BF2S Forums Best tank in the world !

Vilham wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

What rediculous claim? Did you even read his post?

Pollux its called an incinuation...

I think BolvisOculus described your posting habits best:

BolvisOculus wrote:

You know, every time you post, it's something negative.  Every time I see your name, it's bitching.

"sir we're out of ammo!!"
     
          "dammit, load the boiling tea!!!"

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

What rediculous claim? Did you even read his post?

Pollux its called an incinuation...

I think BolvisOculus described your posting habits best:

BolvisOculus wrote:

You know, every time you post, it's something negative.  Every time I see your name, it's bitching.

So you don't know what debating is? Guess not. Tbh you are the one user of this forum who quite literally contributes in no serious way what so ever.

lol Jeremy Clarkson is indeed a legend, and if something is shit he'll tell you it's shit, in as many ways and using as many words as possible lol. The Top Gear thing I posted was just for a laugh but it does point out a few of the Challengers good points.

On another note, stop going on about the M1 seeing more action thus making it better, that argument doesn't actually make sense it just means your government is more than willing to throw billions of dollars worth of military equipment into whatever fight is popular that day.

Just coz there's more of them or they've been used more doesn't make the engineering or technology alter in any way at all.

Vilham wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

"sir we're out of ammo!!"
     
          "dammit, load the boiling tea!!!"

Where as in the Abrams...

"boss we're out of ammo!!"

"o crap, load the burgers!!!"

Match Point, Vilham!

sorry mate, he gotcha there

Last edited by Fenris_GreyClaw (2006-12-06 06:54:20)

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

lol Jeremy Clarkson is indeed a legend, and if something is shit he'll tell you it's shit, in as many ways and using as many words as possible lol. The Top Gear thing I posted was just for a laugh but it does point out a few of the Challengers good points.

On another note, stop going on about the M1 seeing more action thus making it better, that argument doesn't actually make sense it just means your government is more than willing to throw billions of dollars worth of military equipment into whatever fight is popular that day.

Just coz there's more of them or they've been used more doesn't make the engineering or technology alter in any way at all.

Exactly, its like saying a bullet is more effective than a nuke because its more numerous and has seen more combat.

What about the T-95 / Black Eagle? They are  supposed to be all super fancy but nobody knows anything about them.

Last edited by PBAsydney (2006-12-06 06:53:18)

usmarine2007 wrote:

Leopard II or Merkava4 would be my choice Mr. Vilham, so quit your crying.

Merkava to me is more of a hybrid of APC and tank. Still pwnage how the crew can get out.

Vilham wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Seriously, we have shown the videos, we have shown the stats, we have shown the battle history.

It's about time you accept that America doesn't own the best of everything, the Challenger 2 is a better tank.

Ummm...those are not American tanks.

And BTW, you all must be right I guess.  I mean, what would I know, my job in the Marines was Anti-Tank, so I have no idea what I am saying.

You have only just changed your mind... throughtout this whole thread you have been trying to claim the Abrams is better than the Challenger 2. Clearly you don't know too much if you claim a tank that can be taken out by one RPG-7 is better than a tank that can take 8 RPG-7's and an Anti-tank missle and still be mobile.

I say the M1 because it has a very good battle record.  But, if I had to sit my ass down in one and go to battle, it would be the Lep or Merk.

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

Vilham wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

"sir we're out of ammo!!"
     
          "dammit, load the boiling tea!!!"

Where as in the Abrams...

"boss we're out of ammo!!"

"o crap, load the burgers!!!"

Match Point, Vilham!

sorry mate, he gotcha there

silly, that exhaust grid on the abrams is for seering steaks

usmarine2007 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Ummm...those are not American tanks.

And BTW, you all must be right I guess.  I mean, what would I know, my job in the Marines was Anti-Tank, so I have no idea what I am saying.

You have only just changed your mind... throughtout this whole thread you have been trying to claim the Abrams is better than the Challenger 2. Clearly you don't know too much if you claim a tank that can be taken out by one RPG-7 is better than a tank that can take 8 RPG-7's and an Anti-tank missle and still be mobile.

I say the M1 because it has a very good battle record.  But, if I had to sit my ass down in one and go to battle, it would be the Lep or Merk.

definitely merk in that case, i wanna exit through the "butt hatch"

"During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoiless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. Unfortunately, the tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick was fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Ironically the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior."
"Some were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. This damage usually corresponds to the tracks of the Abrams. Another one was put out of action when heavy machine gun rounds struck fuel stowed in an external rack, starting a fire that spread to the engine."

Those are the whole quotes. As you can see its armour isnt that strong as it was pierced in the rear by an anti tank rifle.

disabled /= destroyed

re read # 223

"Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. Unfortunately, the tank was completely disabled but still intact"

sounds like tough shit to me, has a challenger been hit in the rear with an anti-material rifle?