T12um1 black eagle released

[edc 0]

What servers have a CTI w/ those tanks in it?!

And I can't wait to get these grubby little paws on some new M-60s and Abrams.

[blackdog~ 0]

What servers have a CTI w/ those tanks in it?!

And I can't wait to get these grubby little paws on some new M-60s and Abrams.

None, because lee keeps them all for themselves on their private server

[lee_h._oswald 0]

None, because lee keeps them all for themselves on their private server

It makes absolutely no sense to publish an incomplete/unfinished version.

There are so many little bugs to fix. I am changing nearly every day something in that mission.

When it´s ready someday, I will release it. But lets not going offtopic.

MfG Lee

[Heatseeker 0]

I prefer the "realistic" way.

If you aren´t carefull, you get killed!

Today I managed to knock out 4x bradly, 1x abrams, 2x AAV7, 1x AH64 Apache  and 1x Comanche Attack with a T72 era! \o/

Very realistic to say the least , i always wonder how can you guys kill a player controled fast moving helicopter with a clumsy slow tank .

[ozanzac 0]

Aiming, timing and listening my freind.

Helicopters are no longer a challenge to me no more, so long as I have a sabot loaded and a clear line of sight, and I see and hear him before he see's me.

In a tank, your only advantage is, when the engine is off, you can hear the choppers, they can't here you. If you sheild your tank with a building somewhere where you expect the chopper to fly, you can take two shots with sabot's and hit em with machine gun fire before they can shoot at you first. It's all about the tactics and if you can hide your tank by sticking close to the back of a building, you gain the advantage because the chopper doesn't expect you, but you expect it.

[Lucretius 0]

it needs that 1500hp engine as soon as possible... any news on it's progress?

I wasn't aware of an engine upgrade programme? That's interesting. Which engine is it to have? Gas turbine? Diesel? Will it be a new British powerplant or just use maybe an Abrams or Leopard engine?

Excuse all the questions.

As far as I know it's just a more powerfull version of the current rolls royce diesel engine.

Road speed increased from 60 - 70+ KMH same as Leo 2A6, with cross-country speed the same at 40KMH maximum.........

Range goes up to 550 kilometres plus..........

The new tank will be called the Challenger II-E... and will have other improvements such as

full Armour add-on's per the Iraq War, including Exhaust Thermal Signature Reduction box added, huge Bow armour, increased depth side skirts with Kevlar composite add-on's (dust reduction and improved RPG protection)...........

[Bergmania 0]

it needs that 1500hp engine as soon as possible... any news on it's progress?

I wasn't aware of an engine upgrade programme? That's interesting. Which engine is it to have? Gas turbine? Diesel? Will it be a new British powerplant or just use maybe an Abrams or Leopard engine?

Excuse all the questions.

As far as I know it's just a more powerfull version of the current rolls royce diesel engine.

Road speed increased from 60 - 70+ KMH same as Leo 2A6, with cross-country speed the same at 40KMH maximum.........

Range goes up to 550 kilometres plus..........

The new tank will be called the Challenger II-E... and will have other improvements such as

full Armour add-on's per the Iraq War, including Exhaust Thermal Signature Reduction box added, huge Bow armour, increased depth side skirts with Kevlar composite add-on's (dust reduction and improved RPG protection)...........

CHALLENGER 2E

Challenger 2E has a new integrated weapon control and battlefield management system, which includes a gyrostabilised panoramic SAGEM MVS 580 day/thermal sight for the commander and SAGEM SAVAN 15 gyrostabilised day/thermal sight for the gunner, both with eyesafe laser rangefinder. This allows hunter/killer operations with a common engagement sequence. An optional servo-controlled overhead weapons platform can be slaved to the commander's sight to allow operation independent from the turret.

The powerpack has been replaced with a new 1500 hp Europack with transversely mounted MTU 883 diesel engine coupled to Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission. The smaller but more powerful engine allows more space for fuel storage, increasing the vehicle’s range to 550km

[munger 25]

Sounds cool. Soon there will be no doubt what is the best tank in the world.

I must admit that after reading in the news recently that the British Army will be completely phasing out it's main battle tanks over the next decade, I'm surprised a new version of the Challenger is in development.

[Thud_and_Blunder 0]

Munger,

Re your

Quote[/b] ]I must admit that after reading in the news recently that the British Army will be completely phasing out it's main battle tanks over the next decade, I'm surprised a new version of the Challenger is in development.

From this webpage you'll see that the 2E isn't actually meant for the British Army.  Specifically nb:

Quote[/b] ]Challenger 2E, the latest development model, has been designed for the export market and is suitable for harsh environmental and climactic conditions. The 2E has been extensively trialled in Greece, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

[tankieboy 0]

Munger,

Re your

Quote[/b] ]I must admit that after reading in the news recently that the British Army will be completely phasing out it's main battle tanks over the next decade, I'm surprised a new version of the Challenger is in development.

From this webpage you'll see that the 2E isn't actually meant for the British Army.  Specifically nb:

Quote[/b] ]Challenger 2E, the latest development model, has been designed for the export market and is suitable for harsh environmental and climactic conditions. The 2E has been extensively trialled in Greece, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Someone can read then

[Sigma-6 29]

I must say, this whole idea of everyone phasing out their tanks is. . . uh. . . how do you say. . . . .    uh. . .  

Stupid.

IMO, it comes from being prevailed upon by bad analysts.

Reminds me of the White paper that declared the days of the manned, gun armed fighter were over. . .

"Oh, yeah," they said, ". . . you don't need them. . . missiles will do it all in the future!"

This is the kind of mentality that had people building Siegfried and Maginot Lines.

Stupid.

[Lucretius 0]

Munger,

Re your

Quote[/b] ]I must admit that after reading in the news recently that the British Army will be completely phasing out it's main battle tanks over the next decade, I'm surprised a new version of the Challenger is in development.

From this webpage you'll see that the 2E isn't actually meant for the British Army. Specifically nb:

Quote[/b] ]Challenger 2E, the latest development model, has been designed for the export market and is suitable for harsh environmental and climactic conditions. The 2E has been extensively trialled in Greece, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

it's designed for desert combat mainly... but the upgrades affect the whole range anyhow.

I think the recent australian demand for a MBT is the main reason for the upgrade as the challenger is the leading contender.

[munger 25]

Ah right, thanks Thud, I didn't know that the 2E was only going to be an export variant. All the same, I really feel we should have the best version for ourselves. I'd be happy to pay my few quid a year in tax for their purchase and maintenance. It's a pride thing you know.

I must agree with Sigma when it comes to heavy armour supposedly being a thing of the past. Just look at Iraq as a perfect counterpoint to that argument. MBT's featured very heavily indeed in the combat operations, and were used for various tasks which no other vehicle or weapon system could have substituted for. The rapid 'convoy raids' into Baghdad for example, in which M1's spearheaded the assault, or the skirmishes around Basra where Challengers met and engaged T55's on numerous occasions, frequently battling them from less than 1km range. Give me an alternative unit that could successfully conduct this sort of mission with the same level of performance and chance of survival.

[FerretFangs 0]

Isreali Merkava?

[Dwarden 1124]

Isreali Merkava?

Hmm maybe, but Mk3 is slower and Mk4 is just starting to enter service ...

but Mk4 is really nice tank, very tought to break, maximum care was put into crew survival ...

[Sigma-6 29]

Gee, guys. . . the Merkava is still a Tank.

[Pappy Boyington 0]

I must say, this whole idea of everyone phasing out their tanks is. . . uh. . . how do you say. . . . .    uh. . .  

Stupid.

IMO, it comes from being prevailed upon by bad analysts.

Reminds me of the White paper that declared the days of the manned, gun armed fighter were over. . .

"Oh, yeah," they said, ". . . you don't need them. . . missiles will do it all in the future!"

This is the kind of mentality that had people building Siegfried and Maginot Lines.

Stupid.

very stupid indeed. anyone with half a brain knows that a heavily armored M1 Abrams is much better suited for defense and offense then say the lightly armored LAV 25 or the latest addition the Stryker. think about it. an abrams could take several RPG hits b4 its out of the fight.. the stryker or the LAV25.. one rpg comes close and that this is FUBAR. ill take my chances drivin 35mph with an abrams at my side then do 50mph with a stryker next to me

note: the stryker and LAV25 arent just AFVs they do have MBT type armament and are equiped for strictly for head to head combat. most are suited for transport thou

[Bergmania 0]

Quote[/b] ]note: the stryker and LAV25 arent just AFVs they do have MBT type armament and are equiped for strictly for head to head combat. most are suited for transport thou

Hmm not head to head with a MBT.. the tank will win then.. only the missile will be able to make a dent in a tank but missiles have the disadvantage of flighttime.. Wireguided missiles fly faily slow, and the speedier laser guided is detectable when you get painted..

[Pappy Boyington 0]

Quote[/b] ]note: the stryker and LAV25 arent just AFVs they do have MBT type armament and are equiped for strictly for head to head combat. most are suited for transport thou

Hmm not head to head with a MBT.. the tank will win then.. only the missile will be able to make a dent in a tank but missiles have the disadvantage of flighttime.. Wireguided missiles fly faily slow, and the speedier laser guided is detectable when you get painted..

well ill be honest i dont know much about the LAV25. but i do know the new stryker AFV will have a variant equiped with a 125mm cannon on a turret. and if this is true about the militarys tryin to phase out MBTs then that would be the logical replacement for it (which isnt very smart)

[FerretFangs 0]

LOSAT may just even the score. LOSAT on a Stryker...

And there are many other developments that may spell the end for the MBT. Javelin, Predator, and LOCAAS come to mind. It's purely financial. The above systems cost only a fraction of the price of a modern MBT. It's cheaper for a dismounted trooper to kill a tank with a shoulder-fired ATM, or a Viper launching two dozen LOCAAS and wiping out six platoons of Black Eagles before they can even lase a Stryker.

I'm just glad I'm on the ( currently ) more advanced side.  

In anycase, I'd doubt the US at least will completely phase out MBT's, as long as potential enemy nations still have them, and tread-heads are working their angle in the Pentagon.

[pzvg 0]

If you want to control the battlefield, and preserve your men,

nothing comes close to a MBT,

All this talk about LOSAT and phasing out tanks sounds novel and dangerous,

If I hadn't already heard it all before <when the Sagger came out>