British Challenger 2

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
You consider Global Security unreliable?

The only claim I recall you backing up with anything is that 3 B-2's were shot down, a claim that simply contradicts all logic. No wreckage was found. It's impossible that such a huge amount of money could be lost without people finding out. Too many in America hate the B-2 program, and would like nothing but to see it scrapped. It's not possible to hide.




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I would like for you to show me where I claimed that 3 B-2's were shot down. I've found no reliable information to prove that there were, besides crazy Yugoslavians who wouldn't know the difference between a B-2 and a frisby. I think you have me confused with someone else.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Yes B-2's different thread.......

Back to tanks.....Major differences between the designs of the West's tanks to that of the Eastern Block design is that the Soviet tanks were designed to be robust, cheap to replace and numerically stronger than that of the west's and to run without much logistical support, the Soviets intended to swamp the West's defences with these tanks in any war



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
American design - Best in the world

Russian design - next best thing,best bang for the buck.

And thats all the difference there is.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
American design - Best in the world

Russian design - next best thing,best bang for the buck.

And thats all the difference there is.


that assumption is generally incorrect



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Well, Russia's T-72s out number the M1's, so they still have bigger numbers...these T-72s aren't your typical Iraqi T-72s, these have been upgraded with ERA...



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
The large tank forces of Russia would be eaten alive by A-10's. The more concentrated the enemies forces, the easier it is to destroy them.

People forget that the A-10 was really designed for a large tank battle between Russia and America. They were designed to go behind the enemies flanks, and attack from behind.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The large tank forces of Russia would be eaten alive by A-10's. The more concentrated the enemies forces, the easier it is to destroy them.

People forget that the A-10 was really designed for a large tank battle between Russia and America. They were designed to go behind the enemies flanks, and attack from behind.

Yeah thats why they invented a little things called SAM's and SU's and MIG's.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Yeah thats why they invented a little things called SAM's and SU's and MIG's.


Which is why the US uses little things called flares, chaff, ecm, and air superiority fighters...



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
Which is why the US uses little things called flares, chaff, ecm, and air superiority fighters...

When was the last time flares chaff ecm had more than a 50% chance?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
When have SAM's ever shown to be even 5% effective?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
M1A2SEP Advantages
M289A3
x50 FLIR
Advanced communications suite
1500hp turbine compared to 1200 diesel

Challenger
better flank and rear armor

I would say the M1A2SEP is a better tank. The Challenger is on par with the M1A1 though.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
When have SAM's ever shown to be even 5% effective?

Sure did shoot down a F117 doesnt matter about how they found it its the fact they killed it.
And i remember man portable ones takeing down plenty russian chopppers in afghanistan.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51

Originally posted by devilwasp

Yeah thats why they invented a little things called SAM's and SU's and MIG's.


Which is why the US uses little things called flares, chaff, ecm, and air superiority fighters...


Which is why the Russians have the exact same thing.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Taking down 1 F-117 out of more than thousand bombing runs...That's certainly not very reliable.

If America could lose just 5 F-117's in a major World War it would be an incredible success.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Taking down 1 F-117 out of more than thousand bombing runs...That's certainly not very reliable.

Proves the plane could and would be brought down, also NAVY SAM's can take down aircraft and are generally rated very highly.
Jets can be taken down by 7.62 machine guns.

If i dont remember american patriots are good at takeing down planes.....



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
It "could" be taken down? It was a complete fluke, and a meaningless one at that. I think the fact that the world made such a big deal out of it only proves how scared of those stealth planes they really are.

The Patriot is the only SAM I know of to really be successful in actual combat.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It "could" be taken down? It was a complete fluke, and a meaningless one at that. I think the fact that the world made such a big deal out of it only proves how scared of those stealth planes they really are.

The Patriot is the only SAM I know of to really be successful in actual combat.


Stinger down about 300 Soviet aircraft in Afghanistan.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Too bad the Stinger isn't a SAM. Downing a helicopter you can see is a lot different then taking down an all altitude stealth bomber like the B-2, as well.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Too bad the Stinger isn't a SAM. Downing a helicopter you can see is a lot different then taking down an all altitude stealth bomber like the B-2, as well.


I think you're confusing threads here, the Stinger is a SAM, and this thread is now talking about targeting low-flying aircraft (like an A-10), which a Stinger is designed for. Not that aircraft such as the A-10 aren't being continuously upgraded to counter those threats.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join