Greatest Military Hardware

StG44 lead the way to the AK-47, which is where all modern Carbines/Assualt rifles came from. :)

Challenger II is by far the best tank for a combat situation, wonder if she will ever get used for how she was meant to on the Soilsbury plains. :cool:
 
[DW]Muffin;10685340 said:
StG44 lead the way to the AK-47, which is where all modern Carbines/Assualt rifles came from. :)

Challenger II is by far the best tank for a combat situation, wonder if she will ever get used for how she was meant to on the Soilsbury plains. :cool:
Click to expand...
I can't really see a use for tanks in modern warfare. They're no use in urban warfare, and they're sitting ducks everywhere else.

You can take 10 challengers, and I'll take 1 apache, or a platoon of soldiers armed with Javelins.
 
[DW]Muffin;10685340 said:
Challenger II is by far the best tank for a combat situation,
Click to expand...



Considering the leopard 2 has outperformed every other tank in combat trials i very much doubt it.
 
Bug One said:
I can't really see a use for tanks in modern warfare. They're no use in urban warfare, and they're sitting ducks everywhere else.

You can take 10 challengers, and I'll take 1 apache, or a platoon of soldiers armed with Javelins.
Click to expand...

He didn’t say it was the best weapon just the best tank ;)

Gerard said:
Considering the leopard 2 has outperformed every other tank in combat trials i very much doubt it.
Click to expand...

In REAL wars people shoot back and the tank with the best armour will win
 
Bug One said:
You can take 10 challengers, and I'll take 1 apache, or a platoon of soldiers armed with Javelins.
Click to expand...

agreed, in WWI and WWII tanks were something that was a lifesaver, and something nigh on indestructable (more so in WWI) but now, even if i was mad enough to fight in the army i wouldn't be caught dead in one, there's madness and there's stupidity :p
 
XPE said:
In REAL wars people shoot back and the tank with the best armour will win
Click to expand...

Yup, like i said, leopard 2. :)

And if combat trials are of no use (which your post implies) why would they do them in the first place, they have to have some kind of importance of putting the tank through its paces.
 
Last edited:
sniffy said:
f_ac130headerm_b8aa90a.jpg


AC-130
Click to expand...

Amen Brother!!!:D

But ive gotta agree with the Atomic bomb theory!
 
Gerard said:
Yup, like i said, leopard 2. :)

And if combat trials are of no use why would they do them in the first place, they have to have some kind of importance of putting the tank through its paces.
Click to expand...

It will have a 120mm Rheinmetall L55 same gun now as the Leapoard II Leopard 2 A6?
It has survived 70 RPG hits in Basara, the Leapoards mine protection looks impressive, but whats its range compared to Cahllenger 2?

A tank as a whole not just its gun personally would rather be in the Challenger II.
 
XPE said:
In REAL wars people shoot back and the tank with the best armour will win
Click to expand...

not really in a real war between 2 western nations where the tanks would be firing depleted uranium at each other, its whoever lands the first hit.
 
[DW]Muffin;10685530 said:
It will have a 120mm Rheinmetall L55 same gun now as the Leapoard II Leopard 2 A6?
It has survived 70 RPG hits in Basara, the Leapoards mine protection looks impressive, but whats its range compared to Cahllenger 2?

A tank as a whole not just its gun personally would rather be in the Challenger II.
Click to expand...

Last i read the leopard-2 has recently (about 18 months ago if not more) had its barrel extended in length which gives it more muzzle velocity and better penetration. As for the rest ive no idea, just going by an article i read a year or so back which basically stated the leopard-2 consistantly outperformed its rivals in the trials they were put through. And if countries spend money to enter their tanks for evaluation they surely have some point to them.
 
Tefal said:
but people are fighting against the nuke, and as soon as someone comes up with a good defence and deploys it, MAD goes out the window.
Click to expand...

A defence against ICBMs has been a pipe-dream for decades, and will continue to be a pipe-dream for many more. None of the missile defence systems (despite the hundreds of billions of dollars of expendature) have so far shown any signs of even preliminary success. And all this is only with basic missiles - the development of on-missile counter measures will prolong the development of an effective defense system decades further.

MAD will remain in effect for a long, long time. Even well after an effective anti-ICBM network is in place (after all, it only takes a small number of H-bombs to utterly devastate a country, and they can be delivered in numerous ways).
 
Duff-Man said:
A defence against ICBMs has been a pipe-dream for decades, and will continue to be a pipe-dream for many more. None of the missile defence systems (despite the hundreds of billions of dollars of expendature) have so far shown any signs of even preliminary success. And all this is only with basic missiles - the development of on-missile counter measures will prolong the development of an effective defense system decades further.

MAD will remain in effect for a long, long time. Even well after an effective anti-ICBM network is in place (after all, it only takes a small number of H-bombs to utterly devastate a country, and they can be delivered in numerous ways).
Click to expand...

ICBM's have only been around what 50 -60 years?

still very much early days. also with lasers improving now, along with rail cannons on board countermeasures aren't really going to be much use.

.
 
Tefal said:
ICBM's have only been around what 50 -60 years?

still very much early days. also with lasers improving now, along with rail cannons on board countermeasures aren't really going to be much use.

.
Click to expand...

There has been no success so far in shooting down pre-identified missile targets with interceptor missiles, lasers, or high velocity kinetic energy weapons ('rail guns'). You have to appreciate the vastness of orbital space compared to the size of a missile, and the speeds at which the ICBM travels (no air resistance in space so speeds become 'astronomical'). It's like shooting a speeding bullet from across the english channel, in scale terms.

All this is with pre-identified targets. What ICBM countermeasures will do is provide alternative targets for the anti-ICBM system to aim at (it's relatively easy to fool radar, thermal or visual sensors from the distances involved). So, on top of being able to actually hit the target (still decades away), the anti-ICBM system has to be able to rapidly identify and attack several targets in quick succession to ensure it actually gets the missile and not just a countermeasure.

Add to this the obvious tactic of sending over dozens/hundreds of ICBMs at once on similar trajectories, and the defense system has to be incredibly efficient to stop an attack. We are just nowhere near this technology yet, and won't be for a LONG time to come.
 
Last edited:
To all those suggesting the AK-47.

Just go and lie down in the prone position and try and shoot it comfortably or accurately.

Then come back to me and tell me it's the "Greatest Military Hardware"

*waits*

No?
 
Feek said:
To all those suggesting the AK-47.

Just go and lie down in the prone position and try and shoot it comfortably or accurately.

Then come back to me and tell me it's the "Greatest Military Hardware"

*waits*

No?
Click to expand...


great (grt)
adj. great·er, great·est


Of outstanding significance or importance



It is the most produced Assualt Rifle in the world and is still in use sixty years later.
 
[DW]Muffin;10686098 said:
It is the most produced Assualt Rifle in the world and is still in use sixty years later.
Click to expand...

Heineken's been in production since 1868 but you'd hardly call that great. Time is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom