Michael Dorosh Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Originally posted by Mace: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: [QB]Canada is just phasing them out now.What's Canada replacing the Leopards with, Michael? Nice picture btw. Mace </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbs Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 From Average: We are paying something like 600 million for 48 second hand tanks. For that money you could get twice the number of leos plus spares. Don't feel bad. We took the Brits for 99-year leases on a slew of geographically important bases in WWII, and all we had to give them were 50 old destroyers. You got off easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawngnome Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 Yeah, but the Brits were kinda desperate... and they were led by the most able alcoholic leader that has ever graced the paths of London... so he knew what he was doing... Aussies are only desperate for attention... nobody seems to look south these days... how is the ozone down there anyway? still have any left? don't feel bad though, ozone isn't too important when you sit inside and drink beer... But the point is... M1's don't have to move... they can just sit in Canberra or Sydney and blow the hell out of Kiwiland without breaking a sweat or wasting too much petrol... as a retiring (20 years, glorious day!!!) US soldier, i can certainly vouch for the effectiveness of those bad boys in combat... captured Iraqis always complained that "we didn't fight fair"... our armor handled most of the fighting at a few miles distance, too far for the eye to see, in the night... sure impressed me at the time, being my first combat experience... poor Iraqi's just held their hands up as we drove up most of the time... we just chuckled and made them strip down naked while photographing them... (j/k, though in retrospect, it might have made the whole ordeal a bit more... tolerable? hehe) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 I have it! I know why the Aussies bought Abrams! The exhaust is really hot, so you can have a barbie on the back! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 Originally posted by Lawngnome: Yeah, but the Brits were kinda desperate... and they were led by the most able alcoholic leader that has ever graced the paths of London... so he knew what he was doing... Aussies are only desperate for attention... nobody seems to look south these days... Be silent! You seem to think that 'captured troops' count for less points than KIA troops. You're not fit to taunt Australians! Go sit over there where everyone can see you and make fun of you, lawn ornament. That's probably not even your own fishing pole. You're a disgrace to gnomes everywhere, you bugger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 Hey Seanachai, one of yours? Lets get to work shall we? *cracks his knuckles* Originally posted by Lawngnome: Aussies are only desperate for attentionFunny thing is that we say the same thing about you lot...frequently. Originally posted by Lawngnome: nobody seems to look south these days...Yeh, it's getting harder to look over that ever expanding waistline. But the point is... M1's don't have to move... they can just sit in Canberra or Sydney and blow the hell out of Kiwiland without breaking a sweat or wasting too much petrol.Let's see, the M1 successfully engaged an Iraqi MBT upto, what, 3km or so? In that case, if you look at your Atlas (you know, one of those books with pretty maps in them) you'll notice two things: New Zealand is a bit further than 3km away from Sydney; secondly Australia isn't directly south of Germany, and to the east of Holland. The M1s a very good tank, but it isn't that good. as a retiring (20 years, glorious day!!!) US soldier, i can certainly vouch for the effectiveness of those bad boys in combat... The ADF (and the ANZACs in general) have always excelled in the infantry role and that will continue to be our modus operandi. We don't need tanks to be bad boys. btw Retiring? You're anything but!!! Mace 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawngnome Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 i apologize for the hyperbole concerning the M1 reaching new zealand, i assumed there would be no confusion =) desperate for attention, the US? Damnit i wish everyone would stop thinking about us, we have too much attention... not my fault we are kicking arse in the olympics right now (as usual)... how about that Mens 4x200 swim relay? down to hundredths of a second and the US pulls it off (if you asked me it looked like the Aussies won though...) but it's ok... i have a nice sense of humor, and you deserve to taunt me until the day i go six feet under for that ignorant remark concerning prisoners... i solemnly apologize Mr. Seanachai, sir... expanding waist lines? yeah, i can't deny my countrymen's laziness and putrid appearance... but as is rather plain to the world we possess some of the best athletes in the world as well, so it's not all bad... I'm sure not fat... as a DI i would be a disgrace to have over 3% body fat... i can assure you i am more fit than you are, but i also assure you, Mace, you could whallop me in any CM game that could be conceived... BTW... I have immense geographical knowledge (a hobby of mine) and i have been to every sizeable nation in western and southern Europe (including Liechtenstein).... so yes, I know the difference between the mountainous beauty of Austria and the humble island nation of Australia... i spent 8 years of my life in Europe, but it wasn't my cup of tea... (my culture is too obsessed with cleanliness to understand the European ways) honestly? i never hear any talk about Australia from Americans... we just talk about ourselves, really... we are too busy hating our own nation to worry about anyone else... a generalization, of course, but alarmingly wide-spread.... Do continue the attacks towards me, though, don't let such an ignorant AMERICAN make you quit after just one round!! I enjoy a good "hostile conversation" now and then... it's good to have one with someone besides my wife or teenager... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinetree Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Originally posted by Lawngnome: [QB][sNIP] and the humble island nation of Australia...[sNIP]Aussies?..humble? LOL!! That'll be the day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 I like to think we're very humble. In fact, you'll never hear a word out of us when we lose to the all-blacks. Mace 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Originally posted by Lawngnome: i never hear any talk about Australia from Americans... we just talk about ourselves, really... we are too busy hating our own nation to worry about anyone else... Not true. I constantly talk about how despicable Australians are, and constantly reiterate the need to crush them all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Originally posted by Mace: In fact, you'll never hear a word out of us when we lose to the all-blacks. Hah! Tell that to Eddie Jones! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 There's that bugger JonS. He is killing me in a horrible game. I hereby, as a mark of savage disapproval, ask everyone on the Forum to refer to New Zealanders from now on as 'Aussie Lite', with their new patented marketing tag: "All the annoyance, but less thrilling." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawngnome Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 New Zealand... the only place that uses the word "new" just for the hell of it... and if it is "Zealand"... what the hell is a "Zea"... is that an inbred Aussie that was put on a raft and sent East? just curious :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 I suppose the information that Australia's original name was New Holland would just shock you. Now, since Holland is a province of Netherlands, what the heck could Zeeland be??? And how is that connected to the original name of New York? Bonus question: where's the old Caledonia? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Originally posted by Sergei: I suppose the information that Australia's original name was New Holland would just shock you. Now, since Holland is a province of Netherlands, what the heck could Zeeland be??? And how is that connected to the original name of New York? Bonus question: where's the old Caledonia? Someone shovel the Finns out of here, please! Caledonia is Scotland, of course. I mean, if you're a bloody Roman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 ... and Zealand (or Zeeland or Seeland depending on your upbringing) is in Holland. Or sumfink. Besides which, Zeal seems to descibe us nicely 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinetree Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Zeeland's a province in Holland and Zealand is an island in Denmark which kinda looks like the Hawkes Bay part of the North Island.I dunno what Tasman named it after but I once told the story to a Danish lady once that it was named after the island and it helped to make a very good impression.[insert really big smilie here.]If she had been Dutch I would naturally have told it the other way round. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Furious Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 While the M1A2 purchases seem to be politically orientated i must say that it sees not only the sad retirement of the Leo force but also the UTE-1 force. Nothing was more awe inspiring then seeing the RAAC tear into action in a UTE-1: with it's "crew" of 4 - 1 driver, 2 gunners, 1 spotlighter/esky minder. Watching the tinnies fly after a particularly vicious assault on enemy burrows ummm... positions, was truly a sight to see. I can hardly see the M1's fulfilling this crucial role in a better capacity. As for invading New Zealand, well we don't really want them to be honest, sure they got nice sheep and a funny accent, but still they have our military cast-offs whicg we obtained as cast-offs - it's hardly a military challenge. 75% of thier population seem to be on our unemployment benefit schemes so by international law we probably already own them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Originally posted by Mr Furious: While the M1A2 purchases seem to be politically orientated Because we can't afford them, that's why we chose the M1A1 instead. Mace 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Furious Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Originally posted by Mace: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr Furious: While the M1A2 purchases seem to be politically orientated Because we can't afford them, that's why we chose the M1A1 instead. Mace </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 From the Aussie MoD: web page The M1A1 AIM vehicle that Australia will procure will not be equipped with either Depleted Uranium armour or munitions. The armour on offer is of an advanced composite design, which is in accord with our capability requirementsOh dear, oh dear. This would be the version that's slightly less well armoured than a Challenger 1, and on a par with the Chieftain Stillbrew. Source It also weighs almost as much as a Challenger 2. How political do you want to get? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Will we have the A2s' computer suite installed in them? Does anyone know? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I doubt it Tiger. Otherwise we'd be buying the "A2's". But still, it ain't a crappy tank! And material I've read (Osprey related) puts it a step ahead of the Challenger I on combat trails. If your going to look at it as a tactical decision, our nearest 'threat' is Indonesia. They're going to have some troubles against M1A1's and F-18's. Even if they outnumber us 20:1... LOL :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Better GCE. AFAICT, it's an A2 with about half the armour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozi_digger Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Just looked inside CMAK AAV and was mightily impressed. Congrats BFdotcom. Minor whinge: why no Syria? Hope it is planned for the future. Otherwise, good historical additions with interesting trivia etc. Solid professional job. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.