The end of tanks as we know it?

[dgfred]

If you get dropped from the sky during WWII... what tank do you want to be dropped into? How about now?

[Gooner1]

Your usual trolling concerning subjects you have zero knowledge about.

Yes. There was one sentence in his diatribe against thinking that was intelligent - and he didn't write it.

"..the training of the servicemen of the repair units will last longer than the retraining of the tankers .This could be 1.5 times longer .''

[Tom Peters]

And you believe pledges of Western governments ?

Sure do. HIMARS promised - HIMARS sent. Tanks (RU models) promised - Tanks sent. SAMP/T, Patriot, etc. all promised, all sent.

Pretty good track record.

Mad Dog

Western tanks promised :not sent and no one knows when ,if these tanks will arrive .

Thats a circular argument. So far the promises of the western governments have been met.

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

One could ask if the Abrams was good for anything,except for the bank accounts of General Dynamics .

Why dont you ask the Iraqi tankers who had to fight the Abrams how they feel about the relative qualities.

This is becoming all too predictable.

First you doubt that western tanks will ever be sent. Then you doubt they will ever arrive. Then you doubt the quality of those AFV.

Mad Dog

[ljadw]

One could ask if the Abrams was good for anything,except for the bank accounts of General Dynamics .

Why dont you ask the Iraqi tankers who had to fight the Abrams how they feel about the relative qualities.

This is becoming all too predictable.

First you doubt that western tanks will ever be sent. Then you doubt they will ever arrive. Then you doubt the quality of those AFV.

Mad Dog

Relative qualities of different tanks are not important :how many Iraqi tanks fought against the Abrams ?
The mission of Abram tanks is not to destroy hostile tanks .

[ljadw]

If you get dropped from the sky during WWII... what tank do you want to be dropped into? How about now?

WHY would you want to be dropped in a tank if you would be dropped from the sky ?
Most tanks are sitting ducks .
A Pz III protected by infantry and artillery would be safer to be dropped in than a Leo 2 without the needed protection .

[dgfred]

Given the choice, on it's own... what tank in battle would you prefer to be in. Hypothetically

[Tom Peters]

One could ask if the Abrams was good for anything,except for the bank accounts of General Dynamics .

Why dont you ask the Iraqi tankers who had to fight the Abrams how they feel about the relative qualities.

This is becoming all too predictable.

First you doubt that western tanks will ever be sent. Then you doubt they will ever arrive. Then you doubt the quality of those AFV.

Mad Dog

Relative qualities of different tanks are not important :how many Iraqi tanks fought against the Abrams ?
The mission of Abram tanks is not to destroy hostile tanks .

Are there two ljadw, that dont know what the other posts ?

First, you claim that

"One could ask if the Abrams was good for anything,except for the bank accounts of General Dynamics ."

Then, I respond with an assessment that the Abrams is good at its job of killing tanks - see the Iraq war. See, thats a contradiction of your claim.

Now, you respond with "Relative qualities of different tanks are not important "

Which ljadw am I talking to ? I cant tell any more and you seem to change your mind on a regular basis.

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

Given the choice, on it's own... what tank in battle would you prefer to be in. Hypothetically

You dont actually expect him to answer do you ?

Mad Dog

[Aida1]

One could ask if the Abrams was good for anything,except for the bank accounts of General Dynamics .

Why dont you ask the Iraqi tankers who had to fight the Abrams how they feel about the relative qualities.

This is becoming all too predictable.

First you doubt that western tanks will ever be sent. Then you doubt they will ever arrive. Then you doubt the quality of those AFV.

Mad Dog

Relative qualities of different tanks are not important :how many Iraqi tanks fought against the Abrams ?
The mission of Abram tanks is not to destroy hostile tanks .

Wrong. Actually, that is what the Abrams crews trained for. Killing enemy armor. You clearly never read anything on Desert storm.
https://youtu.be/U4d9KsTMA4E

[Aida1]

If you get dropped from the sky during WWII... what tank do you want to be dropped into? How about now?

WHY would you want to be dropped in a tank if you would be dropped from the sky ?
Most tanks are sitting ducks .
A Pz III protected by infantry and artillery would be safer to be dropped in than a Leo 2 without the needed protection .

Very stupid posting. You should read a book about Operation Iraqi freedom. Would teach you what happened when iraqi infantry tried to take on Abrams tanks. They were obliterated.
https://youtu.be/zGQxR1FXta8

[dgfred]

Given the choice, on it's own... what tank in battle would you prefer to be in. Hypothetically

You dont actually expect him to answer do you ?

Mad Dog

Not really. But if he did it would have been an Abrams or a Leopard.

[ljadw]

One could ask if the Abrams was good for anything,except for the bank accounts of General Dynamics .

Why dont you ask the Iraqi tankers who had to fight the Abrams how they feel about the relative qualities.

This is becoming all too predictable.

First you doubt that western tanks will ever be sent. Then you doubt they will ever arrive. Then you doubt the quality of those AFV.

Mad Dog

Relative qualities of different tanks are not important :how many Iraqi tanks fought against the Abrams ?
The mission of Abram tanks is not to destroy hostile tanks .

Are there two ljadw, that dont know what the other posts ?

First, you claim that

"One could ask if the Abrams was good for anything,except for the bank accounts of General Dynamics ."

Then, I respond with an assessment that the Abrams is good at its job of killing tanks - see the Iraq war. See, thats a contradiction of your claim.

Now, you respond with "Relative qualities of different tanks are not important "

Which ljadw am I talking to ? I cant tell any more and you seem to change your mind on a regular basis.

Mad Dog

US has thousands of Abrams : how many tanks have they destroyed ?
Relative qualities of different tanks have no importance ,as it is not their quality that counts ,but their quantity : most Soviet tanks were not eliminated by German tanks ,and the losses of the KV tanks (praised by our media as the best ones of WW2 ) were as high as the losses of the other Soviet tanks .
As I already said :the Soviets lost 12000 tanks in the first 5 weeks of Barbarossa ,mostly by non combat causes .
About the Abram tank : why should a tank who,after 1 hour of operating, needs 8 man hours of maintenance, be the best tank of the world ? : if it takes a year to make 31 Abram tanks who each costed $ 10 million operational and send them to the front ,why should one use him ?
A tank of $ 10 million in a warehouse is useless and a wast of money .

[Aida1]

One could ask if the Abrams was good for anything,except for the bank accounts of General Dynamics .

Why dont you ask the Iraqi tankers who had to fight the Abrams how they feel about the relative qualities.

This is becoming all too predictable.

First you doubt that western tanks will ever be sent. Then you doubt they will ever arrive. Then you doubt the quality of those AFV.

Mad Dog

Relative qualities of different tanks are not important :how many Iraqi tanks fought against the Abrams ?
The mission of Abram tanks is not to destroy hostile tanks .

Are there two ljadw, that dont know what the other posts ?

First, you claim that

"One could ask if the Abrams was good for anything,except for the bank accounts of General Dynamics ."

Then, I respond with an assessment that the Abrams is good at its job of killing tanks - see the Iraq war. See, thats a contradiction of your claim.

Now, you respond with "Relative qualities of different tanks are not important "

Which ljadw am I talking to ? I cant tell any more and you seem to change your mind on a regular basis.

Mad Dog

US has thousands of Abrams : how many tanks have they destroyed ?
Relative qualities of different tanks have no importance ,as it is not their quality that counts ,but their quantity : most Soviet tanks were not eliminated by German tanks ,and the losses of the KV tanks (praised by our media as the best ones of WW2 ) were as high as the losses of the other Soviet tanks .
As I already said :the Soviets lost 12000 tanks in the first 5 weeks of Barbarossa ,mostly by non combat causes .
About the Abram tank : why should a tank who,after 1 hour of operating, needs 8 man hours of maintenance, be the best tank of the world ? : if it takes a year to make 31 Abram tanks who each costed $ 10 million operational and send them to the front ,why should one use him ?
A tank of $ 10 million in a warehouse is useless and a wast of money .

Given how the Abrams performed in Desert storm and Iraqi Freedom we can assume you are exhibiting your complete lack of even a beginning of knowledge again. Reading books is what you absolutely refuse and that is your downfall.

[gebhk]

Would teach you what happened when iraqi infantry tried to take on Abrams tanks. They were obliterated.

As a caution, I would suggest it is dangerous to draw general conclusions from such specific examples. I remember reading a piece by an expert adviser on Soviet tactics of the US military. His point was that Soviet tanks and other weapons' systems were designed to work with Soviet tactical doctrine and it is not particularly helpful to judge their efficacy on their performance when used otherwise. He specifically quoted the Iraqis as an example of an army that did precisely that with predictable results.