have penetrated ?. ANY tank and I mean ANY tank can fall victim to a lucky (sic) shot. Whether it be Abrams knocked out by a 20mm bushmaster round, Merkerva by a 12.7 round or this.Purely by the by according to reports (unsubstantiated, it can defeat T90 and T80 too, thats one hell of a 'magic bullet' if it can.
As soon as all the details are released then speculate all you like
and Kitten " is this off the list of great tanks then?" yes very funny yes it is. While you're at it Dorchester armour is no better than papier mache and the Chobham armour that is used in....oh most Western tanks is also rubbish. I mean purlease!, does this all seem a tad melodramatic?
A couple of points before we all get too carried away: 1, it has NOT been released WHERE the projectile hit , at the moment it is conjecture. 2, how many RPG's, Tank rounds, GW weapons have been fired at and hit Challys? How many have penetrated ?. ANY tank and I mean ANY tank can fall victim to a lucky (sic) shot. Whether it be Abrams knocked out by a 20mm bushmaster round, Merkerva by a 12.7 round or this.Purely by the by according to reports (unsubstantiated, it can defeat T90 and T80 too, thats one hell of a 'magic bullet' if it can.
As soon as all the details are released then speculate all you like
and Kitten " is this off the list of great tanks then?" yes very funny yes it is. While you're at it Dorchester armour is no better than papier mache and the Chobham armour that is used in....oh most Western tanks is also rubbish. I mean purlease!, does this all seem a tad melodramatic?
Last edited:
Oh how tedious. Old news.Check date of release 12 May 07. Then maybe you could check on the ARRSE forums where guys who are in or have recently left the army posted about it about it some time ago.
A couple of points before we all get too carried away: 1, it has NOT been released WHERE the projectile hit , at the moment it is conjecture. 2, how many RPG's, Tank rounds, GW weapons have been fired at and hit Challys? How many have penetrated ?. ANY tank and I mean ANY tank can fall victim to a lucky (sic) shot. Whether it be Abrams knocked out by a 20mm bushmaster round, Merkerva by a 12.7 round or this.Purely by the by according to reports (unsubstantiated, it can defeat T90 and T80 too, thats one hell of a 'magic bullet' if it can.
As soon as all the details are released then speculate all you like
What have I done to insult you that you can't spell my name correctly?
Apologies for the mis-spelt name, no insult was intended. Normally I'd cut and paste to reply to a specific point, but was on my way out to work and hurried off a reply. Kytten stuck in my memory for some reason and I subconciously 'translated it to English. Note to self, never reply in a hurry.
Last edited:
Anti Radiation Missile would still kill Tunguska, and any of them that wanted a chance to survive would have to turn their radars off most of the time. The HARM missile will remember where it last saw the target, and proceed, this combined with high speed makes it likely to hit a target that turns its radar off.
Besides, B2 would take out most of those SAMs first with sensor-fused bombs . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor-fused_weapon
r0ck $mashe$ PaiporZ.
I would say who will even approach these last defense systems like Tor, Tunguska or even the buk?
let's first deal with these babes
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=gBcIm2b5X88
Given that units like Tor, Tunguska are very mobile and change positions very often, it's very unlikely a HARM will hit those targets when the target is aware that there is a missile launch. I also believe, even HARM can remember where the target is after the radar is shut down, it's not a pinpoint hit.
IMO the best approach made to Anti-Radiation missiles is British ALARM, this missile has a dragchute in it. When the target radar shuts down, it deploys the mini parachute and waits untill target radar is turned on again.
IMO the best approach made to Anti-Radiation missiles is British ALARM, this missile has a dragchute in it. When the target radar shuts down, it deploys the mini parachute and waits untill target radar is turned on again.
LOL
I beleive that Challenger and Challenger 2 might just have fired the odd round of ammunition and might just have had a round or two fired back at them.........
Oh no, my mistake!, actually the Chally (both variants) were used in both Gulf Wars and distinguished themselves well. I should have remembered that as after all I was there
I beleive that Challenger and Challenger 2 might just have fired the odd round of ammunition and might just have had a round or two fired back at them.........
Oh no, my mistake!, actually the Chally (both variants) were used in both Gulf Wars and distinguished themselves well. I should have remembered that as after all I was there
Last edited:
I'd like to point out that Iraqi army forces and coalition forces are incomparable.
Kuwaiti M-84s (Jugoslavian manufactured T-72 copy) performed admirably against Iraqi tanks, thanks to excellent support elements.
Kuwaiti M-84s (Jugoslavian manufactured T-72 copy) performed admirably against Iraqi tanks, thanks to excellent support elements.
At the risk of getting into a row with you RSS, you can only fight the enemy that turn up to fight. All this about "this tank against that tank is an unfair match" is so much smoke and mirrors.
In the WW2 did the German panzer commanders say "Oh that tank is far to weak to fight mine, can someone go and find one of our crappy old tanks to fight them with"
Likewise during the Gulf Wars, were we supposed to wait for the Germans to send emergency supplies of Leo's to the Iraquis to make it a bit more of a challenge?.
Bottom line it takes balls that clang together when you walk to put yourself in the firing line. ANY gunner can be lucky no matter what tank he's in, ANY commander can be unlucky no matter how advanced his tank is.
Mechanised combat isn't just about one force shooting another, thats a mistake a lot of people make. Its about having the RELIABILITY to advance and RETREAT and conduct a mobile war. Its about SURVIVABILITY when hit by opposition forces OR your own (in the case of Blue on Blues). Its about the SUPPLY CHAIN and LOGISTICS that enable you to conduct a mobile war. Its about being able to REPAIR or REPLACE critical components (TLS's CSU's GUE's ME's etc) without losing your advantages.
It doesn't matter how many advantages or disadvantages a tank has on paper, which is why as has been repeatedly stated most trials are just oversimplifications to allow procurement ministers to make a decision on 'scientific evidence'. There are NO other tanks that have operated for as long under such circumstances as Abrams and Chally. You could by all means mention the Merkerva, but its not been used over the same distances and conditions in a high intensity war.
Best tank is and always will be a combination of the factors already mentioned PLUS the all important element CREW. In this whole argument if you cut through the hundreds of posts and dozens of points of view, that is the one constant.
Due to the fact that they have conducted operations (REAL ONES) in those conditions the only 2 tanks that can legitimately be put forward as the mythical 'best' tanks of the present day would be Chally and Abrams. Hard to split the two of them so it always comes down to personal opinions. No secret to those who have seen my previous posts, my preferred tank would be Chally 2. If you wanted the all time best money no object then it would be the Chally 2E...unfortunately, no-one can afford it. It was described to me by a Vickers technician as like Comparing a Ferrari, to a Mondeo, when he compared the 2E to Chally 2.
In the WW2 did the German panzer commanders say "Oh that tank is far to weak to fight mine, can someone go and find one of our crappy old tanks to fight them with"
Likewise during the Gulf Wars, were we supposed to wait for the Germans to send emergency supplies of Leo's to the Iraquis to make it a bit more of a challenge?.
Bottom line it takes balls that clang together when you walk to put yourself in the firing line. ANY gunner can be lucky no matter what tank he's in, ANY commander can be unlucky no matter how advanced his tank is.
Mechanised combat isn't just about one force shooting another, thats a mistake a lot of people make. Its about having the RELIABILITY to advance and RETREAT and conduct a mobile war. Its about SURVIVABILITY when hit by opposition forces OR your own (in the case of Blue on Blues). Its about the SUPPLY CHAIN and LOGISTICS that enable you to conduct a mobile war. Its about being able to REPAIR or REPLACE critical components (TLS's CSU's GUE's ME's etc) without losing your advantages.
It doesn't matter how many advantages or disadvantages a tank has on paper, which is why as has been repeatedly stated most trials are just oversimplifications to allow procurement ministers to make a decision on 'scientific evidence'. There are NO other tanks that have operated for as long under such circumstances as Abrams and Chally. You could by all means mention the Merkerva, but its not been used over the same distances and conditions in a high intensity war.
Best tank is and always will be a combination of the factors already mentioned PLUS the all important element CREW. In this whole argument if you cut through the hundreds of posts and dozens of points of view, that is the one constant.
Due to the fact that they have conducted operations (REAL ONES) in those conditions the only 2 tanks that can legitimately be put forward as the mythical 'best' tanks of the present day would be Chally and Abrams. Hard to split the two of them so it always comes down to personal opinions. No secret to those who have seen my previous posts, my preferred tank would be Chally 2. If you wanted the all time best money no object then it would be the Chally 2E...unfortunately, no-one can afford it. It was described to me by a Vickers technician as like Comparing a Ferrari, to a Mondeo, when he compared the 2E to Chally 2.
Last edited:
Personally i think the russians tanks are the best tanks in the world. Why? because they have tanks that arent very heavy, well protected(theire era is several generations ahead of the rest and dont forget arena), cheap, versatile(can fire missles) and they use fuel efficient engines.
Maybe on a direct 1v1 slug out with a M1A2sephusk in a plane situation they might lose but in the real world it isnt like that.
Maybe on a direct 1v1 slug out with a M1A2sephusk in a plane situation they might lose but in the real world it isnt like that.
Superior tank technology is worthless today anyways. Id rather lose a cheap tank to a road side bomb then a ****ing Abrams!
Just give your guys a solid reliable tank & train em good! Therefore russian tanks are just as good as German/British/American!
The Israeli's were entering the Finnish surveillance zone, breaking a prior agreement they'd made not to enter it, the Finns were trying to stop them. Too bad the Finns didn't have any MBT's present, they should have opened fire on the bastards.Beat the living **** was kind of harsh...he said more like "Come out and I'll smack you in da face !"
Anyways what the hell was that?... Why'd those people drive 'rite thru
Ramming an APC like that is in my opinion akin to an attack.
If you look at the russsian tank performance in the chetniya war it is amazing how low theire losses were despite the horrible corruption, command and opponents.
Actually, in first Chechen war during the assault of Groznyj, Russia suffered quite a defeat at first phase - they had sent tanks without any cover and without re-active armour. Lots of those were destroyed by RPG fire.
However, when there was more order and apropriate tactics and technology was used, the city was taken with not so high losses.
However, when there was more order and apropriate tactics and technology was used, the city was taken with not so high losses.