Infact M 60 never saw combat in Vietnam. Funny thing is here you say M 60 was good but when I say M 60 was answer to T 62 and T 64 and T 72 then you say it is not.
Where did I say that M60 seen combat in Vietnam? Are you incapable to read a simple text in english? And I said that M60 was more advanced tank than M48, simple as that. And no, M60 was not an answer to T-62, in fact T-62 was answer to the L7 gun really, not new NATO tanks, and T-64 was a revolutionary design which was designed to be best tank at that time. T-72 history is a bit more complicated, and I do not have time to lecture you about history of it's development.
I am not primitive, I believe in fair comparisons, Army vs Army, not a professional army vs brunch of irregular insurgents.
Then you are primitive, and naive. There is no such thing as being fair in real life.
Lesser beings does not have ability to understand when they are honoured or when they are dishonoured.
Nah, it is just that it is difficult for lesser being to insult me. I could feel insulted when someone like Richard Hunnicutt, Milton Friedman etc. would call me that, because these people are or rather were credible, they were great figures, scientists in their respective disciplines.
Why should I care about your insults,
children like I eat on breakfest.
Yeah bullet resistant vests play crucial role, but, I told you VC was better equipped than Iraqi insurgents, VC had SKS and Ak 47's which were first class in 1960's but they are not now. Plus you said various advantages we have. So it is quite clear that VC was better armed in perspective of 1960's than Iraqi insurgents in perspective of today. So what does it mean? What I said Iraqi insurgents cant compete against US infantry was true and therefore US battle assessment about Tanks in Modern combat based from Iraq war is not acceptable. So you see here I am again proved right. And you said Iraqi insurgents can compete with US infantry is false.
You prove only how stupid you are. But you know what. Do me this pleassure and destroy your own armed forces by forcing on them your stupid ideas. And leave us, this means west and east alone, we know better how to fight wars, afterall we designed all these weapons and we know better for what we design them and how to use them.
Yes, many were captured it again proves me right, I previously said Tanks can be captured by enemy then enemy will use it against you. Such as
Islamic Republic of Iran Army T 55s
As you see here Iranian T 55 Tanks during Iraq-Iran war, these Tanks were actually Iraqi but captured by Iran.
So what?! I can capture enemy small arms, this means we should throw away small arms and use sticks? But hey sticks can also be captured by enemy.
Your "logic" is complete absurd. Soon I should stop using car because someone can steal it from me?
Jesus ----ing Christ, you are a complete moron!
Where? I see only damaged track, from a mine most likely.
Okay dude then I agree M 60 was not best, then what was West's counter weapon to match against new Soviet Tank such as T 64 and T 72? So Do you mean US had no tank comparable to T 64 and T 72 as you claim M 60 was no match against T 72 and T 64?
The thing is that NATO didn't had anything comparable to T-64, T-72 and T-80 up to 1979 when first Leopard 2 was fielded and 1980 when first M1 was fielded.
Yes, NATO was in disadvantage, had only obsolete tanks and weapon systems that could not match newest Soviet T tanks.
When T-64, T-72 and T-80 had composite armor in 1960's and 1970's, NATO tanks still used obsolete steel homogeneus armor.
If not nuclear weapons deterent, Soviets without a problem would conquer whole Europe, because NATO did not had anything that could reliably stop their newest tanks.
Hello in real world!
It is written in Human language. You cant understand.
No, it is not human language, afterall I don't talk with human, but with... something.
Air force uses Bomb and Missiles not for anti-personnal use, there are various type bombs and missiles for different use. Much like various type Tank warhead. You are saying it is just uneconomical to spend main gun's ammunition on single individuals, right? But infact most targets in combat will be individual soldiers, that's why I said autocannon supported by .50 cals for infantry and ATGMs for enemy armour.
God, if you exist, please help me with this moron... Infantry fights in formations, sometimes you can hit multiple soldiers in formation with use of area weapons, like artillery, tank gun ammunition, automatic cannons ammunition. However sometimes, there are only indiidual soldiers as a targets, there is nobody near them, then you use small arms, because firing area type weapon is not economical... what is so difficult to understand here?
Yes there are some counter measures against ATGM but Russians are working on it, besides we still have unguided RPGs for which Tanks have no answer. MILAN ATGM's muzzle velocity is 200 M/S where as RPG 7's muzzle velocity is only 115 M/S.
Unguided RPG's which tanks have no answer?
Again, you want to lie in front of facts?
Where the heck I said it was not dangerous? Iraqis would have better result if they had proper ammunition. As for M1 vs C 2 will the M1 be battle worthy still?
Even if Iraqis would have better ammunition, results would be the same. And yes, M1 would be operational, there was even one incident where M1 fired accidentialy in to Challenger 2 front turret armor, nothing happened, and M1 had better gun and ammunition than Challenger 2, their armor is comparable.
That's why perhaps now they concentrate more on Attack Helicopters? Then why now militaries are decreasing their Tank number and instead increasing Attack Helicopter number? West Germany had over 2500 tanks in cold war, now they have only about 500 as active.
Who concentrate on attack helicopters?
You don't even know what happens over the world do you?
USA have 8000 tanks, from which 4000 is in active service, and less than 1000 attack helicopters.
Israel have around 4000 tanks total, and 1840 in active service, and 70 attach helicopters.
Germany will have 225 tanks total and 21 attack helicopters.
UK will have around 200-250 tanks total and only around 60-70 attack helicopters.
France will have also around 200-300 tanks total and 34 attack helicopters.
Which is more? Tanks or attack helicopters?
Nazisim is an idealism, should we say all WW2 Russian soldiers as Communist just because they were under Communist role? We call US soldiers through their nationality, British soldiers through their nationality then only Germans will be called through their political idea?
Ah, here it is your pain? You little Nazi lover.
Actually Iraq had modern air defence system, CIA inserted virus in their computers Iraqis were poorly trained, their pilots knew nothing compared to US pilots, same goes to Tankers also. Poor training was 1 of main reason Iraq lost.
Calling Iraqi air defence as modern is like having a date with moose.
You are telling from Iraq war experience, let the war to happen between US-Iran(I hope not) US analysis will change.
Why should US analisis change, their view is right now very clear, over reliance on air forces is a mistake, a bloody mistake.
There is a proverb in my country "Jatota Garjay toto ta barshay na" meaning those who make warcry more they cant fight war according to that. Same is true for Tanks. When Tanks can give higher protection, then it is ineffective. It is waste of time to argue with you.
Complete nonsense and contraditicion. How a better protection means it is ineffective, so no protection is effective, when a single hit can kill you?
Can I ask, are you feel alright? perhaps you need to go to psychiatrist?
I told you Tanks alone cant beat infantry, Tanks are extremely vulnerable with out infantry cover and it is proved or CAS(battle of Longewala) you dont accept then dont.
I just don't accept opinions made by morons, idiots and lunatics. And of course I don't accept also lies.
My last message instead of studying Tanks read about Social theories regarding how immigration kills Native culture, and kick immigrants out of Europe, leave the war fare to us.
?? I don't have problems with immigrants in my country, this is first thing, second, leave these things to people like, that actually study these security matters in reality, on real academy, and discuss these things with real doctors and profesors, real scientists in their discipline.
I do not need to listen some idiot like you.
Life is generally unfair kid, war is unfair, everything is unfair. And you don't even have any theory, to have theory first you need to be sentient being, not ape who just tries to look like human.
The hull seems incredibly long with the additonal ammunition magazine.
Source ?
