World Tank Ranking

Bacara said:
no most german generals, including guderian hated the tiger and pather, prefering the mark 4, they were slow, unreliable, costly, and OVER engineered, simpler is always better.
Click to expand...

Never said he did. I agree that given the situation in Germany during the war it would have been difficult to produce the Tiger in the numbers that Hitler wanted. Not sure you are correct on the Panther. The pather was developed specifically to enable Germany to defeat the T-34. The main gun 75mm L70 was one of the best there was at the time. The main problem with the Panthers was that Hitler, against Guderians recommendations sent them to Kursk where their failings under combat conditions were realized. Note that Guderian didn't want to deploy them because he felt that the "bugs" had not yet been worked out of them and wanted to give German engineers more time on development. Eventually the problems were fixed and France used about 50 of them until 1950.

I'm curious what makes you believe that Guderian hated the Pather and Tiger. Do you have references? I'm kind of a Guderian fan and never came across anything about him not "liking" any particular tank. Except maybe the canvas mockups they were forced to use after WWI.
 
lol

All this guesing and reading scammatics on potential damage an RPG 7 makes. Which one of you actully fired one and conducted a battle damage assesments on different tank types? I can say I have. Some people say and argue about things that has nothing to do with their jobs. Like BritinAfrica who is bent calling people all outside their names, "chaps, sport, mate". Who can't say what he or she actually did in Iraq. Let me start calling you names and you will surely be more offended.:cen:
 
Last edited:
Alexin_Cobra said:
All this guesing and reading scammatics on potential damage an RPG 7 makes. Which one of you actully fired one and conducted a battle damage assesments on different tank types? I can say I have. Some people say and argue about things that has nothing to do with their jobs. Like BritinAfrica who is bent calling people all outside their names, "chaps, sport, mate". Who can't say what he or she actually did in Iraq. Let me start calling you names and you will surely be more offended.:cen:
Click to expand...


Sport? lol, you've got the wrong person old chap lol.

Would you translate your "Like BritinAfrica who is bent calling people outside their names." You've lost me there. You can call me names all you like, I will never be offended. You see I have a little more intelligence then that. I will however, never lower myself to your level by calling Challenger crews cowards or people liars.


Nope I never was in Iraq and neither were you there when the Challenger lost her track. Strange how many other peoples opinion are in direct conflict with yours, people like Sherman, the man you called a liar with his half truths. So according to you all your testings regarding battle damage easements are totally conclusive, while others who have carried out extensive testings are works of pure fiction? Your arrogance astounds me.

Quite frankly your opinion amounts to very little to me or anyone else.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
Sport? lol, you've got the wrong person old chap lol.

Would you translate your "Like BritinAfrica who is bent calling people outside their names." You've lost me there. You can call me names all you like, I will never be offended. You see I have a little more intelligence then that. I will however, never lower myself to your level by calling Challenger crews cowards or people liars.


Nope I never was in Iraq and neither were you there when the Challenger lost her track. Strange how many other peoples opinion are in direct conflict with yours, people like Sherman, the man you called a liar with his half truths. So according to you all your testings regarding battle damage easements are totally conclusive, while others who have carried out extensive testings are works of pure fiction? Your arrogance astounds me.

Quite frankly your opinion amounts to very little to me or anyone else.
Click to expand...
I was there in Iraq. Sherman is most likely in Israeli military so I know he was not in Iraq at all. I was arguing with your statments saying that all sites were simultaineously taken out when the report on paper says otherwise.:read: So how are you going to make your own story? All this time you want to criticize and defend weapon systems but never tested on or been around in war to see it in action. I was in Iraq and present during battles when tanks or bradleys destroyed. You admit you were not at any such event. I got awards and pics to prove what my job is.:salute2: What do you have?:offtopic:

SHERMAN edit: That is comletely unacaptable. You may be a good soldier, you may be right, you may be better than us. All that dose not justify that kind of attitude. I asked you before to apologize, and you continue to be agressive and offensive.

.:tank:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alexin_Cobra said:
I was there in Iraq. Sherman is most likely in Israeli military so I know he was not in Iraq at all. I was arguing with your statments saying that all sites were simultaineously taken out when the report on paper says otherwise.:read: So how are you going to make your own story? All this time you want to criticize and defend weapon systems but never tested on or been around in war to see it in action. I was in Iraq and present during battles when tanks or bradleys destroyed. You admit you were not at any such event. I got awards and pics to prove what my job is.:salute2: What do you have?:offtopic:

SHERMAN edit: That is comletely unacaptable. You may be a good soldier, you may be right, you may be better than us. All that dose not justify that kind of attitude. I asked you before to apologize, and you continue to be agressive and offensive.

.:tank:
Click to expand...


I really don't have a clue what your talking about regarding your "I was arguing with your statments saying that all sites were simultaineously taken out when the report on paper says otherwise." Could you be so kind to translate into proper and correct English, oh and with the correct spelling. OH now I get it, you mean sights. I don't know if the "sights" were take out simultaneously on the Challenger, I wasn't there, and neither were you.

To accuse the Challenger crew of cowardice by your "cowering inside" is extremely offensive and contemptuous in the extreme.

I don't give a toss where you have been, what you have done, pictures or awards you have, from your arrogance you seem to think that the only tank battles have taken place in Iraq. The FACT of the matter is, ANY damn tank can be taken out, if you cannot see or understand that fact you are seriously deluded, arrogant and not as good as you think you are.

As for Israelis not being in Iraq, quite true, but those guys have fought more tank battles then you have had hot dinners.
It is vital that Israel keep up with modern weaponry and equipment, their survival as a nation depends on it. So don't for a second assume they are stupid, don't know what they are talking about and that you know better then they do, because you don't.
Again you are seriously underestimating people, one day that is going to bite you in the backside.


You really are an annoying and obnoxious little man.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
I really don't have a clue what your talking about regarding your "I was arguing with your statments saying that all sites were simultaineously taken out when the report on paper says otherwise." Could you be so kind to translate into proper and correct English, oh and with the correct spelling. OH now I get it, you mean sights. I don't know if the "sights" were take out simultaneously on the Challenger, I wasn't there, and neither were you.

To accuse the Challenger crew of cowardice by your "cowering inside" is extremely offensive and contemptuous in the extreme.

I don't give a toss where you have been, what you have done, pictures or awards you have, from your arrogance you seem to think that the only tank battles have taken place in Iraq. The FACT of the matter is, ANY damn tank can be taken out, if you cannot see or understand that fact you are seriously deluded, arrogant and not as good as you think you are.

As for Israelis not being in Iraq, quite true, but those guys have fought more tank battles then you have had hot dinners.
It is vital that Israel keep up with modern weaponry and equipment, their survival as a nation depends on it. So don't for a second assume they are stupid, don't know what they are talking about and that you know better then they do, because you don't.
Again you are seriously underestimating people, one day that is going to bite you in the backside.


You really are an annoying and obnoxious little man.
Click to expand...
Oh and you are not annoying with you down playing written facts or reports and continuing to call me names? If you are such a brainiac then why can't you come up with written facts? I didn't critize Israelis, I just said they were not there in Iraq. Its not that I care about opinions but you don't let it go. You defend your guys or whatever, I'm just siding with the report.
 
chinese-canadian said:
I still believe China's t-99G is better than Japan's T-90, in terms of fire power and armor protection, and other things like laser defence and stuff..
by the way, haven't you heard that the problem rate for the autoloader of the Japanese t-90 is like 5%....1 in 20 shots the whole thing will stuck..not a well-built tank
Click to expand...
ChineseT-99G is basically a T-72/80 hybrid hull with some indigenous systems. Its overall performance is similar to the T-72BM while what the japs have is a state of the art latest gen MBT, we can get into specifics if you want but overall you'd need at least 3 to 1 odds for Chinese to have even a remote chance.

Also the autoloader issue was fixed.
 
Alexin_Cobra said:
Oh and you are not annoying with you down playing written facts or reports and continuing to call me names? If you are such a brainiac then why can't you come up with written facts? I didn't critize Israelis, I just said they were not there in Iraq. Its not that I care about opinions but you don't let it go. You defend your guys or whatever, I'm just siding with the report.
Click to expand...

Funny that, I post reports then you declare them fiction. Now you care about opinions lol. Of course I'm going to defend my guys.

This is getting rather boring and as suggested, its time to get back to tanks.

There is a very good comparison between the Challenger2 and Abrams

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_best_tank_Challenger_2_or_Abrams_M1A2
 
Last edited:
Tank time.

Maybe if i post this we can get back to tanks?

No# 2: M1A2 SEP due to it's limited range 426 km's using Avgas and the fact that it has a Rheinmetall (German 120mm) gun.

No# 1: Leopard 2 A6 PSO with it's range of 550 km's using diesel.

When your loggie tail wags the dog you need to think about what you need on the battlefield.

P.S. PSO: Peace support operations.
 
BritinAfrica said:
Funny that, I post reports then you declare them fiction. Now you care about opinions lol. Of course I'm going to defend my guys.

This is getting rather boring and as suggested, its time to get back to tanks.

There is a very good comparison between the Challenger2 and Abrams

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_best_tank_Challenger_2_or_Abrams_M1A2
Click to expand...
Oh, you now reporter or analyst now? :spam2: You just admitted you were not an expert already, so drop the subject and quit answering me.

johnnyQAMR said:
Maybe if i post this we can get back to tanks?

No# 2: M1A2 SEP due to it's limited range 426 km's using Avgas and the fact that it has a Rheinmetall (German 120mm) gun.

No# 1: Leopard 2 A6 PSO with it's range of 550 km's using diesel.

When your loggie tail wags the dog you need to think about what you need on the battlefield.

P.S. PSO: Peace support operations.
Click to expand...
The U.S. has a powerful diesel engine made for it but contracts :read:prevent us from fielding them
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the_13th_redneck said:
Chinese MBTs are probably overhyped T-72s.
Click to expand...
I've seen them, I accidently met alot of friends that are in the PRC Army during my yearly visit, since the kungfu school I attend is right outside some army barracks. They have way mor than one type of tanks. They range from T-52s through T-90 They no longer buy weapons from Russia, they rather build their own versions. The later versions T-72 and up are refitted in China. They even try to mimic M1 Abrums style turrets on the new type 90's in CN
 
Alexin_Cobra said:
Oh, you now reporter or analyst now? :spam2: You just admitted you were not an expert already, so drop the subject and quit answering me.
Click to expand...



I had dropped the subject, yet you continue to to be insulting, obnoxious, offensive and seriously lacking in civility. The site I posted wasn't for you, it was for others who might be interested in a more balanced view with a view of entering into adult discussions.


Your childish blatherings are irritating and immature to say the least. Now kindly go and annoy someone else.:rolleyes:


As far as I am concerned this silliness is done and dusted.
 
BritinAfrica said:
I had dropped the subject, yet you continue to to be insulting, obnoxious, offensive and seriously lacking in civility. The site I posted wasn't for you, it was for others who might be interested in a more balanced view with a view of entering into adult discussions.


Your childish blatherings are irritating and immature to say the least. Now kindly go and annoy someone else.:rolleyes:


As far as I am concerned this silliness is done and dusted.
Click to expand...
You still haven't learn to stop calling names(it shows you own low maturity). You don't know balance because you have done or been anywhere other than you confort zone. I already asked you to stop talking to me and you still have something worthless to say.:stupid:
 
johnnyQAMR said:
Maybe if i post this we can get back to tanks?

No# 2: M1A2 SEP due to it's limited range 426 km's using Avgas and the fact that it has a Rheinmetall (German 120mm) gun.

No# 1: Leopard 2 A6 PSO with it's range of 550 km's using diesel.

When your loggie tail wags the dog you need to think about what you need on the battlefield.

P.S. PSO: Peace support operations.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that using diesel with a higher flash point would be far safer then using Avgas with its much lower flash point. Then there is of course the matter of logistics.
 
Last edited:
The US Army uses JP8 its a cross between diesel and jet fuel. It has high octane level and burns like gasoline but last longer like diesel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top