Tank Idea

[ChickenHawk 0]

Hey M79 give me some proof of that pls.. & #### yes the brit army is the best in the world & the special forces too. I know the Spetznaz is good but we prolly have the best special forces record. We got new rounds too that can reach 5 times further than the origionals check mod website I cant b bothered to copy n paste..

[-S.I.S.-Necromancer 1]

the Leopard 2A6 is better looking

[Gilroyg2001 0]

You may mock the british army, but the SAS IS the best special operations service in the world. Whenever a job needs doing, the SAS are sent in first, whenever a dictator needs assasinating the SAS are sent in, compared to the SAS the delta force are like normal grunts.

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

I would almost agree with you. But I should imagine that the SBS are pretty d*amned good too. It some respects its a shame that their activities have remained such well kept secrets when compared to the SAS because we have no idea what they are doing. All I know is they are complete phycos and would eat the SAS for breakfast.

[ran 0]

sbs..... special boat service no ?

date of creation ? i think it was before the sas

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

Indeed, kinda like the Seal in the US.

[Stag 0]

They were created at the same time. They are to the Royal Marines what the SAS is to the Army. As a matter of fact, a lot of missions which are attributed to the SAS were actually done by the SBS, but they really do keep their mouths shut.

BTW, It's "Special Boat Squadron."

[Guest Scooby]

And once again discussion gets into special forces.

There is little you know...

[Stag 0]

Okay, back on topic, then. I'd like to see Challenger as well, And Warrior, Chieftain, FV432 Scorpion, And Scimitar, which is almost the same as Scorpion, But mounts a 30 mike RARDEN cannon instead. it is Recon for infantry formations, while the Scorpion with its 76mm gun is issued to the armoured regiments. Lynx, Puma Wessex and Harriers, SA80, LSW, SLR and GPMG, and that green plastic thing with a screw lid which nobody has any idea what the #### it's for...

They're never seen in the field BTW. Just on the shelves in Army Surplus stores...

(Edited by Wardog at 10:27 pm on Nov. 22, 2001)

[Miles 0]

......and ghurkas, as90 bravehearts etc

[ScreamingWithNoSound 0]

For the record, I *think* the best tank in the world is the Leopard 2... Germans have always been fantastic engineers... look at WW2, they, inside 4 years, went from having the *worst* tanks in the world, to having the best.

Don't get me wrong, I use to live next door to one of the factorsy where Challengers were built (ahh... the sweet sound of that turbine engine at 7:30 in the morning...), that is, until they moth-balled the plant.

The thing about the British, the people at the top don't understand investment... We are the best inovators in the world - Jet engine, HTML, Dyson vacuum cleaners , but we never spend the money on developing the ideas... that's why all the equipment we have is so poor. Take the SA80 - introduce in 1989-1991. It was soooo bad, that you have to clean it RELIGIOUSLY and even then, if it gets a bit cold or a bit hot or a bit dusty, you'll get 1 round from it, before it jams... The pre-production was so bad, that if you put 60 round through one on full auto, the plastic grip around the barrel would literally melt!

As for British soldiers. They are the best. It says so in the advert! But seriously, even American officers can see that our training techniques are superior. Not much good when you gun won't fire though

SBS are the real top dogs... the word SAS is deliberately put about to cover up the fact that the SBS was involved. Also for the record, std issue to British special forces is either MP5xxx (for close quarters) and M4 Carbine (general / field). For some reason, they don't bother with SA80s...

[Krechet1 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from The Blind Sniper on 2:58 pm on Nov. 22, 2001

Russian & American tanks have a history of sucking

Russian tanks have usually been quite relable, but underarmed & underarmored

Abrams is the first good idea the yanks have had

British tanks such as the Centurion & the Chieftan ruled the 50s-70s

I think the challenger is one of the world's best existing tanks... would be a good addition to OFP

I understand why the Abrams and T80 are an "almost" equal match in OFP, for gameplay.. but lets look at it realistically.. I think the kill ratio between the 2 would be 5-1, if that. Driving the Abrams would be like having god mode on.

<span id='postcolor'>

actually British tanks have a loooong history of sucking. Since WW2, when concept of sloped armour did not exist for the British (shining examples of British "genous" are Mathilda and Crusader).

As for Russian tanks supposetly sucking, well T-34 won WW2 and generally during WW2 Russian tanks had heavies armour (single KV-1 held whole german Armoured devision, untill 88 gun could be towed during early stages of Barbarossa). IS-3 was the beast of the '40s and early '50s and T-55 ruled the '50s with T-64 replacing it in mid '60s.

[ScreamingWithNoSound 0]

You're spot on there Krechet! British tanks during WW2 sucked, BIGTIME!

[Havelock 0]

They certainly did .... until 1945 when the Centurion tank came along. That, and the Chieftain that followed, were truely kings of the battlefield until the late 70's. Challanger 1 let it go, I agree (in maintainance, not ideas), but Challanger 2 brings it back home.

A University friend of mine works for Vickers as a tank designer. He always said the best armoured designs in the world were Brazilian.

[Supah 0]

brazilian? are those ppl who fled germany after its defeat in ww2? or are they just that good in brazil?

[Satchel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Krechet1 on 4:50 am on Nov. 23, 2001

As for Russian tanks supposetly sucking, well T-34 won WW2 and generally during WW2 Russian tanks had heavies armour (single KV-1 held whole german Armoured devision, untill 88 gun could be towed during early stages of Barbarossa). IS-3 was the beast of the '40s and early '50s and T-55 ruled the '50s with T-64 replacing it in mid '60s.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sure, the T-34 was a tool to help win the war on the eastern front such as the U.S. Jeep, C-47 and others, but what actually decided the fate of german troops was the russian winter and no vehicle. German Troops had inappropiate clothes and gear for such a drastic climate change, their attack became bogged down in mud and cold. Much needed supplys didn´t came through, when they did, it wasn´t enough and not in time.

Many german vehicles had to be abandoned, because of fuel and parts shortage.

Soviets however didn´t have those problems, for every T-34 destroyed 2 replacements rolled out of the plants. At times it was this hefty, that at 500m or even less located from the T-34 manufacturing plant there were battles raging, as soon as a T-34 had been assembled in the hall, a crew was on standby to drive it directly into battle. After all russians were fighting in their enviroment, not against but with natural elements and their production capability couldn´t be destroyed yet.

As far as the T-34 is concerned, it was probably the toughest Tank at beginning of Barbarossa, german Panzerfausts, 37 mm PAK´s and Panzer III (5cm KwK L/42) were mostly unable to penetrate its armor, the early Pz IV had to shoot the T-34´s rear with it´s short 7,5 cm Cannon to destroy it.

At the beginning of the campaign the only effective weapons against a T-34 was 88mm Flak and heavy Artillery, that both were not in sufficent numbers available. As a last resort to kill a T-34 german soldiers used charges, mines and handgenades.

With increased output and usage of the 7,5 cm PAK and later the Pz IV F2 w 75mm cannon 40 L/43 , the T-34 could be destroyed at ranges around 1000m and more.

With later introduction of the Panther and Tiger the T-34 was outgunned, outdated and outarmored completely.

While Tiger crews achived kills with the extremely capable 88mm cannon on ranges as far as 2000m from any angle on the T-34, in some cases even at 3900m, T-34´s needed to shoot from 500m or less on the Tigers side or rear to have at least a chance to penetrate the armor. For comparison, first Tigers had 60mm of minimum armor and 110mm on the front, whereas the T-34 had armor between 30mm min and 45mm max.

The T-34 as all other russian tanks, was simple and of conventional design, it never was anywhere near the ergonomic and command&control abilities of german Tanks.

The soviets had a simple doctrine for building tanks; the normal soviet soldier is of low education, therefore complicated vehicle constructions are of disadvantage.

This however resulted in virtually to simplistic design for the T-34, that put it behind any german tank in regards of ergonomy and control.

Regarding command&control; a radio was missing in most T-34´s in 1941/1942 so virtually no control in unit operations, also the turret was to small for the commander accomplishing his actual role (commanding the tank/ or other units) there were no effective possibilities to observe the battlefield with hatches closed, instead he was more busy readjusting the cannon, as he was gunner at the same time till 1943.

There was no rotary turret compartment seperated from the hull, so that Loader and Commander either had to stood in the hull, or seating on seats mounted in the turret, with their legs dangling freely.

Both the commander and loader had to enter the vehicle through one large hatch, there were no seperated hatches for entering/ exiting/ observation.

The ammunition was stored mainly on the hull floor, below some mats and was difficult to access, therefore the T-34 had a relatively low ROF in a sustained battle as nearly all soviet tanks, especially the JS models.

The last T-34 model to see action in the war was the T-34/85-I introduced in late 1943, to overcome the disadvantage to later Panzer IV´s, now featured a bigger turret and 85mm cannon instead of 76mm, and a gunner took place near the commander, so that the commander was finally able to do what he´s supposed to.

Because of the flat turret, the cannon could hardly be aimed at negative angles, only -3° were possible.

But it had good mobility, due to an V-2-34 500ps Diesel engine, big wheels and wide treads it was able to move were most german tanks became bogged down.

[NVA Killer 0]

is it me or does the Warrior APC look like a bradley?

[Aaron Kane 0]

I just found out a while ago that the Fairchild plant is about 30 minutes from my house

Those are the guys who manufactured and designed the A-10, for anyone that didnt know.

[Greg Dragunovski 0]

Ummmmm just wanted to say something about the challenger........its ass can be kicked anyday by a "little" tank called the "T-90 TWARDY(polish version)"!!!!

SORRY GUYS BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN A GOOD ENGLISH TANK OR HELICOPTER OR PLANE OR JEEP OR TRUCK AND NO I AM NOT BLIND!

T-90 has everything you need "additional cushion armor"(armor that takes the impact before the principal armor),flares that can blow any freaking AT missile, a good old FREAKING CANNON and machine gun to take care of any English crew that tries to escape from the burning CHALLENGER......

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

''--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, I *think* the best tank in the world is the Leopard 2... Germans have always been fantastic engineers... look at WW2, they, inside 4 years, went from having the *worst* tanks in the world, to having the best''

the russians were the best tank manufacturers in WW2, the tigers and panthers etc.. may've packed a large, whopping guin, and b*tch slapped the american and british tanks, but on the eastern front they totally sucked ass. dump a bit of snow down and a hill and they'd stop in there tracks, while all the russians tanks would seamlessly cross over all terrain. T-34 was the best tanbk of the war, you could probably get 5 for the price of one tiger, they were easy to maintain (unlike most german tanks) reliable, and had large whopping guns capable of f**king up even tigers by the end of the war, they had a lot of armor too, and you could probably make one nowadays in CDT class (given a week or two).

then you had the ISU 152, the animal killer, which killed loads of loads of panthers and tigers (hence the name).

and the challenger 2 would b*tch slap a T-90 all over siberia if given the chance, better gun, heavier armor, more electronics etc... thats why russian tanks are so cheap, so they can have 4 or 5 to take on every one NATO tank.....

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Greg Dragunovski on 4:28 am on Nov. 24, 2001

SORRY GUYS BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN A GOOD ENGLISH TANK OR HELICOPTER OR PLANE OR JEEP OR TRUCK AND NO I AM NOT BLIND!

<span id='postcolor'>

Well then if your not blind...then you need to get out more. mmm a good English tank? Well we needent go far from the thread to answer that one. The Challenger 2 is widely accepted across the world as the best tank and is setting the standards for design of tanks in other countries (even the US).

A good English helicopter? Would the Army Lynx do for you? Not only does it have laser designating facilities, troop carrying capability, side mounting pylons capable of carrying TOWs, Hellfires, HOTs, RBS-70s, AS-12s, Stingers, a variety of minigun designs and SNORE and SNEB rockets but it is also the fastest production helicopter in the world! Breath

Good English plane? My God. How about the whole Harrier range? Or the Panavia Tornado which formed the backbone of all very successful airstrikes during the Gulf War and provided a huge proportion of the allied air presence.

Good English Jeep? Are you stupid? Jeep is an American company who make off road vehicles. But I can name good English off road vehicles, just have to name a Land Rover really.

And a good English Truck, well not knowing much about trucks, I would say the 4 tonner is probably pretty good.

Thankyou for listening and a good day to you all!

[Stag 0]

Jub-Jub, You do realise that you have exactly ZERO chance of convincing an adolescent?

If you do manage, you could probably make a fortune nailing jelly to ceilings...

BTW, you forgot the big one; The Apache Longbow. Westland took the US airframe, re-did the avionics and sensor suites and sold it to the British Army. The US is in the process of ugrading its Apache fleet to British standards.

[Satchel 0]

The T-34 didn´t had "a lot of armor", it wasn´t even half of the armor strength the Tiger I featured.

The largest gun in use on a T-34 during the war was a 85mm cannon, that wasn´t near as capable in regards of armor penetration, range and accuracy as German 88mm 36/ L56 in combination with the PzGran 40.

Some Tiger War stories:

On July 7th of 1943, single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharfuehrer Franz Staudegger from 2nd Platoon of 13th Panzer Company of 1st SS Panzer Grenadier Division "LSSAH" engaged Soviet group of some 50 T-34 tanks around Psyolknee (southern sector of the Kursk salient). Staudegger used up his entire ammunition after destroying 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For his achievement, Franz Staudegger was awarded the Knight's Cross.

On August 8th of 1944, single Tiger commanded by SS-Unterscharfuehrer Willi Fey from the 1st Company of sSSPzAbt 102, engaged a British tank column destroying some 14 out of 15 Shermans, followed by one more later in the day using his last two rounds of ammunition. sSSPzAbt 102 lost all of its Tigers during fighting in Normandy but reported 227 Allied tanks destroyed during the period of 6 weeks.

Regarding the ISU/SU -152, it was an assault gun, with large calibre howitzer, no dedicated main battle tank- a self propelled piece of artillery if you will.

It´s large 152mm AP rounds, weighting nearly 50kg, were proving effective against Tigers and Panthers, it was especially suited for city fighting and assaulting Strongholds, where it´s HE rounds proved devastating.

But it was relatively slow, featured no rotating turret, and had a very low rate of fire( 2 shots/ min) in addition to a small ammo loadout (20 rounds mixed AP/HE), so ammunition carriers had to accompany it for reloading.

The armor of the ISU-152 was good, but not as good as that of later German Tanks, it was 90mm maximum, compared to the Tigers 110mm.

It´s like comparing apples to oranges, for a realistic comparison you should compare the ISU-152 to the PzKpfw VIII Maus or PzKpfw VI Tiger II Ausf. B

Königstiger. The later one was the most powerful Tank of WW2.

"On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."

SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner,

schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps,

East Germany, April of 1945.

You don´t have to forget that germans almost always fought in minority and disadvantage in later stages of WW2, mainly with unexperienced men and in serious shortage of everything. It was not uncommon that a single group of 8 men and one Tank defended a terrain strip as wide as 3 KM, the industry was completly destroyed, there were not enough tanks, those destroyed couldn´t be replaced. It was rare on most frontlines to spot a german heavy tank after 1944.

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Wardog on 4:34 pm on Nov. 24, 2001

You do realise that you have exactly ZERO chance of convincing an adolescent?

If you do manage, you could probably make a fortune nailing jelly to ceilings...

BTW, you forgot the big one; The Apache Longbow. Westland took the US airframe, re-did the avionics and sensor suites and sold it to the British Army. The US is in the process of ugrading its Apache fleet to British standards.

<span id='postcolor'>

Fair point. I can actually nail jelly to ceilings though.

And yes I did miss the Longbow - but the Lynx is English through and through.

[Stag 0]

BTW, you probably never would see a good British tank before your T90 brewed up...