ZipDog 0 Posted January 2, 2006 Don't wanna slag it off but 'Charm! Loaded!' is never said IRL. so? Thought you PUKF guys wanted to keep this thread 'on-topic'... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted January 2, 2006 no, I did... which mod team i'm from, however, has nothing to do with it. He's pointing out something of interest, to those who may not know better, not forcing his opinion on why the Challenger 2 'roxors' on everyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel 0 Posted January 3, 2006 Quote[/b] ]Don't wanna slag it off but 'Charm! Loaded!' is never said IRL. What is said? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Redkid Joker 0 Posted January 4, 2006 Strv122 used by the swedish armed forces... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graphic 0 Posted January 5, 2006 Being a complete Russophile I strongly prefer T-72/T-80's and BMP's to anything else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hokum15 2 Posted January 7, 2006 My vote for an addon would be challenger, but if i could find one i'd say chieften as i've driven one Btw on the Oh i love the M1 and want its babies people, its like this, the challenger has a better range and is slower, vs your faster and shorter range. If i was in RPG range of the enemy i'd rather be in a challenger though, A couple of M1's have been immobilised by minor hits to the tracks and such, the challenger 2 doesnt have the same weakness. In tank on tank its probably a match with M1. Btw to franze, i know what you do fear as i know AH64 pilots DO fear them, an its called a tunguska. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
franze 196 Posted January 7, 2006 Tunguska? Nah, Tunguskas are my favorite in-between meal snacks. They just turn on their radar and ASE leads you by the nose... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DKM Jaguar 0 Posted January 10, 2006 Quote[/b] ]I'll wait till cooler heads prevail. The cooler heads have......they decided to ignore you. Oh and favourite tank addon. UKF Challenger 2 Gimme Gimme... Any word on when we can expect it? We don't know when it will be ready yet, trying to get it textured to a resonable standard is taking some time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tankieboy 0 Posted January 10, 2006 Because I am an arse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameronMcDonald 146 Posted January 11, 2006 T90. I am sooo wanting to drive + fight with one of those, especially the T90S. Damn, that's a nice looking Russian tank. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hokum15 2 Posted January 12, 2006 Franze, have you ever spoken to AH64 pilots? i've spoken to american, british and dutch AH64 pilots and apart from man portable weapons the thing they never want to face is a Tung. The 23-4 was a fear in the past till the hellfire and longer ranged tow missiles, but the tung is capable of engaging an AH64 from out side hellfire range. Luckily the AH64 has never had to face them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
franze 196 Posted January 12, 2006 Hah! They're just trying to give you false information. It's simply an effort to get the Tunguska fielded by more armies so that Apaches have plenty of easy targets to shoot at. ZSU-23-4 was never a real threat. Unfortunately, all those Air Force boys HARM'd them before the Apaches could show the working ends of their HELLFIREs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gedis 0 Posted January 12, 2006 i don't understand you Franze, hellfires is the whole helicopter? why then apache is armored, why does he has 2 people crew, why does he is being updated, why ... ? you think only hellfires is weapon by it self? I wouder how whole cavalry regiment was put out of action when entered battle in iraqi at night? Iraq had Tunguskas? No! Shilkas! so how that regiment was put out of action till war officialy ended (Operation Iraq Freedom)? It seems hellfires failed to protect crew, huh? lol! Who did failed, that was apaches and whole it's armament and inteligence... Inteligence? how? Apaches can hover behind trees or far away from unknow area and scan it with nigh vission systems, etc. But no, it's potencial was put too far and cav boys gave preority for the "ground" inteligence, which failed to provide good info... jup, and what next? regiment in the area, at night, with armor, weapons and "best AT helicopters in the world", ready to rock the battle field, but "something" went wrong, Apaches, i mean whole regiment in that place couldn't handle the battle, took heavy damage, 1 Apache was shot down... and it was... jup, Iraqi's army shilkas, men arms, mashine guns... so? Apaches can destroy everything what is mentioned, especialy whole regiment, but they didn't. So you underestimate old weapons mate, just give them to motivated people and they CAN destroy or at least cause problems for "new technology thingys" finaly i expresed my self... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
franze 196 Posted January 12, 2006 Sorry to the tank drivers for dragging this on, but this is fun. Quote[/b] ]i don't understand you Franze, hellfires is the whole helicopter? why then apache is armored, why does he has 2 people crew, why does he is being updated, why ... ? you think only hellfires is weapon by it self? HELLFIRE is a integral part of the Apache. It wouldn't be as cool without HELLFIRE. HELLFIRE is the ultimate in cool-ness. Quote[/b] ]I wouder how whole cavalry regiment was put out of action when entered battle in iraqi at night? Iraq had Tunguskas? No! Shilkas! This is disinformation presented by both sides because the Apache pilots wanted the Iraqis to think the ZSU was working well against them, when in fact the Apache pilots were having lots of fun playing poker with the ZSU crewmen. The pot was $25,000 and it was a good game for the Apache pilots. Quote[/b] ]so how that regiment was put out of action till war officialy ended (Operation Iraq Freedom)? It seems hellfires failed to protect crew, huh? lol! This is incorrect because the Iraqis were using PKMs firing paint ball rounds. It was actually a paintball fight between the Iraqis and the Apache pilots. The Iraqis managed to tag most of the aircraft but the Apache crews painted 95% of the opposing team. The real loss were the maintenance crews, who fainted at the sight of Apaches painted like Indian war horses. Quote[/b] ]Who did failed, that was apaches and whole it's armament and inteligence... Inteligence? how? Apaches can hover behind trees or far away from unknow area and scan it with nigh vission systems, etc. But no, it's potencial was put too far and cav boys gave preority for the "ground" inteligence, which failed to provide good info... There was no failure. Army Intelligence were trying to figure out why the coffee machine was broke, who broke it, why it was broke, and for what purpose it was broke. The Apache pilots decided to form their own intelligence division in light of this, and took the slogan, "All your coffee are belong to us." Quote[/b] ]jup, and what next? regiment in the area, at night, with armor, weapons and "best AT helicopters in the world", ready to rock the battle field, but "something" went wrong, Apaches, i mean whole regiment in that place couldn't handle the battle, took heavy damage, 1 Apache was shot down... This is more disinformation, because of the 33 aircraft deployed, one was forced to land and the others returned with a few scratches. This was all an effort to get purple hearts for the battalion. Quote[/b] ]so? Apaches can destroy everything what is mentioned, especialy whole regiment, but they didn't. So you underestimate old weapons mate, just give them to motivated people and they CAN destroy or at least cause problems for "new technology thingys" This is where you lost me. The poker game was won by the Apache pilots. The $25,000 pot was used to throw a party for the battalion, with drinks, strip dancers and a game of baseball. *serious mode ON* - The action you speak of didn't involve any Shilkas. The Apaches took damage from small arms fire. This speaks wonders to what a few hundred guys with AKs can do. - The purpose of the Aviation Attack Battalion in question was to eliminate a potential or percieved threat to the ground component, the 3rd Infantry Division. - After this action, the 3rd Infantry Division continued it's advance unhindered. Given that the objective was to ensure the 3rd's advance went on interrupted, this means that the aviation battalion attained their objective successfully. - 32 out of 33 aircraft returned to base in this action. Exactly 1.03% of the total force. If you have any information on how many of these aircraft were completely scrapped, I'm all ears. - The aircraft which was 'shot down' exhibited few signs of heavy damage. Depending on the damage the Iraqis inflicted on the aircraft while it was on the ground, it was very likely the airframe was recovered. If the aircraft had been really *shot* down, it would have exhibited much heavier damage than shown. You can likely find some good examples of very serious crashes on the net, wherein the first thing to notice is the condition of the landing gear. - Make no mistake, Apaches are tough bastards. They have their weak spots like anything else, but given that these aircraft can fly with an entire engine blown off and the rotor blades half shot up speaks wonders. - Like it or not, the most lethal threat to Apaches (and the majority of CAS aircraft) remains the ever-present AKs, RPGs and MANPADS. Self propelled AA systems have a way of advertising their presence as opposed to a single guy with a RPG. - The primary purpose of Aviation Battalions in the US Army is to support the ground component commander in achieving his/her objectives. What this means is that the aviation commander reports to the ground commander, and offers the ground commander capabilities to help his/her objective(s). In short, if the ground commander needs to know who's 25km from his position, how many of them are there, what their strength is, and what he/she can do to ensure they won't hinder his/her plans. *serious mode OFF* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gedis 0 Posted January 13, 2006 it seems you made a mistake, not few vere heavily damaged and it was deffenetely not the apaches game! it played Iraqi in that moment... so regiment was call off P.S. and why you are trying to defent thing, when you know it's not the best? i don't understand you, it's good, but not best... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
franze 196 Posted January 13, 2006 Gedis, This will be the last post I make on this matter because I took my trolling boat way too far this time around. PM me if you want to continue the discussion. So, as I said earlier, do you know the exact number of aircraft that were not repaired and didn't return to action? Do you know if the battalion returned to base due to heavy damage, or mission success? Now, my conclusions to these questions, military vehicles get shot at in war. They take damage. They get repaired. They return to action and get shot at again. This is the cycle of life for weapon systems in event of war. One aircraft lost out of 33 is not a condition for mission failure. The condition of other damaged aircraft is irrelivant - why? Because their pilots came home alive. They didn't call off the mission, much as many people would have you (or would like to) think. If they had, then the ground division they were supporting (3rd Infantry) would of had to conduct follow up operations in the area, or take a alternate route to move around the sphere of influence. Neither happened, and therefore, you have to assume that the attack battalion was successful. Although if you want to go on believing this action was a big failure for the battalion, by all means, go ahead. But be prepared to point out the how's and why's for your reasoning, supported by the facts of what happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted January 13, 2006 So, as I said earlier, do you know the exact number of aircraft that were not repaired and didn't return to action? Do you know if the battalion returned to base due to heavy damage, or mission success?Now, my conclusions to these questions, military vehicles get shot at in war. They take damage. They get repaired. They return to action and get shot at again. This is the cycle of life for weapon systems in event of war. Yes but do you know how long they took before they were returned to service. Â Days? Weeks? Â Months? Â We went over this before repeatly. Now I think its time this went back on topic. Challenger - i have a soft spot for them, seeing them rolling through the desert to support the FOB i was working from in Feb '91 was very comforting. In game... UKF Warrior closely followed by the RHS T80's Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
