Search results

It's got a 105mm cannon, no way it's going to be able to penetrate any of our MBTs from the front. The threat is in that speed and the secondary armament - 35mm grenade launcher and 12.7 machine gun will be dangerous to lighter vehicles and infantry.

Knowing him, he does it all the time. His native language isn't English, so lay off a bit.

Thanks for answering. I won't be active for a couple of days, this is probably my last post in this week.

Any specific reason, Herr Fuhrer? Obsolete? How? Costly. Yes. Ineffective without infantry cover? Not so much. Attack helicopters are so much more vulnerable than tanks, they cannot stand a 12.7 mm round in the right place. How can you forget such a trivial thing?. Same for the Humvee. A...

:shocked: He actually got a TankNet account? Such cruelty. :rolleyes: Is he that bad?

:) Remember that he claims that M113 can still function in a modern environment and talks as if it is perfectly suited for modern combat. The amount of hypocrisy "Blacktail Defence" shows is staggering. Not to mention the fact that he provides exactly 0 sources for his claims.

@militarysta, Can you provide a clear, marking free top view image of the Arjun drawing in Kampfpanzer heute und morgen? Because all the ones I have seen so far have markings, and the book is not available here. Thanks. :)

Do you mean 50 m/s for 1 km or 2 km? Because at 2 km, the round should have lost 100-110 m/s velocity.

@Kunal Biswas, even Alexey Khlopotov (not exactly a great source, I know) has claimed that it is probably a photoshopped image, so let it go. See the source on Gurkhan Blog

I added 1 to the designations? :facepalm: Need to note this down.

Kontackt-1 is a First Gen ERA, very old and has low effectiveness. 4S23 Kontackt-5 and 4S24 Relikt are more modern ERA, which include better shaping, materials and design to get more effectiveness. Estimating is probably a dream, but K-5 should be 30-40% more effective than K-1 and Relikt...

I've heard enough of Zaloga to give me a head-ache. But the book explicitly mentions "disagreements". @farhan_9909, I never said that the tank would not have been tested. I only said that 10/10 targets being missed is a technical, practical and physical impossibility.

I don't like the Abrams at all :facepalm: But that doesn't mean I have to twist facts, does it?

Lord Almighty! How many damned times do I have to say that BBC is purely an unreliable source for military things? @Damian, it is not just an attempt, it is becoming a successful one, both of them are attempting to close their eyes from the truth.

It isn't there. Give a source.

:rofl: :rofl: You are not even close to his level.

BBC. BBC. BBC. Media is not a good source. Said a thousand times. Where do you store your eyes?

We can discern accents. BBC for a source about tanks? Pitiful. The Englishers need to elevate the status of their Challenger and make people believe the Abrams is incompetent. Simple logic -> Easier to see through such things. Yeah, right. You can't discern an AMX-30 from an M-60 while...

Would you mind supplying the damned links? Stop throwing lies around. Give a source, and make sure it is not a forum.

A white lie and propaganda spread by Pakistan. No links will be available, forever :rofl: