Reminds me of a Family Guy epsiode.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!!!
Why do americans love camo tanks and stuff so much?
Moderator: Moderators
-
The_Big_Boss
- Posts: 88
- Joined: 17 Jul 2006, 04:00
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)
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)
Last edited by HAARP on 19 Aug 2006, 03:08, edited 1 time in total.
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!)
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!)
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.
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.
-
Dr.InfernO
- Posts: 223
- Joined: 18 Nov 2005, 13:55
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.
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.
-
Charlemagne
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59
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 "
" 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.
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 "
" 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.
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.
-
The_Big_Boss
- Posts: 88
- Joined: 17 Jul 2006, 04:00
"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.
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.
lol The FuTUrE is NoWwwenviromentally 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!
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:
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: