Originally Posted by Whispering Death

bands?

No, no not that kind of bands...the way he divided them in band1 and band2 and the Leo2 was put in band2.

Just read doppleganger's post a above for further clarification (if needed).

stryker:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...8/151543.shtml

Quote:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...-stryker01.htm


"The Strykers are the first new combat vehicle in 20 years and a cornerstone in the Army's efforts to transform itself into a new, 21st-century fighting force. Critics say the eight-wheeled vehicles each costing an average of $1.5 million may be a costly misstep on that path. The Army recently discovered flaws in the Stryker's ceramic composite armor and is racing to fix it. The vehicle's remote weapon systems can't be fired accurately on the move, and soldiers must get out of the vehicle to reload, exposing them to enemy fire."

"Each vehicle is covered with 132 plates designed to protect against up to 14.5-mm fire, slightly bigger than a .50-caliber bullet. But a subcontractor hired to provide the armor apparently deviated from the standards and at least one variation failed in a test firing, Army officials said.

The full extent of the plate problem is unknown, but it's serious enough that the Army has launched a top-priority test of all plates at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, with replacement tiles expected to be put on the brigade's vehicles later this month.

The Stryker brigade also is heading off to Iraq without a separate outer layer of plates designed to protect against rocket-propelled grenades, which insurgents have used again and again to deadly effect against U.S. troops in Iraq. "

The Stryker and Gavin are essentially equal in armor protection, and in the types of weapons they can carry, Sparks said. But the Gavin is vastly superior in strategic and tactical mobility, he said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2...bilenat4p4.asp

i couldnt find the website that i was referring to...


M1A1:

I recall when the American M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, then in first production, using a turbine engine, was failing in every phase of its construction. It sucked up sand, its suspension could not take the punishment, its bearings ate sand, its firing systems on the run were inadequate, etc. Then they called upon Israel's General Israel Tal, who had fathered the Merkava, to assist in de-bugging the M1A1 (denials by the US manufacturers notwithstanding).

why is it so unbelievable? every single weapon producing country has had some sort of fault in atleast one of there weapons... eiether way, even if they were not redundant from the begining, they would usually only take a short period before being owned by something newer and better.

the m1a1 i dont have solid evidence, so lets not get into it, but lots of people say the styrker is a waste of tax payers dollars... it would have been cheaper just to upgrade the m113's to modern day standards like all the other countries have, rather than build the styrker,which has less mobility, and cant even suit the purpose it was built for, which is fitting into a C-130... the thing needs to stripped of parts, and when landed, rebuilt again... not the fast deployment it was supposed to be for... why no fast deployment, because tit needed to be uparmored as it was vulnerable to everying bigger than .5 cal bullets.

(rocco, watch the double posting, the mods wil sort it but they wont be happy, use the edit button top right corner of your posts)

Theres probably nothing between any of the top european, israeli and american tanks but i dont know about the chinese, russian or japanese tanks. So my personal favourite is Challenger 2, followed by Leopard 2A6. Anybody have any info on Irans tanks? especially there recent one theyve made themselves, ta.

Just gimme my Wrangler, a SAW and a couple pipe bombs...take care of any tank on the field

No really, I'm an Abrahms guy....when you have to dump some hurt on someone, call in the big boys...

Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy

It's basically a T-72 with a dazzler laser on top. Plus it can fire a mean DU APFSDS with 800+mm of penetration.

And rocco did you just call the M1A1 a flop?

basically a T-72????????/
does t-72 has 1500 horse power engine as a T-99G has? does it has a reliable automasitcal reloader as T-99G does? does it weight as heavy as T-99G does? does it even looks like t-99G? does it has a modern on-board computer like t-99G does? can it shoot DU rounds? T-72's armor is as good as T-99G's????

It's based on a T-72. Just because a tank doesn't look like another tank, doesn't mean it's similar to it. The Black Eagle is based on the T-80, but looks nothing like it.

tell why it is based on t-72??

which part of Type 99G is similiar to T-72?

Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy

It's based on a T-72. Just because a tank doesn't look like another tank, doesn't mean it's similar to it. The Black Eagle is based on the T-80, but looks nothing like it.

Arn't all tanks based on a former tank? Why lose the goods in an old tank when you can take good bits from former tanks into a new tank, right? Been done since after the first tank that saw action :P

So I don't really see your point in that remark

Originally Posted by Shadowalker

(rocco, watch the double posting, the mods wil sort it but they wont be happy, use the edit button top right corner of your posts).

sorry, i have a habit of doing that, when i adress different points, because i feel there is less confusion that way...

shadow, i think iran is atleast 30 years behind everyone in tank design, unless russia is helping them (same for if china helps)...

other tanks of the world which we can consider are:

Ariete
Olifant
K1A1
Arjun