![]() |
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
http://www.pakistanidefenceforum.com...hp/t21591.html http://www.pakistanidefenceforum.com...howtopic=39052 they are conceding, and remember they are very nationalistic. this is a tank 20 years in the making, not even made by reputable builders of weponary. |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
Quote:
I don't know how well you knew about political science and history, but some questions are very important: 1. What differences were there between political party and constitutional party? 2. What differences were there between a army controled by political party or by constitutional party? 3. Will there be a United States if there wasn't The Federalist? 4. Why has Chinese civilization been maintaining at least 5,000 years? Have you seen the new official infomation? - the history of Chinese civilization had added 3,000 years (sorry for all people here, this is a Chinese page) As a reference Quote:
Yes, we are changing, true, indeed, but some classics will not be changed. if someone wanted a fundamental change, they would think soberly. Anybody can sing a word "only you", but "free will" was not the only thing in the human life. Natural Law must be complyed by everyone regardless of FREE WILL of majority, minority or the one. It isn't complex description, is it? ![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
Quote:
Nobel Prizes generally reward extremely original thinking and/or groundbreaking achievements in the advancement of World Peace. Only person from China that I can remember winning the thing is the Dali Lhama -- but I doubt China wants to claim him as their own. (There may be others that I don't know about of course.) Quote:
1.) Armor 2.) Secondary weapons like machine guns and other small arms systems 3.) Why the FCS is so wonderful 4.) Powerplant and maximum speed 5.) Performance on rough terrain 6.) Why this particular autoloader is better than a manual loader (most tankers far prefer manual loaders) 7.) Testing and likely mechanical defects ... etc. Now I'm slow responding, but one of you mentioned a case where an accidental friendly fire shot from a M1a2 was deflected off of the armor of a Challenger. Frankly, if any tank on earth can accomplish that feat, it would be the Challenger. Best armored beast on the planet and one helluva tank. Regardless, we're talking about more of a fluke than anything. Depleted uranium rounds from M1's almost never do anything of the sort, and I still say 152mm is a completely unnecessary size increase for a MBT main gun ... but it has its uses. Considering that 155mm is a pretty common size gun for Self Propelled Artillery (the Paladin for instance http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109a6.htm uses a 155mm), a MBT with that size main gun could double as both MBT and SPA. That's the biggest advantange I can think of for it. For it to be practical as a MBT, it would be huge and an unparalelled fuel hog. Short of that, it would be like i said --- it would carry a lot few rounds than an M1a2, etc. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Currently, the USA has pretty much taken over that position. One advantage that China doesn't have is an alliance like NATO associated alliances. Basically, any European power or the USA or Japan or Korea or Israel or S Korea -- will develop the worlds best of whatever. Tanks or aircraft or assault rifle, it can be whatever you like. Those nations then have a system of sharing that technology with each other. This is why the most recent Leopard II is about equal in to a Challenger and M1a2, etc, etc, etc. This amounts to a significant disadvantage for the Chinese even though they do have a similar (though less open) relationship with Russia. Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() |