Official Sig / Avatar test Thread (continued)

Wildcat · 09-04-2005, 10:25 AM

Yeah, but the problems we had with our Collins class subs! Cost us millions to finally get them right.

Nonskimmer · 09-04-2005, 10:26 AM

But you stuck with it and got it right.

Wildcat · 09-04-2005, 10:30 AM

Yeah and since Sep 11 the Government has started pouring money back into the Defence Force. At the moment we're about to build new Air Warfare Destroyers, new Amphibious Assault ships, more choppers for the Army(MH-90's), AWACS for the RAAF, More RBS-70 SAM's, APC's and the list goes on!.

Nonskimmer · 09-04-2005, 10:39 AM

Like I said, we're not that smart. Our government is committed to building up the regular infantry and not much else. There's talk of new tanks, but so far it's just talk. About the only new ships planned for the Navy are new all-purpose heavy transport/replenishment vessels, but no one has even been contracted for them yet. We badly need new area defence destroyers to replace the few aging ones in service.

Wildcat · 09-04-2005, 10:42 AM

Well we don't have any, hence why we're building some (in my home city BTW) and we also recently brought some new (second hand) Abrams from the US to replace our ageing Leopards.

P38 Pilot · 09-04-2005, 03:42 PM

Wow, you aussies are smart! The M1A1 abrams is a great tank to use.

cheddar cheese · 09-04-2005, 03:45 PM

Hmmm...rather have a Challenger II....

P38 Pilot · 09-04-2005, 10:21 PM

M1 Abrams for me or a M48A3 Patton tank for me to drive around the neighborhood!

the lancaster kicks ass · 09-05-2005, 05:01 AM

pfftt, the challenger II would cruch you like a tin can..........

cheddar cheese · 09-05-2005, 10:39 AM

Hell yeah

plan_D · 09-05-2005, 01:15 PM

The Challenger II, M1A2 Abrams, Leopard II and T-90 are all about on the same level. There's no vast advantages between any of them. Tanks are at the peak of their life - and they're probably going to stay there until the invention of energy weapons (which the U.S are already gearing up for).

The Abrams is the U.S MBT but not one part of it is American.

Nonskimmer · 09-05-2005, 01:33 PM

I wouldn't know for sure, but I've been told by some Army types that tank for tank both the Challenger II and the Leopard 2 are better than the Abrams. They have a wider range of gun elevation/depression, greater range, and some have said they have more reliable firing mechanisms. Not sure about that one.

Not to say that the Abrams is a piece of sh*t or anything. It clearly isn't.

plan_D · 09-05-2005, 01:58 PM

Nowadays tanks have reached a point where they can only have slight advantages over one another. The Abrams is capable of destroying a Challenger II and the Challenger II is capable of destroying the Abrams.

In World War 2 armoured conflict took place at 500-600 metres. Today it's normally around 1000 metres. All modern tanks can destroy each other at that range.

In 1937, Heinz Guderian wrote "The greatest enemy of a tank is another tank." That was true then but not now. Tanks need to be developed to be able to defend themselves from the air and from infantry. The tank will never lose it's place on the battlefield but armour conflict is rare and these modern tanks are more than capable of doing what a tank is supposed to do - scare people and destroy strongpoints. Rarely will they meet tank-on-tank. If they do, High Command has made a mistake.

P38 Pilot · 09-11-2005, 10:25 AM

I still think the Abrams is a pretty good tank. Energy weapons? I think i read about that in a newspaper article. Its this big thing they put on Humvees and its suppose to burn rubber or it irritates skin. Its non-lethal.

Nonskimmer · 09-11-2005, 10:35 AM

Oh, I never meant that the Abrams sucked. It's still a great tank from what I've seen.