If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Tank Jock)   If the tanks aren't Scottish, they're crap   (theherald.co.uk) divider line 159
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

115 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2003 at 10:42 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-03-29 05:06:28 PM
Tanks now come in three sizes. Wee, Not-So-Wee, and FRICKIN' HUUUGE.
 
2003-03-29 06:31:40 PM
 
2003-03-29 06:32:18 PM
 
2003-03-29 06:40:58 PM
Opss.. I read the headline "arent filled with scotch"! Even better! ;)
 
2003-03-29 06:41:52 PM
this actually was a cool article.

that being said ... the T55 was designed in 1955. the Challenger 2 was designed in 1998. i would farking hope the challengers would win.

try to guess which one is which!



 
2003-03-29 10:45:10 PM
Harmonia is on suicide watch.
 
2003-03-29 10:46:38 PM
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
 
2003-03-29 10:48:01 PM
Actually, the Challenger II was designed in 1988.

Regardless, in a even battle between a T-55 and a Challenger II, I would be on Marquette would win hands down.
 
2003-03-29 10:48:25 PM
I love tanks they're so heavy metal and stuff..

On a serious note, anyone know the US casualty count to date?
 
2003-03-29 10:48:32 PM
An American tank was lost a few days ago by an Iraqi firing an RPG.

It was at very close range. So close, that the guy who fired the RPG was killed by the blast.
 
2003-03-29 10:49:13 PM
"Scotland has it's own martial arts. It's called fukyoo. It's mostly just headbutting and kicking people when they're down"
 
2003-03-29 10:49:17 PM
Challengers are good tanks. T-55's are antiques.

Still, they make nice targets.

Now, if only I could think of a bagpipe joke....
 
2003-03-29 10:50:26 PM
They've got such great names for their regiments, gives it a real sense of history.

Brave lads.
 
2003-03-29 10:51:04 PM
PHEAR THE HAGGIS!!
 
2003-03-29 10:51:51 PM
 
2003-03-29 10:54:11 PM
Welcome to all tings Scottish. If it's not Scottish, IT'S CRAP!
 
2003-03-29 10:54:21 PM
Great headline.
 
2003-03-29 10:55:04 PM
 
2003-03-29 10:56:20 PM
Scotland 2
Iceland 1

Scotland 14
Iraq 0

Good times for Scotland
 
2003-03-29 10:57:05 PM
Ah, sorry give us a kiss.
 
2003-03-29 10:57:24 PM
The link was farked when I clicked on it. Challenger is a very good tank, even though I am partial to the M1-A1 Abrams, it would do in a pinch. I wouldn't be caught alive in a T-55 or T-72 (IE shooting fodder for a Challenger or Abrams). In the first gulf conflict, we lost 900. I kind of doubt that a RPG would take out a new British/American tank unless he lobbed it inside the turret.

An American helicopter accidently launched a Hellfire missile at an American tank at the beginning of the gulf war II. Instead of killing the tank as it hit it (like it would a T-55 or T-72) it merely shook the turret and injured a crewman. (Note:Injured = Still alive).

Go Tankers!
 
2003-03-29 10:57:36 PM
Bravo! (But I still hate bagpipes.)
 
2003-03-29 10:57:41 PM
I'll drink some Johnnie Walker Black Label for this thread. Cheers.
 
2003-03-29 10:57:52 PM
Royal Scots Dragoons over Iraq, 14-nil, Duke sucks.
Not the Duke of Edinburgh... ;)
 
2003-03-29 10:58:01 PM
Ha, they totally 0wned those badly maintained '50's Russian tanks crewed by Iraqi solders.
 
2003-03-29 10:58:28 PM
 
2003-03-29 10:59:44 PM
On a serious note, anyone know the US casualty count to date?

I heard somewhere around 25 Brits and somewhere around 37 US soldiers on CBS. Not sure how accurate that is.
 
2003-03-29 11:00:34 PM
"The mood among the C Squadron boys is certainly one of jubilation. They will be so chuffed at being able to do what they are trained for in the heat of a genuine battle."


Chuffed?

I would be jubilus too. Coming home after what one would have thought a decently matched "game" would make me happy.
 
2003-03-29 11:01:15 PM
geezuz, looking at the Soviet style "fall-back" tactics that the Iraqis are using, i wouldnt be surprised at all if the tanks they took out were mock-ups/decoys...
 
2003-03-29 11:01:22 PM
What's the percentage of Brit to US fighting. Sure seems like a lot of Brits are biteing the bullet.
 
2003-03-29 11:01:35 PM
hell yeah...those challengers shoot shells big enough to choke a donkey (and then some...)
 
2003-03-29 11:02:03 PM
gotta love the Scots
 
2003-03-29 11:02:22 PM
So, if a Challenger II fights an M1A1, who wins?

(Friendly fire. It could happen.)
 
2003-03-29 11:02:46 PM
Chunderman, way to tie it all together.
 
2003-03-29 11:02:47 PM
gotta love the Scots

there is a reason some of the most feared British regiments were were Highlanders
 
2003-03-29 11:04:06 PM
Casualty count I heard was 36 deaths, 16 MIA's, and 7 POW's (US forces)this was an hour ago on NPR. I don't know about coalition forces.
 
2003-03-29 11:05:23 PM
Don't forget they took out the MTLBs too. They are Russian APCs that first appeared in Iraq in 1989 that are modified to carry a 120 mm mortar.
 
2003-03-29 11:05:28 PM
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

this site is pretty good for casualty information
 
2003-03-29 11:05:56 PM
 
2003-03-29 11:06:23 PM
IronMdn: A retired Army General told me an interesting story from the '91 Gulf War. Apparently, an M1A1 Abrams got stuck in a sinkhole (an Abrams weighs in excess of 68 tons) and could not be pulled out, either by other tanks of by an M88 combat recovery vehicle (think of it as a tank tow-truck).

The armored element commander decided that it would just be easier to abandon the tank and destroy it in place, to prevent it from being stripped for intel purposes by the Iraqis. From relatively close range, it took 18 HEAT and sabot rounds from another Abrams to knock out the stuck M1A1. And the 18th shot was effective only because it struck the tank in a known vulnerability on the turret.
 
2003-03-29 11:07:16 PM
Eraser8That would be a good fight. I think that both tanks would inflict significant damage on each other rendering them unuseable but their crews would have a much higher chance of surviving than if they were in a T-72
 
2003-03-29 11:07:52 PM
Drink up, Nomarblesbtwenears!

 
2003-03-29 11:10:28 PM
Eraser8

Well, there are Tank competitions every year (in Canada if I recall correctly) and the Amerians have usually won, although the Germans and Brits are right up there. I think part of it is that that the American at Ft. Hood get a LOT of long range practive time. Beats me, I was a grunt. A very good grunt, but no speekee tankee.
 
2003-03-29 11:11:51 PM
I thought I read in some science journal that a depleted uranium jacketed discarding sabot round makes easy work of our reactive armor. But I could be mistaken. Either way, not too many countries have weapons grade depleted uranium.
 
2003-03-29 11:12:10 PM
Mustang I have read that story in Tom Clancy's book Armored Cavalier. Very interesting reading. The A1 is one bad Farkin tank!
 
2003-03-29 11:13:41 PM
BBC had footage showing 3 additional M1A1s destroyed and abandoned around Nasra- anyone else have more info on that?
 
2003-03-29 11:15:25 PM
Eraser8,

Its really anyone's call who would win that scrap. They both have similar strengths and vice versa. It would probably come down to who's moral was better, who got more sleep, and what they had for breakfast.

PS, 36 US casulties thus far (including the suicide attacks)
 
2003-03-29 11:15:28 PM
Here's the info on the Canadian CANAM competition last year. Canadian won it. There is another competition in Germany too.

http://www.army.dnd.ca/LFWA_HQ/Documents/2002/NR/NR-CANAMCup1.PDF
 
2003-03-29 11:15:36 PM
Heh, I'm in FDC. That's Fat Dry and Comfortable. I see tanks in the motor pool but that's about it. I'd love to tear ass in an Abrahms though, I've just driven smaller tracked vehicles up til now. But, hell, you've never been off-roading until you've driven through all kinds of hell in a tracked vehicle or a humvee. Sweeeet.
 
2003-03-29 11:16:22 PM
M.C.PeePants, the thing about depleted uranium shells is that to have them you have to be a nuclear power, since to get the U-238 that is used in shells you need to remove the U-235 that is used in nuclear reactions. The United States will likely never go to war with a nuclear armed enemy, so really the concept of uranium shells destroying our tanks is pretty much a moot point.

I have read in places though that we have more than just reactive armor. Reactive armor is merely meant to take out missiles and RPG rounds and such, I don't think its supposed to take out shells or SABOT rounds, but our tanks are designed to defend against them anyways. We actually have depleted uranium armor inside our tanks. Not sure why.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report