Originally Posted by Bacara

no most german generals, including guderian hated the tiger and pather, prefering the mark 4, they were slow, unreliable, costly, and OVER engineered, simpler is always better.

Never said he did. I agree that given the situation in Germany during the war it would have been difficult to produce the Tiger in the numbers that Hitler wanted. Not sure you are correct on the Panther. The pather was developed specifically to enable Germany to defeat the T-34. The main gun 75mm L70 was one of the best there was at the time. The main problem with the Panthers was that Hitler, against Guderians recommendations sent them to Kursk where their failings under combat conditions were realized. Note that Guderian didn't want to deploy them because he felt that the "bugs" had not yet been worked out of them and wanted to give German engineers more time on development. Eventually the problems were fixed and France used about 50 of them until 1950.

I'm curious what makes you believe that Guderian hated the Pather and Tiger. Do you have references? I'm kind of a Guderian fan and never came across anything about him not "liking" any particular tank. Except maybe the canvas mockups they were forced to use after WWI.

All this guesing and reading scammatics on potential damage an RPG 7 makes. Which one of you actully fired one and conducted a battle damage assesments on different tank types? I can say I have. Some people say and argue about things that has nothing to do with their jobs. Like BritinAfrica who is bent calling people all outside their names, "chaps, sport, mate". Who can't say what he or she actually did in Iraq. Let me start calling you names and you will surely be more offended.

Originally Posted by Alexin_Cobra

All this guesing and reading scammatics on potential damage an RPG 7 makes. Which one of you actully fired one and conducted a battle damage assesments on different tank types? I can say I have. Some people say and argue about things that has nothing to do with their jobs. Like BritinAfrica who is bent calling people all outside their names, "chaps, sport, mate". Who can't say what he or she actually did in Iraq. Let me start calling you names and you will surely be more offended.

Sport? lol, you've got the wrong person old chap lol.

Would you translate your "Like BritinAfrica who is bent calling people outside their names." You've lost me there. You can call me names all you like, I will never be offended. You see I have a little more intelligence then that. I will however, never lower myself to your level by calling Challenger crews cowards or people liars.


Nope I never was in Iraq and neither were you there when the Challenger lost her track. Strange how many other peoples opinion are in direct conflict with yours, people like Sherman, the man you called a liar with his half truths. So according to you all your testings regarding battle damage easements are totally conclusive, while others who have carried out extensive testings are works of pure fiction? Your arrogance astounds me.

Quite frankly your opinion amounts to very little to me or anyone else.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Sport? lol, you've got the wrong person old chap lol.

Would you translate your "Like BritinAfrica who is bent calling people outside their names." You've lost me there. You can call me names all you like, I will never be offended. You see I have a little more intelligence then that. I will however, never lower myself to your level by calling Challenger crews cowards or people liars.


Nope I never was in Iraq and neither were you there when the Challenger lost her track. Strange how many other peoples opinion are in direct conflict with yours, people like Sherman, the man you called a liar with his half truths. So according to you all your testings regarding battle damage easements are totally conclusive, while others who have carried out extensive testings are works of pure fiction? Your arrogance astounds me.

Quite frankly your opinion amounts to very little to me or anyone else.

I was there in Iraq. Sherman is most likely in Israeli military so I know he was not in Iraq at all. I was arguing with your statments saying that all sites were simultaineously taken out when the report on paper says otherwise. So how are you going to make your own story? All this time you want to criticize and defend weapon systems but never tested on or been around in war to see it in action. I was in Iraq and present during battles when tanks or bradleys destroyed. You admit you were not at any such event. I got awards and pics to prove what my job is. What do you have?

SHERMAN edit: That is comletely unacaptable. You may be a good soldier, you may be right, you may be better than us. All that dose not justify that kind of attitude. I asked you before to apologize, and you continue to be agressive and offensive.

.

Originally Posted by Alexin_Cobra

I was there in Iraq. Sherman is most likely in Israeli military so I know he was not in Iraq at all. I was arguing with your statments saying that all sites were simultaineously taken out when the report on paper says otherwise. So how are you going to make your own story? All this time you want to criticize and defend weapon systems but never tested on or been around in war to see it in action. I was in Iraq and present during battles when tanks or bradleys destroyed. You admit you were not at any such event. I got awards and pics to prove what my job is. What do you have?

SHERMAN edit: That is comletely unacaptable. You may be a good soldier, you may be right, you may be better than us. All that dose not justify that kind of attitude. I asked you before to apologize, and you continue to be agressive and offensive.

.

I really don't have a clue what your talking about regarding your "I was arguing with your statments saying that all sites were simultaineously taken out when the report on paper says otherwise." Could you be so kind to translate into proper and correct English, oh and with the correct spelling. OH now I get it, you mean sights. I don't know if the "sights" were take out simultaneously on the Challenger, I wasn't there, and neither were you.

To accuse the Challenger crew of cowardice by your "cowering inside" is extremely offensive and contemptuous in the extreme.

I don't give a toss where you have been, what you have done, pictures or awards you have, from your arrogance you seem to think that the only tank battles have taken place in Iraq. The FACT of the matter is, ANY damn tank can be taken out, if you cannot see or understand that fact you are seriously deluded, arrogant and not as good as you think you are.

As for Israelis not being in Iraq, quite true, but those guys have fought more tank battles then you have had hot dinners.
It is vital that Israel keep up with modern weaponry and equipment, their survival as a nation depends on it. So don't for a second assume they are stupid, don't know what they are talking about and that you know better then they do, because you don't.
Again you are seriously underestimating people, one day that is going to bite you in the backside.


You really are an annoying and obnoxious little man.

I know I'm new to this site, but can we go back to talking about the tanks?

Originally Posted by johnnyQAMR

I know I'm new to this site, but can we go back to talking about the tanks?

I make you right mate.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I really don't have a clue what your talking about regarding your "I was arguing with your statments saying that all sites were simultaineously taken out when the report on paper says otherwise." Could you be so kind to translate into proper and correct English, oh and with the correct spelling. OH now I get it, you mean sights. I don't know if the "sights" were take out simultaneously on the Challenger, I wasn't there, and neither were you.

To accuse the Challenger crew of cowardice by your "cowering inside" is extremely offensive and contemptuous in the extreme.

I don't give a toss where you have been, what you have done, pictures or awards you have, from your arrogance you seem to think that the only tank battles have taken place in Iraq. The FACT of the matter is, ANY damn tank can be taken out, if you cannot see or understand that fact you are seriously deluded, arrogant and not as good as you think you are.

As for Israelis not being in Iraq, quite true, but those guys have fought more tank battles then you have had hot dinners.
It is vital that Israel keep up with modern weaponry and equipment, their survival as a nation depends on it. So don't for a second assume they are stupid, don't know what they are talking about and that you know better then they do, because you don't.
Again you are seriously underestimating people, one day that is going to bite you in the backside.


You really are an annoying and obnoxious little man.

Oh and you are not annoying with you down playing written facts or reports and continuing to call me names? If you are such a brainiac then why can't you come up with written facts? I didn't critize Israelis, I just said they were not there in Iraq. Its not that I care about opinions but you don't let it go. You defend your guys or whatever, I'm just siding with the report.

I suggest we go back to tanks.

Originally Posted by chinese-canadian

I still believe China's t-99G is better than Japan's T-90, in terms of fire power and armor protection, and other things like laser defence and stuff..
by the way, haven't you heard that the problem rate for the autoloader of the Japanese t-90 is like 5%....1 in 20 shots the whole thing will stuck..not a well-built tank

ChineseT-99G is basically a T-72/80 hybrid hull with some indigenous systems. Its overall performance is similar to the T-72BM while what the japs have is a state of the art latest gen MBT, we can get into specifics if you want but overall you'd need at least 3 to 1 odds for Chinese to have even a remote chance.

Also the autoloader issue was fixed.