The end is near

[LTb1ow]

Well if someone gave me a T72, I would rock that thing to work and school.

[BonzoHansen]

Somebody refresh my memory-is a t72 a challenger or a camaro?

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

Somebody refresh my memory-is a t72 a challenger or a camaro?

Camaro

[LTb1ow]

Well its this big ugly block of metal, soooo your choice.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Tsar

When Russian's offered some surplus Soviet Tanks to Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, they didn't seem to think the tanks were useless in fighting Taliban...

Tanks are pretty useless in mountain fighting. Tanks are great in open field, large attack situations.
Tanks going down paths in the mountains are just big, loud metal things that can be picked off.
Sure, the Russians cut apart the Afganies and left them to rot (as did the covert Americans) but Russia still left the country with its tail between its legs.

Same goes for Vietnam. Tanks played a big role in semi-city fighting, giving protection to troops and firepower, but in the jungles, useless as **** on a snake.

In the desert of Iraq in 91 and 03, the large fast attack force of the allied assault used the tank's power to its advantage. Flat land for miles, unobstructed view, combined with the M1A1/2's advanced sights and massive gun, the T72's were picked off.
That, or some A-10 or AH-64 already ripped the turret right off the bitch.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

Somebody refresh my memory-is a t72 a challenger or a camaro?

Old, outdated, sloppy handling, ugly, and based on an older platform?
Thats the Challenger

Advanced, fast, powerful, agile....
If the Camaro had to be a tank...its the M1A2 Abrams!!

[LTb1ow]

Kinda the same with the battleship, don't see many of them any more...

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Tanks are pretty useless in mountain fighting. Tanks are great in open field, large attack situations.
Tanks going down paths in the mountains are just big, loud metal things that can be picked off.
Sure, the Russians cut apart the Afganies and left them to rot (as did the covert Americans) but Russia still left the country with its tail between its legs.

Bubba I was talking about 2001... wow

[Tsar]

So Camaro is a bigger chunk of metal than a Challenger?

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Tsar

Bubba I was talking about 2001... wow

So the Soviet's offerd T72's to the Taliban in 2001 to fight Americans?
Im asking you seriously, I never heard that.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Shownomercy

Kinda the same with the battleship, don't see many of them any more...

Yeah, MBT's are no longer needed as there probably wont be any giant war...but then again, this thread indicates otherwise.
Fast moving wepons platforms like the Stryker are fast moving and can get out of tight situations faster then a M1 can, and still cary a big stick.


Several variations of the Stryker



Big Stick version


Its also a troop transport. Its a very versitile truck. Maybe Paul can let us in on some other cool info.

[LTb1ow]

The Strykers sucks. Overrated.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

So the Soviet's offerd T72's to the Taliban in 2001 to fight Americans?
Im asking you seriously, I never heard that.

Nah, Russia gave Northern Alliance surplus tanks and surplus helo's to fight Taliban. However, US paid for transportation (I'm sure they also paid % of the costs of equipment).

Here is a more credible source than I am http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...anistan.russia

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Shownomercy

The Strykers sucks. Overrated.

WHAAAAAA! Ive talked to a few troops who have been around them or in battle, and they liked them. I watched a whole thing on the military channel about it, and the troops seem to be happy about them as well. I thought it was a big of a fluff piece, but overall they seemed to like them better then a Hummer.

[LTb1ow]

I guess, to me it seems like a rushed piece of equipment that was pushed through because of the demand.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by Tsar

Nah, Russia gave Northern Alliance surplus tanks and surplus helo's to fight Taliban. However, US paid for transportation (I'm sure they also paid % of the costs of equipment).

Here is a more credible source than I am http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...anistan.russia

Well there ya go.
These guys have been working on and fighting in these tanks for 30 years now.
African pirates...24 hrs.
But the articles talks about exactly what I was talking about, they want easy to use, reliable wepons.
Pirates want the same.

[LTb1ow]

AK47 FTW.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Well there ya go.
These guys have been working on and fighting in these tanks for 30 years now.
African pirates...24 hrs.
But the articles talks about exactly what I was talking about, they want easy to use, reliable wepons.
Pirates want the same.

I never said pirates (wtf pirates, really? is this 2008?) themselves would use it, I stated in my first post that they would sell it to someone who wants them. And people who buy them will make about Rwanda.

[LTb1ow]

Still called pirates.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by Shownomercy

AK47 FTW.

Indeed, they used to teach kids in Russia how to assemble/disassemble and operate those things. Not that the last one is very hard.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by Shownomercy

Still called pirates.

I just find it humorous that we still have "pirates".

[BonzoHansen]

[ar0ck]

Originally Posted by Shownomercy

I guess, to me it seems like a rushed piece of equipment that was pushed through because of the demand.

Wheeled vehicles vs. tracked vehicles allow them to move faster on streets especially in urban combat and generate less noise. When the war began Insurgents & Iraqi National Guard were able to hear Bradly IFV's from miles away due to the loud noise of the tracks, with the Stryker it allows the vehicles to approach a hell of a lot quieter & quicker protecting its soldiers with in then before. Those vehicles save a lot of lives over their, and I've seen videos of them being struck by RPG's and IED's and the entire crew came out fine. The weapon systems are completely automated w/ manual controls and the crew doesn't even have to be exposed to enemy fire. Also the Stryker uses a Army medium-lift truck engines, eliminating extensive maintenance with the use of common parts.

Its designed as an urban assault vehicle, that's the war were fighting and its the perfect vehicle for the job.

[band77one]

waiiiiiiit a second!!!!! i thought it was spelled genius.

[LTb1ow]

Originally Posted by ar0ck

Wheeled vehicles vs. tracked vehicles allow them to move faster on streets especially in urban combat and generate less noise. When the war began Insurgents & Iraqi National Guard were able to hear Bradly IFV's from miles away due to the loud noise of the tracks, with the Stryker it allows the vehicles to approach a hell of a lot quieter & quicker protecting its soldiers with in then before. Those vehicles save a lot of lives over their, and I've seen videos of them being struck by RPG's and IED's and the entire crew came out fine. The weapon systems are completely automated w/ manual controls and the crew doesn't even have to be exposed to enemy fire. Also the Stryker uses a Army medium-lift truck engines, eliminating extensive maintenance with the use of common parts.

Its designed as an urban assault vehicle, that's the war were fighting and its the perfect vehicle for the job.

Yes and eh, they weigh a ****load, and the whole idea of FCS integrating the battlefield is great and all, but its a pipe dream at best. They have not so good armor, and them replacing the M1A is a bad idea.