Official Sig / Avatar test Thread

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

LOL Sounds a little like the Aussie Defence Force!!
 
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?
 
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!.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Erich's siggy - in memoriam
Replies
9
Views
471
Micdrow
Ralph Haus' siggy - in memoriam
Replies
2
Views
384
Gnomey
Lancaster630's siggy test
Replies
0
Views
699
Wurger
Joe's siggy - in memoriam
Replies
14
Views
1K
horseUSA
Gary Cain's siggy
Replies
0
Views
627
Wurger
Menu
Log in
Register