It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Favourite Tank

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I searched but i couldnt see that one of these had been done before but i cant really believe that

What are your favourite tanks and why

Mine is the Challenger 2 because it is so unusual for the British to have something so good with all the budget cuts. I know the army work so hard because of that though

[Edited on 8/5/04 by Hyperen]




posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 03:34 AM
link   
M1A2 With DU armor and shells..... It makes other tanks shells stick to the armor like arrows in a shield


D

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 06:58 AM
link   
M1 and Challenger 2 are both good. But I'd have to go for the Challenger 2. A better all-round tank. Have to say though M1 is a stupidly powerful tank. And I mean that in a good way.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   
T-72. Simply because it can use many types of fuel, its cheap to maintain, and rarely needs maintainance. It has a powerful cannon and it's very mobile.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   
My favorite has to be the PzKpfw VI Ausf. E, or Tiger I.

It was a technological marvel when it hit the battlefield, and there was simply no other tank that could best it in a one-on-one contest. Indeed, when used defensively, the Tiger I could easily take on an entire platoon of Shermans or T-34's with little trouble.

For example, on the morning of Jun 13th, 1944, just north of the Norman village of Villers-Bocage, Tiger company commander Obstf Michael Wittmann, already a legend from the Easter Front, single-handedly took on a column of the British 7th Armoured Division, and literally destroyed it, so forestalling General Montgomery's planned unhinging of the Wehrmacht's Caen defense. Wittmann, in his Tiger I, personnal destroyed 1 Sherman Firefly, 1 Sherman, 11 Cromwells, 9 half-tracks, 4 Bren Carrirs, 3 Stuarts, and 2 6pdr AT guns, before his Tiger was immobilized by a 6pdr hit to his tread.

It was only the Allied air superiority coupled with a lack of Tigers on the front that allowed our armor to prevail.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
My favorite has to be the PzKpfw VI Ausf. E, or Tiger I.

It was a technological marvel when it hit the battlefield, and there was simply no other tank that could best it in a one-on-one contest. Indeed, when used defensively, the Tiger I could easily take on an entire platoon of Shermans or T-34's with little trouble.

It was only the Allied air superiority coupled with a lack of Tigers on the front that allowed our armor to prevail.


I have developed a new appreciation for the Pershing after watching vintage footage of one hunting down and killing a Panther in Cologne on the history Channel this morning. The Panther first destroys a Sherman before the Pershing chases after the Panther through the streets. Impressive stuff though a little hard to watch. The footage showed a Sherman crewman with a foot missing, bailing out of his burning tank, only to bleed to death..... then you realize that there are people buring alive inside the Panther. Impressive, but horrific.

But my favorite armor is: The Panther and the M1A2 Abrams

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Outtis
T-72. Simply because it can use many types of fuel, its cheap to maintain, and rarely needs maintainance.


There is no tank in exsistance that rarely needs maintainance.
Just keeping the tracks up to snuff is a lot of work. Talk to any tanker or recovery-vehicle crewman.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by Outtis
T-72. Simply because it can use many types of fuel, its cheap to maintain, and rarely needs maintainance.


There is no tank in exsistance that rarely needs maintainance.
Just keeping the tracks up to snuff is a lot of work. Talk to any tanker or recovery-vehicle crewman.


well, I'd have to agree. It's just like a car - you have to change the oil, use the right type of gas, have tune ups ect ect

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by Outtis
T-72. Simply because it can use many types of fuel, its cheap to maintain, and rarely needs maintainance.


There is no tank in exsistance that rarely needs maintainance.
Just keeping the tracks up to snuff is a lot of work. Talk to any tanker or recovery-vehicle crewman.


well, I'd have to disagree. Talk to the guys that upkeep the M1A2. Like almost all US equipment - it is superior in ability but requires extensive upkeep.


Not sure if I understand you.... are you disagreeing with me or agreeing with me? or were you addressing Outiss?

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
sorry - my dyslexic self didn't read the word "rarely"


So I was disagreeing with you before, now that I have actually read your whole sentance, I agree



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
the chalanger is a nice tank so is the french leapord



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
the chalanger is a nice tank so is the french leapord


French make LEOPARD??? I think the Germans might have something to say about that



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
My fav? Has to be the KING TIGER TANK!!!



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilverDeath
My fav? Has to be the KING TIGER TANK!!!


King Tiger tanks were way ahead of their time



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:08 AM
link   
ok look i dont know a lot about french or german tanks
i just like the leapord its nice
but i like the challanger better
just asking y do abrham parts cost more than the tank?

[Edited on 05/03/2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Sorry for my lack of better english term for "rarely".. english is not my mother tongue.
But I was trying to say that the T-72 can operate much longer without or with minor maintainance alot longer than.. let's say an M1A1 or M1A2 can.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outtis
Sorry for my lack of better english term for "rarely".. english is not my mother tongue.
But I was trying to say that the T-72 can operate much longer without or with minor maintainance alot longer than.. let's say an M1A1 or M1A2 can.


No problem....English is my mother lanquage and I have plenty of trouble with it, never mind adding another lanquage!!


I would be curious to see the recomended maintainence intervals for each tank compared.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
well face u goto remember that rusian parts dont cost up to a million $'s a piece like the m1a's do



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
well face u goto remember that rusian parts dont cost up to a million $'s a piece like the m1a's do


Very true - the M1A2 is a marvelous tank, but needs a lot more upkeep then any other tank. It would not be my first choice if I were the "underdog" in a conflict. I guess the US took this into consideration though, and decided that in a prolonged war they could handle it. Or maybe they thought that any enemy that would give them trouble would have nukes, and there for it really wouldn't matter cause we would all be dead



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join