Best Tank!

Originally posted by Laxpla
Nuke vs Nuke War? lol, dude think about this, must you of read my other posts, We will have the program which SHOOTS down nukes (High-energy beam).

Russia = send nuke to Amer. (if can afford launch pad) = blown up by laser

USA= sends nuke to rus. =you know what happens.

It gets shot down by S-300PMU1 SAMs or Gazelle ABMs.

Classic American Ignorance. Isint this site's motto "Deny Ignorance"?

Its funny beacuse the people on this board always say that their countries ABM shield will knock down all of the oppenents missiles, while saying that the country there shooting ats ABM defense will not work! The truth is neither the Russian nor American system is equipped to take down all of the ICBM's.

Saying that a missile shield can stop all of them is folly. A single SSBN carries over 500 Warheads, how can you stop them all??

necro the russian sams are not made to shoot down ICBM's its made to shoot down jets it wont be good at shooting down warheads coming in at over or around mach 10-13 and the US solid state lasers and missiles wont stop every single warhead but it will stop most of them enough to let the important things in the US undamaged but in the end both countries Russia and the US will have suffered major loses which might be unrecoverable.

False. Russian Sams (S-300PMU1/2, S-300V, S-400) can shoot down incoming Balistic missiles as well as aircraft. They are the best in the World.

I believe Russia has a limited ABM shield over Moscow. If you read a description of what would happen in a Nuclear war on Johnston's Archieve, the shield shoots down about 20-50 missiles before they get to Moscow. It was mainly to protect the Kremlin.

Hmm. Although I personally think on the pure mechanical ratings, the French and Israeli tanks might be good I'll put them to one side and just look at two tanks: Abrams and Challenger.

Both have similarities. Both use a modified version of Chobham armour (Abrams uses DU-enhanced, Challenger uses DORCHESTER). Similar training etc..

Now the differences. Abrams has a gas-turbine, Challenger uses an Internal Combustion engine. Abrams' gun is smoothbore, Challenger's is rifled.

Abrams is slightly faster, slightly quieter, Challenger has the slightly better track record. there has only been one Challenger lost, and that was to another challenger II. It's possibly the only tank in the world that has never been killed by a different tank. It's also got the longest tank--> tank kill ever.

Gulf war I saw Challenger I in action. 300 kills for zero losses. Pretty good going....

There was also only 1 Abrams turret by enemy fire during the Gulf War. A T-72 hit the bustle of a Abrams and blew it's ammo, but the crew swung around and killed it's attacker with the round in the tube. The rest of the Abrams disabled were from friendly fire, mines, or non-fatal engine/hull shots. Also, the Challenger didn't see as much action as the Abrams.

I only rate the Challenger lower then the rest of the western tanks is because it's slower and it's C3 suite doesn't match up.

its better than the leapord you have to admit.

Just to throw some facts at you the Abrams destroyed over 3 thousand Iraqi tanks in the first gulf war while only loosing one to enemy fire and only four in the entire war also no crew of the Abrams died in those four tanks.

Also the Abrams can hit a basketball over a mile away talk about precision I learned that fact while watching Heavy Gear on the history channel about the Abrams

Originally posted by devilwasp
its better than the leapord you have to admit.

The Leopard beats the Chally out on the mobility and C3 front. I'd say neither have anything that would really give it an advantage other one another.

Also the Abrams can hit a basketball over a mile away talk about precision I learned that fact while watching Heavy Gear on the history channel about the Abrams [/QUOTE]
LOL! YOU #ING MORON! Do you really think they are going to say anything negative about the M1A1? All these 'Top 10 Military machines' are all bull#.

And the best iraqi tanks where crappy T-72M1s with NO IR, NO Image Enhancment, CRAPPY AMMUNITION (Half-loads, steel penetrators), CRAPPY TRAINING and WEAK ARMOR.
And the main iraqi tank is the Type-69, wich is a Chinese copy of a T-55.

"The M1A1 beat the hell out of tanks designed in the mid 40ies! It's the best in the world!"

U.S. has the best tanks in service.

Fulcrum, you are stuck in the cold war mentality...you and the Russian guy view the U.S. as your greatest threat but we arent...China is. You share a HUGE border with a superpower that will dwarf you in terms of power, both militarily and economically. China is making leaps and bounds on you with ever year...heck every month. The U.S. and Russia hold more in common than Russia and China.

Did you know we supplied you with over 80,000 trucks and vehicles in WWII??? We supplied you with food to feed your troops, ammo, planes!! medical supplies.....everything you needed to fight off the Germans. The tonnage of items we supplied you is amazing! The reason you were able to produce so many tanks is because you had all the trucks you needed to remain mobile. We fed your military machine AND opened a second front. The Germans could not resupply but we kept you with enough supplies to finally turn the tide. Guess what? We continue to flood your country with IMF loans to keep the Ruble from collapsing. We have spent tens of billions securing your nuclear technology because you cant do it yourselves. Both of you are uneducated ingrates. I wish Germany would have conquered you....we would have still won the war without your help anyway. China will keep you in check though.

Lastly, when things in the world go really bad...I wouldnt be surprised if Russia along with NATO were on the same side...just like the previous world wars.

www.army.mil...

yeah thats why we british have better armour and better cost.
also we couldnt have won ww2 with out the russians and dont you damm well forget it!
they beat a major part of the german army for us. look at stalingrad they took on a better army BUT CAME OUT ON TOP!
they had the most and best snipers the world had ever seen.
they made it to berlin first.
they burst out of their borders like some angels of death.
dont you dare say the US won the war alone cause they damm well didnt we worked together as allies. also all those who think i hate the US are wrong i just hate your politiions thats all.

Hey devil he said the Russians would have not been that effective if the US had not supplied them with everything they needed just like we supplied Britain. Also about them having the best snipers in WWII well if you get 20 million women like the Russians did then your bound to hit something and a military that looses 25 million troops is not a good one to me shows mw that they don't care about human life and lack of training.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Hey devil he said the Russians would have not been that effective if the US had not supplied them with everything they needed just like we supplied Britain. Also about them having the best snipers in WWII well if you get 20 million women like the Russians did then your bound to hit something and a military that looses 25 million troops is not a good one to me shows mw that they don't care about human life and lack of training.

no he didnt he said we could have managed the war with out them.
oh so now you sexist? considering they had the best sniper in the world and best female sniper in the world at the time.
also so what like the russian's had a choice? the russians faught hard for every yard of land. also so what like stalin cared? russia back then was a country whose gov didnt care about lives because there was so many in their country.
also are those 25 million where mostly farmers.

We could have reached Berlin first but we allowed the Russians to take it since they had lost so many people and their territory was actually invaded. That is a fact. No, we could not have won without the ever stalwart British. Britain served as our main base of operation in the European theatre for quite some time. It was a perfect striking point for navies and air squadrons. But yes we could have won if Russia had lost. Our bomber squadrons literally filled the sky and had decimated the German industrial capacity. British navies had the German navy confined to port. They could only build a few tanks and planes at a time. Would it have taken longer and would we have lost more men? Definitely yes, but we would have prevailed.

Who cares about snipers in regards to the overall outcome of the war. Even fighter aces have little impact in the grand scheme of things. When you are dealing with tens of millions of people...a few extraordinary snipers will not win you the war. When dealing with tens of thousands of planes...a few top aces will not determine the outcome.

Yes its true that we made an agreement to let Russia have Berlin. But Russia always had highly effective tanks. Of course the Germans actually planned on surrendering to the US and the UK. They new the Soviets wanted vengence after Stalingrad.

As for snipers not having a large effect thats completly untrue. A sniper can clear out a machine gun nest from a distance while protecting. That way you suffer less causalties. And a few fighter aces can have a major effect. Look at the Japanese "Cleanup Trio". The shot down numerous aircraft. And one of the greatest benefits is high morale. Aces keep morale high on the homefront and with in the ranks. Snipers can have a similar effect. Snipers are know for causeing fear and panic amongst enemies simply because the can nail everyone of you but you can't see the sniper.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
As for snipers not having a large effect thats completly untrue. A sniper can clear out a machine gun nest from a distance while protecting. That way you suffer less causalties. And a few fighter aces can have a major effect. Look at the Japanese "Cleanup Trio". The shot down numerous aircraft. And one of the greatest benefits is high morale. Aces keep morale high on the homefront and with in the ranks. Snipers can have a similar effect. Snipers are know for causeing fear and panic amongst enemies simply because the can nail everyone of you but you can't see the sniper.

Snipers can play important roles and so can fighter aces but they alone will not win a war. My point was in response to one of the above posters commenting on how great Russian snipers were and how we needed Russia to win WWII. Every country had their fighter aces, including France but they will not win the war by themselves.