J Ruddy Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Thanks Duke - that's a nice find. The crewman looks either constipated or scared sh-tless. Finland, Finland, Finland, The country where I want to be, Pony trekking or camping, Or just watching TV. Finland, Finland, Finland. It's the country for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folbec Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Huh? ISTM it doesn't effect crews of any kind - infantry support weapons or vehicles. They always have full crews regardless of random losses. I just re checked : support weapons are affected, but not tanks. I could have sworn tanks were sometimes (rarely) affected, sorry for the confusion . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted September 2, 2005 Author Share Posted September 2, 2005 dunno. fully updated t-55's or a leopard for that matter is massivly outdone in a fire fight by a challenger 2. and for that matter proably the ltest abrahams too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Random losses are a bit dodgy with crewed weapons, especially on defence. The team cost is lower, but the effectiveness is not significantly reduced by fewer crewmen. On the attack, the ammunition left behind is an adverse effect but this does not effect static defenders, especially those in ambush. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Originally posted by roqf77: dunno. fully updated t-55's or a leopard for that matter is massivly outdone in a fire fight by a challenger 2. and for that matter proably the ltest abrahams too. Oh don't start that one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Outdone, maybe. But for the 2A4 I doubt the 'massively' somewhat... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted September 2, 2005 Author Share Posted September 2, 2005 im not flaming knives. and andreas i eant massivly in the context of mbt's not ww2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Que? What has the Leopard got to do with WW2? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Yankee Dog, Fair comment, I'm just telling you what the official policy was. The Soviets were, well, flexible when it came to keeping troops in their military specialities. The classic example is how the Soviets came up with loaders when the Red Army fleet went from T-34/76 to T-34/85, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted September 2, 2005 Author Share Posted September 2, 2005 as much as reactive armour i guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 How is the Leo 2A4 'massively' outdone by the Challenger 2 and the latest Abrams in a firefight. In teh context of MBTs? Start making sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Considering that they are nearly the same tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: How is the Leo 2A4 'massively' outdone by the Challenger 2 and the latest Abrams in a firefight. In teh context of MBTs?That's easy - the Leo is German, the Challenger 2 is British and the Abrams is American, and everyone knows the Americans and British won the war. ...Or was it Soviet Russia...? Dang - there goes my theory 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq): Considering that they are nearly the same tank. In the same way the Sherman and the PzIV are nearly the same tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: Outdone, maybe. But for the 2A4 I doubt the 'massively' somewhat... I think he means the Leopard 1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Yeah, and I think he doesn't know what he is talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq): Considering that they are nearly the same tank. Well they aren't really, especially if by 'latest' Abrams he means one with the L55 Rheinmetall gun. Also, in terms of target acquisition the latest Abrams ought to be superior - the A4 is an early 80s tank. But it has a very decent gun, decent enough armour, and probably decent enough target acquisition. I don't think it would be a complete push-over (especially not if you go on to compare the latest Abrams to the T55), but there are others on this forum who would know that better. I just don't think that our friend with the impenetrable posting style falls under the 'others' group. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 I would rate the new Hunter-Killer system as the best feature of the new Abrams, the new gun us just more overkill. My tanker friends came out of the first Gulf War convinced that the 105mm would have done just as well. While the 2A4 isn't the same as the new 2A6 (or do they have an even newer one?) it is best of the old Leo 2 line. The U.S. Army basically considers the three to be interchangeable (meaning they consider a Co of each to have the same capabilities). All three were developed along the same lines and ended up with about the same firepower, protection, and mobility, the three main components of a tank. The same cannot be said for the PzIV and the Sherman. Andreas: When did you move to Paris? Weren't you in Northern Germany? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 There's an Abrams with an L55 gun? I thought they were all still on the L44 derivative. The US uses of depleted uranium which gives a slight edge even with a shorter gun, although sintered tungsten is closing that gap. The L30 (designation, not calibre length) mounted on the Challenger 2 is possibly a more powerful gun than the smoothbores, but the expense of developing advanced ammunition for a fleet that is just over 400 strong is prohibitive. Thus German and US ammunition gives the smoothbores better performance, in terms of mm RHAe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer-n-Sickle Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 I think it would be cool to be able to direct certain tanks to certain areas on enemy armor. Such as directing a sherman or T34 to take aim at the drive wheels of a tiger instead of trying to pierce that armor. Anybody mention anything like that before? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 sgtgoody: The 2A6 has a more powerful gun, if nothing else. Most sources give it 25% or so more frontal protection, sensor fits and mine protection have changed significantly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 I don't think they have fielded it yet if there is, at least not in numbers. Kind of like the A2, the original plan was to only field about 60, and they were going to FORSCOM rather than line units. All the ones I ever saw were L44, but that was about 2 years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Yeah the 2A6 is a whole new beast. And damn sexy looking too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 They were evaluating the L55 in 99 or so, and thought it was a great solution, even gave it a name m256e1, but I just checked Mr. google and it appears nothing has happened since. Sgt. Goody, I am from Northern Germany, but lived in London, and now I live in Paris, since 11 months. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 That explains it. 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.