Armorgunner

I understand. Im sorry for that.

If you say so, I belive that I was way of then. Sorry for that!

No, not to make friends. But I do have maked a few friends here anyway

Just woundering if your real nickname is IanL, or sburke? And Saint_Fuller to. Always strange when a lot of "under 20 posters" suddenly drops by at the same time

I think we are way of the M1 talk now. Your fanclub is only going for person, not what our conversation was about from the beginning. I think we have to take our discussion in PM instead. And stop here.

Even if we not agreed with eachother. I think we at least had a mature discussion, before your fanclub came in. Now even you go low.

Not me though. You wrote some serious stuff. But destroyed it with more childishness like that.

Yea me to. As long as it was me and panzersaurkrautwerfer talking. I think it was ok. Then the quality of the posts suddenly crashdived.

I know what that is. But all the shortenings that is fully natural for you, its not for me.

Its hard for me to se any form of authority, in someone who is linking to a cartoon.

Before i read more of your post. What is NTC that you and the drunk/chiled ones speaking about all the time?

I think you missunderstood what i meant there. The Russian have inferior equipment, they know it to. Thats why the speach of using nukes comes up from them, every time Sweden, Finland, or some other non NATO country, are to have an exercice with the US. But even if the Russians equipment is inferior in General. They have very strong EW, superior artillery ( in numbers and ranges, not in precision ) and their airdefence is also very strong. So they might have A2AD in some areas. And since part of their army is conscription, they have a huge number of badly trained reserves, around 10 milion people. What I meant was, that even if inferior. They are much more capable, both in numbers and technology. Than anything the US have been fighting since ww2, or Korea. So that the never ending supplytrain might not be as regular, as the US forces are use to. And to that, the threat from tanks, with not only better armor (inferior to US) but better FCS and ammo (inferior to the US) than anything the US have been fighting since ww2.

Sorry, my bad english."consumption" and "Circumstances" should it be. I edit the bad spelling post to.

You are quite right there, that the US was not in a walk the park there. And you will most probably hit the Russians harder from the air, than they will hit you. But it was just for an example, what could happen. When the US is not in total control of the skyes. That consumption could be a matter, in some Circumstances.

Are you drunk? Whats the time in your place? I hope you are drunk anyway, because I have a much more mature memory of you. From earlier posts by you.

Nice picture is it from your room, at your parents house?

I think I adressed almost every single point here. But before panzersaurkrautwerfer had a chance to answer. The Childrens, or drunks came in, and took it to a very low, not werthy of the cm forum level.

So when someone doesent say what you want to hear, you become a little Child. And want to bashing heads? I know for sure what Im speaking about. But im not native english speaking, so maybe there can be some missunderstanding.

Be more specific. Incorrect assumption on What?

Is there a problem of having a discussion on a Mature level here.

If it was me you where talking to, which I Think? I did 8 post here on side 3 before yours, And non with a "well actually" in it

Please quote, instead of a general: Im not happy with what you are saying post.

I think you are a little damaged, of fighting lowintensive wars for to long. On the march to Bagdad, you, or your supplychain was attacked exactly zero times by Iraqi interdiction aircrafts. You had 99.8% air superiority. And everything you say, i hear that you are not living in a world when that is not so. But if we go back to "a potentional war with Russia". And you dont have 99.8% air superiority. And you in you tank potentionally can meet Ka-50 Hokum choppers. And your supplychain can be attacked by Su-24 Fencers, Su-34 Fullbacks, and heavy rocket artillery bombardment. Then maybe only 20% of the fuel might reach your unit. And if you after refuling, can drive only 40 miles, or in the Leopard case 82 Miles. With the delivered fuel. Thats not relevant to You?

Except for not having any form of APS. I dont think the problem is really coming down to budget. In theory, you can make your tank protected from all threats. From all aspects. The problem is, that that tank. Wount be mobile. And you already have one such tank. Its called NORAD, in the Cheyenne Mountains. And it is still trying to move from Colorado spring without success. what i mean was that the 20 years of uncon warfare, maybe. Has colored of, in the places you put the armor on. With about the same weight on two tanks. And one has much better side armor. It probably sacrificed armor on some other part of the whehicle.

We want revenge, for the awkward loss at Poltava 1709