BF2S Forums Tiger attack helicopter.

DonFck wrote:

Thankfully BF2:EF is not a simulator

I was gonna say... man that thing is shitty.

GR34 wrote:

Its is a Very good chopper. don't listen to all the Americans saying there shit is better

Our shit is better

What do the Canadians use?

That's a cute toy.

Big boys play with Apaches.

UAV's.. or of course Air Wolf

The United States use the Apache and Cobra too FatherTed.

Cybargs wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

The United States use the Apache and Cobra too FatherTed.

Different mods k.

Just remember,
It's the Indian, not the bow

Or

The poor mason blames his tools

Lai wrote:

GR34 wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

Our shit is better

What do the Canadians use?

Lots of other countries weapons are better then the US's take the Challenger II for example

Well we use German Vehicles light vehicles (G-wagon), German tanks. Canadian rifles all be it very similar to the M16/M4, we also use Canadian Designed LAV's based on swiss Piranha we also use the coyote LAV(the Americans use the LAV-25 which was also designed in Canada). Fighter jet wise we use the CF-18 which is Canada's take on the F/A-18, we fly the CH-146 griffin which is again our take of a bell 412 helicopter. Currently Canada has no Attack helicopter but we do have retro fitted Griffins with rockets and such. Canada basically take the best from every country and uses it as our own. We are also getting F-35's

Yep, the guy is right. The Canadian license build stuff tends to be just a bit better thought through than their US donors. Diemaco's have had heavier barrels for long (maybe that's solved now with the M16A4, but still the Canadians had it earlier), no burst mode (full auto instead) and have been using optical sights for years.

Diemacos don't jam as much as the American counterparts either?

Bradt3hleader wrote:

Yeah because they don't use them. jk

If you clean an M16A4 every now and then it's fine. It's not like the M16s in Vietnam.

I'd rather have a rifle that I could fuck down the barrel like the HK416 and keep shooting it instead of having to clean an M16 after each battle.

Man, I'm starting to feel for the Marines

KuSTaV wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

Yeah because they don't use them. jk

If you clean an M16A4 every now and then it's fine. It's not like the M16s in Vietnam.

I'd rather have a rifle that I could fuck down the barrel like the HK416 and keep shooting it instead of having to clean an M16 after each battle.

Man, I'm starting to feel for the Marines

que?

paso

Ioan92 wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

Yeah because they don't use them. jk

If you clean an M16A4 every now and then it's fine. It's not like the M16s in Vietnam.

I'd rather have a rifle that I could fuck down the barrel like the HK416 and keep shooting it instead of having to clean an M16 after DURING each battle.

Man, I'm starting to feel for the Marines

Fixed 4 U

Seriously though, I don't know whether Diemaco's are less prone to jamming, I guess they still are at least to a certain extend as the fouling of the bolt is inherent to the basic AR15 design. I know the talk regarding maintenance about proper American Army discipline compared to sloppy Russian conscripts, the point is that it's just not realistic. A soldier might hit the ground and his rifle will get muddy or not have time to properly maintain his weapon for one or more days. Sure, it doesn't always jam and it certainly doesn't jam as much as they used too, nor are even AK's fully jamproof; the thing is you never know for sure when they are going to jam so you want you chances of jamming to be as small as possible.

I know of Dutch second line troops who had their Uzi's replaced by Diemaco C8 Carbines and weren't too happy even though from a tactical perspective a M4 is far superior to an Uzi. The Uzi was developped to withstand Levantine sands, you could wipe your ass with it and it would still work. The same C8's were also issued to the KCT (Corps Commando Troops), but have been in service for scarcely more than a decade. As soon as they saw real action (Afghanistan, Uruzgan province) they were discarded and replaced by HK416's. IMO the Dutch should have kept their old FAL's, as the British should have, who are even worse of with their SA85's.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

From what i've heard. the AH-64 and Aussie Tiger perform very similarly. AH-64 kind wins in the armament area, but the Tiger is far easier in terms logistics and is also also far cheaper. So i think it was probably a economic decision.

Isn't the Tigr also EMP proof, or was that an imagined feature ascribed purely for Goldeneye?

GR34 wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

GR34 wrote:

Its is a Very good chopper. don't listen to all the Americans saying there shit is better

Our shit is better

What do the Canadians use?

Lots of other countries weapons are better then the US's take the Challenger II for example

Well we use German Vehicles light vehicles (G-wagon), German tanks. Canadian rifles all be it very similar to the M16/M4, we also use Canadian Designed LAV's based on swiss Piranha we also use the coyote LAV(the Americans use the LAV-25 which was also designed in Canada). Fighter jet wise we use the CF-18 which is Canada's take on the F/A-18, we fly the CH-146 griffin which is again our take of a bell 412 helicopter. Currently Canada has no Attack helicopter but we do have retro fitted Griffins with rockets and such. Canada basically take the best from every country and uses it as our own. We are also getting F-35's

Challenger 2 sucks balls. Now if you said the Leopard 2 is better than Abrams maybe I will believe you, but I prefer something that is battle-proven than something that is said to be good.