If anyone wants to play a really good tank SIMULATOR (and I do mean simulator) try "Steel Beasts Pro PE" try searching the vids on youtube its truly fantastic, pricey tho - I bought it before Christmas, still havnt finished the manual
M.O.A.B
doesnt that kinda point to a weakness in the M1A1? it got knocked out easily after one hit. it was lucky that no ammo was hit. the rest of the charges were to destroy it structurally, with the crew out of harms way.
the Ch2 was under attack for hours with the crew inside it and they were fine. it wasn't penetrated.
doesnt that kinda point to a weakness in the M1A1? it got knocked out easily after one hit. it was lucky that no ammo was hit. the rest of the charges were to destroy it structurally, with the crew out of harms way.
the Ch2 was under attack for hours with the crew inside it and they were fine. it wasn't penetrated.
BTW heres a taster of Steel Beasts, the commentary was from a docu on disovery channel but someone replaced the video with in game footage, dont much like playing the M1.
The Challenger 2 and the Leopard 2A5 ..
Chinese tank wins.
The Abrams was disabled with a lucky shot to say the least, but the point is was trying to make was how difficult it actually was to completely destroy it. An AGM Maverick can carry either a 125lb or 300lb warhead and it was only this that really finished it off, but even then it still looked intact.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-04-15 10:32:11)
i know, but the purpose of the tank is not to last as long as possible as a structure, it is to protect the crew. the Ch2 was a sitting duck taking rounds and was fine, including a Milan (which the brit's use as a AT rocket, a comparison to the maverick i think?)
one,yes lucky, shot disabled a in action tank which obviously has some vital area's left relatively open to attack. putting the crew in danger and exposing them to outside forces.
one,yes lucky, shot disabled a in action tank which obviously has some vital area's left relatively open to attack. putting the crew in danger and exposing them to outside forces.
Last edited by Toxicseagull (2007-04-15 10:45:54)
i agree with you that the main goal is to protect the crew at all costs, which the abrams did even if destroyed, but personally i prefer the abrams, but everyone has their own opinion. The Milan is actually more similar to the Javelin, the Maverick is what the aircraft use to take out tanks and buildings. I have heard of a Challenger taking up to 14 RPG's, this may be the same situation i already posted and i believe that is extremely impressive, but when not in the desert the Challenger doesn't use the armored skirts that cover the wheels like the Abrams and i see this as a possible weak point.
but IMO the Abrams is still the best tank.
but IMO the Abrams is still the best tank.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-04-15 11:17:16)
in the Real World the M1 Abram Wins ... but not everyone thinks that but it's the M1 who wins i like it
Blurr any reason or just random feeling?
M.O.A.B
yeh i can see where you come from with the armored skirts, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the final outcome i guess as its pretty much down to personal opinion as you said
M.O.A.B
yeh i can see where you come from with the armored skirts, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the final outcome i guess as its pretty much down to personal opinion as you said
Challenger 2.
thx for the karma by the way, i'd return the favour but i need to make more posts,
not a problem
leopard 2
leopard 2
Hands down winner:
Top Gear episode...
And the BF2 parody...
And the BF2 parody...
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
I have to say that ATG has found the mother of all tanks
The killing blow for Most Abrams in Iraq are not RPGs.. there were 2 taken out by an RPG of unknown origin.Toxicseagull wrote:
M.O.A.B
doesnt that kinda point to a weakness in the M1A1? it got knocked out easily after one hit. it was lucky that no ammo was hit. the rest of the charges were to destroy it structurally, with the crew out of harms way.
the Ch2 was under attack for hours with the crew inside it and they were fine. it wasn't penetrated.
It punched a small pencil thick sized penetrator that went through the armor, through the gunner, TC, and loader, and wedged into the ammo gates. Another penetrator was found in the breach of an M1. In OIF 1 there was a Stryker that was hit with one of these rounds. It went through the Slat armor, balistic plate, and the ceramic tile armor, then through the thick steel skin of the stryker itself, punched a small hole in the company XO, and got wedged into the troop ceiling fan. As soon as the Stryker was recovered and back at FOB Marez, it was sealed off and disapeered in the middle of the night to have the penetrator examined. We couldn't even "Harvest" the truck for Ammo,Commo equipment or sensitive items like we always have to do for a catastrophic loss.
As for the other M1 kills. Currently there is not armor that can stop a EFP. EFP's are punching through anything they hit. The only thing that is remotly successful in stopping an EFP strike is "liquid" (JP8 kept my wingmans stryker from getting nailed hard. The Copper hit the fuel and cooled off so fast it just dented the inside of the fuel tank.) And Glass.. I dont know how or why it works, but I saw a humvee get hit with an EFP and the copper shot through outside door armor and got stopped halfway through the glass on the passenger side.
My Money is on the shoot and move capabilities of the Abrams. Part of warfare is to "shoot,move, and communicate" And the Abrams SEP can do that , not to mention the "new" version of the M1 thats packing slate armor over the engine compartment, and an RWS for the gunner. (not to mention the other goodies stuffed inside that already leathal machine)
Last edited by CannonFodder11b (2007-04-15 13:39:15)
Valentine VII
cannonfodder, i have heard about the EFP's lethality yes. you seem to have had some "interesting" experiences, have you been in a CH2 and M1 to compare? it would be great to have another 1st person comparison
but your last point seems to suggest that the M1 is the only tank that can shoot move and communicate? as far as im aware (as a backseat/keyboard warrior ) the CH2 has advanced sights and targeting equipment if not on par with the M1 and also is going through a rather large refit with lots of goodies.
but your last point seems to suggest that the M1 is the only tank that can shoot move and communicate? as far as im aware (as a backseat/keyboard warrior ) the CH2 has advanced sights and targeting equipment if not on par with the M1 and also is going through a rather large refit with lots of goodies.
I think the only real way to compare the tanks would be to test different aspects of the tank.
Examples:
For the armor, you could just shoot each tank with a varying selection of weapons from varied ranges, and into the same parts of the tank.
For the sights and targeting, you can send equal tank crews against each other with dummy ammunition and see who gets a hit first (or the most amount of hits, depending on the results of the first test.)
The list goes on, but I am too lazy to devise a test for every component of a tank.
Examples:
For the armor, you could just shoot each tank with a varying selection of weapons from varied ranges, and into the same parts of the tank.
For the sights and targeting, you can send equal tank crews against each other with dummy ammunition and see who gets a hit first (or the most amount of hits, depending on the results of the first test.)
The list goes on, but I am too lazy to devise a test for every component of a tank.
So because its sights and targetting is on par with the m1 its better? Im going off of combat experiance andToxicseagull wrote:
but your last point seems to suggest that the M1 is the only tank that can shoot move and communicate? as far as im aware (as a backseat/keyboard warrior ) the CH2 has advanced sights and targeting equipment if not on par with the M1 and also is going through a rather large refit with lots of goodies.
what I know, Did i flame the C2? No, but honestly im not a tanker, im a ground pounder, If I dont have a Stryker to driver me around the battlefield being Air Assualt Qualified I would either walk in, or ride a blackhawk to the general area, and fast rope in.
im not saying you bashed the Ch2 (i voted for the leopard btw), its just from your point the other modern battletanks can do the same so i dont see how mentioning it would put it over the other 2 tanks.
if communication is the same, as with sight's. we have to move onto other things.
if communication is the same, as with sight's. we have to move onto other things.
lmao
none of us can say what tank is the best, because the best ones have never fired at eachother
cant vote but m1