Why do americans love camo tanks and stuff so much? - Page 2

Why do americans love camo tanks and stuff so much?

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

User avatar
Aun
Posts: 788
Joined: 31 Aug 2005, 13:00

Post by Aun »

Charlemagne wrote:I think all army tanks should be pink. No one would take a pink tank seriously, and all enemies would overlook it. Then you recolor the pink tanks mean read, with THEIR BLOOD!!!
Reminds me of a Family Guy epsiode. :-)
0 x

erasmus
Posts: 111
Joined: 28 Jun 2006, 06:01

Post by erasmus »

ok aaaaayy

from your first post.
i seriously thought you were talking about tank tops....like clothing....like clothing with camouflage patterns worn by civvies in the street like

ill shut up now
0 x

User avatar
The_Big_Boss
Posts: 88
Joined: 17 Jul 2006, 04:00

Post by The_Big_Boss »

Ill take an invisible tank any day over a camo. Speaking of which im selling an invisible one. Anyone wanna buy? See pic below.
Image
See the 2 barrels? Its big. And its a electric tank to be friendly with the eco guys while being really silent.
0 x

HAARP
Posts: 182
Joined: 06 Apr 2006, 07:18

Post by HAARP »

The German Leopard 2 Tank has a special kind of camouflage. Depending on temperature and humidity, it looks different. Also the IR signature is as low as possible, making him optically almost invisible at 1.5km under good conditions.

A Leo 2 would pwn an Abrams anytime :twisted:
0 x

User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

Neat.
0 x

User avatar
Fanger
Expand & Exterminate Developer
Posts: 1509
Joined: 22 Nov 2005, 22:58

Post by Fanger »

I think that is debatable..
0 x

User avatar
Min3mat
Posts: 3455
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 20:19

Post by Min3mat »

enviromentally friendly tanks...whatever next!
F-117's acting as carboard crushers?
Hydrogen Fuel Powered Helicopters (lol)
Solar powered beam rifle laz0rz0rs of dewhm...the possibilities are endless!
0 x

HAARP
Posts: 182
Joined: 06 Apr 2006, 07:18

Post by HAARP »

Well, actually that's really debatable. Since both the Leo2 and the Abrams use the Rheinmetall 120mm cannon and both use Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot-Tracer rounds. This stuff is incredible. No explosives, using only the kinetic energy to pierce through any armor. The kinetic energy is about the same as a 100t locomotive at 50km/h has, concentrated on a small spot!
Look at this:
Image
However, the Leo can aim better. It can compensate for it's own and the target's movement, and can even hit a chopper moving at 250km/h 3km away. Sure, Abrams can compensate too, but is no match for Leos "Feuerleitanlage"

So it boils down to the armor, detectability and mobility. The Abrams uses a gas turbine, the Leo2 a Diesel engine. While the turbine may have a bigger power output, it's not as reliable and much more power hungry. Leos Diesel engine can be fed with diesel, kerosine, petroleum, vegetable oil and about everything that burns, including whiskey.
Abram's Camouflage may look incredible, but it's not as good as Leo's adaptive one. Also, the Leo is able to create a screen of smoke, which allows him to escape visual and IR detection
I can't say much about the armor. It's a secret on both side, but I do know that the Abrams uses depleted uranium, which is about the most dense material you can use for this, while the Leo has CHOBHAM-multi layer armor. Leo's one is much thicker tho, especially at the front.

So yes, it's debatable :p


(plus, you can cool 2 12-packs in the biological/chemical warfare filter compartment of the Leo)
Last edited by HAARP on 19 Aug 2006, 03:08, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Snipawolf
Posts: 4357
Joined: 12 Dec 2005, 01:49

Post by Snipawolf »

Same problem as usual, both sides look different, and a debatable thing...

I vote, I dunno, leo probably cuz it can sneak attack...

(Ranting about rocketlaunchers now)

And look at those piercing shots, ITS LIKE A ROCKET! Rockets (since WWII) have pierced a 1 inch in diameter and 10 INCHES DEEP hole!

Everyone is like, ROCKETS EXPLODE, BLAH BLAH BLAH! Read the damn wiki people, rockets don't "explode", they blow up ammo/people/fuel/engines, and other vital tank stuff....

(Ending rant about common people's idiocy!)
0 x

User avatar
Decimator
Posts: 1118
Joined: 24 Jul 2005, 04:15

Post by Decimator »

Isn't the leo only about half as fast as the abrams though?
0 x

User avatar
Quanto042
Basically OTA Developer
Posts: 778
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 03:01

Post by Quanto042 »

Dude, the abrams sucks, The leo COULD and WOULD kick the abrams ass. our government only holds on to it because of all the money we threw into it only to find out that it sucks up 7 gallons of gas just to start its engine, on top of that, the supply line required to keep a battalion of those tanks running in comparison to our euro competitors is staggering.

The Abrams is a complete waste of resources, we need a better, SLOWER tank with better EM capabilites and less fuel consumption. Oh, and actual armor protecting its engine would be nice too.
0 x

User avatar
rattle
Damned Developer
Posts: 8278
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:15

Post by rattle »

Oh please...
Image

Ain't nothing more badass than our Leopards...
0 x

User avatar
Fanger
Expand & Exterminate Developer
Posts: 1509
Joined: 22 Nov 2005, 22:58

Post by Fanger »

that looks vaguely different from an abrams, which looks vaguely different from most other modern tanks..
0 x

User avatar
Dr.InfernO
Posts: 223
Joined: 18 Nov 2005, 13:55

Post by Dr.InfernO »

nothing is better than our old k├â┬Ânigstiger...
:roll:
0 x

HAARP
Posts: 182
Joined: 06 Apr 2006, 07:18

Post by HAARP »

Most other modern tanks?

Image



And no, the K├â┬Ânigstiger sucked. Around 1945 they may have ruled the battlefield, assuming it's engine didn't break down, which happened quite a lot. Badly underpowered with about 700 hp
Josef-Stalin 3 would have kicked it's ass around. Too bad the IS3 came too late to make any difference.
0 x

User avatar
Charlemagne
Posts: 174
Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59

Post by Charlemagne »

Leos Diesel engine can be fed with diesel, kerosine, petroleum, vegetable oil and about everything that burns, including whiskey.
Who would be so cruel as to use perfectly good whiskey to drive a tank? That is just pure evil. :evil:
0 x

j5mello
Posts: 1189
Joined: 26 Aug 2005, 05:40

Post by j5mello »

HARRP that tank u posted really isn't that modern.

Fang is right though, the Leopard, the Abrams, the Challenger all have similar characteristics. They aren't identical, but they aren't completely individual designs either. Which makes complete sense since they all preform the same role. That similarity aspect exists throughout the military simply because u don't fix what isn't broken.

oh and HARRP i think Dr. inferno was kidding hence the " :roll: " at the end of his post.

OH yeah! one more thing. Whoever said that the Leopards smoke screen ability was unique is misinformed. Most modern armored units be they MBTs like the Abrams or IFVs like the Bradley have smoke launchers. Hell if u look in Big Boss's picture u can see the smoke launchers on the Abrams's turret. they are are a little below and to the right of the Commander's cupola in the pic.
0 x

User avatar
mehere101
Posts: 293
Joined: 15 Mar 2006, 02:38

Post by mehere101 »

Yeah. Almost every tank manufactured lately has a bank of smoke launchers on either side of the barrel. Besides that, both your dumb tanks are owned by radar guided hellfire missiles from an AH-64d. And if that doesn't stop you, I'm betting a Comanche could sneak up on your tanks and chaingun them to death.
0 x

User avatar
The_Big_Boss
Posts: 88
Joined: 17 Jul 2006, 04:00

Post by The_Big_Boss »

"Speaking of which im selling an invisible one."

Not the tan tank in the background, the invisible one in front of it. I cant believe you guys missed it.

An invisible tank would own all tanks.

enviromentally friendly tanks...whatever next!
F-117's acting as carboard crushers?
Hydrogen Fuel Powered Helicopters (lol)
Solar powered beam rifle laz0rz0rs of dewhm...the possibilities are endless!
lol The FuTUrE is NoWww
0 x

HAARP
Posts: 182
Joined: 06 Apr 2006, 07:18

Post by HAARP »

I only posted that picture to show you that not every MBT has to look like M1A1/Leo2
Were talking MBT here. So they all have identical purposes and may look identical. But that's not guaranteed.

Leos smoke screen capability isn't unique. But correct me if I'm wrong, but Abrams smoke-launcher isn't loaded with IR-irritating grenades

Oh, and sure, every tank gets owned by missiles to the top. But I've got something for yer:
Image
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”