Page 2 of 3

Posted: 23 Jul 2006, 16:50
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. :-)

Posted: 18 Aug 2006, 07:34
by erasmus
ok aaaaayy

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

ill shut up now

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 01:09
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.
See the 2 barrels? Its big. And its a electric tank to be friendly with the eco guys while being really silent.

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 01:36
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:

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 01:41
by Zoombie

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 02:14
by Fanger
I think that is debatable..

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 02:33
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!

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 02:50
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:
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)

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 03:00
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!)

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 04:13
by Decimator
Isn't the leo only about half as fast as the abrams though?

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 05:44
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.

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 12:06
by rattle
Oh please...

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

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 17:31
by Fanger
that looks vaguely different from an abrams, which looks vaguely different from most other modern tanks..

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 17:48
by Dr.InfernO
nothing is better than our old k├â┬Ânigstiger...

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 17:51
Most other modern tanks?


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.

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 18:00
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:

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 20:01
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.

Posted: 19 Aug 2006, 22:48
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.

Posted: 20 Aug 2006, 00:06
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

Posted: 20 Aug 2006, 00:14
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: