P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
I chose the Vietnam look. CH-47 in sunset and Huey as my Avatar
Official Sig / Avatar test Thread
- Thread starter Medvedya
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nonskimmer
Captain
I'm gonna keep mine for a while yet I think. Why? Well because I like it, and because it's Canadian Air Force tradition to keep things well past their prime. 
Also the tradition of the Army and Navy, but what the hell.
Also the tradition of the Army and Navy, but what the hell.
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
I think ill do a modern war siggy after this one
Wildcat
Major
Nonskimmer said:I'm gonna keep mine for a while yet I think. Why? Well because I like it, and because it's Canadian Air Force tradition to keep things well past their prime.
Also the tradition of the Army and Navy, but what the hell.
LOL
Sounds a little like the Aussie Defence Force!!
Nonskimmer
Captain
At least you Aussies spend money on your military. If we'd have been smart, we'd have bought some Collins class subs for the Navy. But of course, we're not that smart.
Anyhoo, it sucks but whaddya do?
Anyhoo, it sucks but whaddya do?
Wildcat
Major
Yeah, but the problems we had with our Collins class subs! Cost us millions to finally get them right.
Nonskimmer
Captain
But you stuck with it and got it right.
Wildcat
Major
Yeah and since Sep 11 the Government has started pouring money back into the Defence Force. At the moment we're about to build new Air Warfare Destroyers, new Amphibious Assault ships, more choppers for the Army(MH-90's), AWACS for the RAAF, More RBS-70 SAM's, APC's and the list goes on!.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Like I said, we're not that smart. Our government is committed to building up the regular infantry and not much else. There's talk of new tanks, but so far it's just talk. About the only new ships planned for the Navy are new all-purpose heavy transport/replenishment vessels, but no one has even been contracted for them yet. We badly need new area defence destroyers to replace the few aging ones in service.
Wildcat
Major
Well we don't have any, hence why we're building some (in my home city BTW) and we also recently brought some new (second hand) Abrams from the US to replace our ageing Leopards.
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
Wow, you aussies are smart! The M1A1 abrams is a great tank to use.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Hmmm...rather have a Challenger II.... 8)
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
M1 Abrams for me or a M48A3 Patton tank for me to drive around the neighborhood!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
pfftt, the challenger II would cruch you like a tin can..........
cheddar cheese
Major General
Hell yeah 8)
The Challenger II, M1A2 Abrams, Leopard II and T-90 are all about on the same level. There's no vast advantages between any of them. Tanks are at the peak of their life - and they're probably going to stay there until the invention of energy weapons (which the U.S are already gearing up for).
The Abrams is the U.S MBT but not one part of it is American.
The Abrams is the U.S MBT but not one part of it is American.
Nonskimmer
Captain
I wouldn't know for sure, but I've been told by some Army types that tank for tank both the Challenger II and the Leopard 2 are better than the Abrams. They have a wider range of gun elevation/depression, greater range, and some have said they have more reliable firing mechanisms. Not sure about that one.
Not to say that the Abrams is a piece of sh*t or anything. It clearly isn't.
Not to say that the Abrams is a piece of sh*t or anything. It clearly isn't.
Nowadays tanks have reached a point where they can only have slight advantages over one another. The Abrams is capable of destroying a Challenger II and the Challenger II is capable of destroying the Abrams.
In World War 2 armoured conflict took place at 500-600 metres. Today it's normally around 1000 metres. All modern tanks can destroy each other at that range.
In 1937, Heinz Guderian wrote "The greatest enemy of a tank is another tank." That was true then but not now. Tanks need to be developed to be able to defend themselves from the air and from infantry. The tank will never lose it's place on the battlefield but armour conflict is rare and these modern tanks are more than capable of doing what a tank is supposed to do - scare people and destroy strongpoints. Rarely will they meet tank-on-tank. If they do, High Command has made a mistake.
In World War 2 armoured conflict took place at 500-600 metres. Today it's normally around 1000 metres. All modern tanks can destroy each other at that range.
In 1937, Heinz Guderian wrote "The greatest enemy of a tank is another tank." That was true then but not now. Tanks need to be developed to be able to defend themselves from the air and from infantry. The tank will never lose it's place on the battlefield but armour conflict is rare and these modern tanks are more than capable of doing what a tank is supposed to do - scare people and destroy strongpoints. Rarely will they meet tank-on-tank. If they do, High Command has made a mistake.
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
I still think the Abrams is a pretty good tank. Energy weapons? I think i read about that in a newspaper article. Its this big thing they put on Humvees and its suppose to burn rubber or it irritates skin. Its non-lethal.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Oh, I never meant that the Abrams sucked. It's still a great tank from what I've seen.
