The idea is someone comes up with what they think is a invincible tank/weapon and someone else gives you a resonable weapon to defeat it Eg Tiger tank= Sherman Firefly
Says who? thats not the point its just what you think is the best weapon out there than someone else finds something better
It's all about personal preference. If I were to say an M16A4 was better than an AK-74m the argument would be long and debatful because everyone has their own opinion. Therefore such statements never tend to be resolved. A better question for a Tank thread would be something like "How was this tank defeated? What made it good, what made it bad. Was it effective and worth producing?, how has it evolved?" For instance - www.youtube.com/watch?v=6komryq_6a8 The tank is a British made Chieftain Mk.VP being operated by the Iranian army. There is no doubt that the tank was being engaged head on yet the explosion occurs in the rear of the tank. What happened? I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out. Also you should know, the driver of the tank remain in the blazing inferno to get the tank a safe distance from his comrades incase the ammunition exploded. He suffered heavy burns as a result o his sacrifice. He is a hero.
Hmm, there seems to have been more posts while I was editing my own... As for NATO having the best gear. I personally like to think not. For instance I much prefer Russian body armor and helmets over NATO's. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG5FR8NNH5A
I assume the round has deflected slammed all over the tank and hit either the ammunition rack or the fuel tank and for that matter who thought it would be a good idea to put in a auto loader in tanks these days when someone can do it nearly twice as fast than the stupid liittle machines they feel destined to put in tanks now i can see the point of removing the extra crewmember but why would you replace it with something that is going to nearly half your combat efficiancy
maybe but the new uhh "dragon skin" shall dest-save all who wear it. it was tested on a episode of future weapons it showed it being able to survive the old vietnam style 'jump on a grenade' plus its getting the helmat treatment
Yes, I've heard and seen "Dragon skin" before. If I had to pick a body armor for myself I would pick that. But it's expensive. To outfit the entire US army with vests like that would cost over $2 billion. Not much in their terms but a big under taking.
damn if I ever get into the army I'm so gonna buy one of those vests. Although, while the vest resists penetration from point-blanc explosion of a grenade Im not sure if the carrier survives it. though his torso would probably be nice and unscathed. Edit: or not the ribcage would probably be crushed under from the pressure.
I always found this stuff interesting. Sure, America has access to an abundance of resources used in crafting armament, armor, etc; but the fact that the Russians have been able to stay on par with the resources they have, cobbling things together for function rather than looks is extremely interesting.
Well I am a swedish citizen and I would apply to the swedish Defense Force. I might be wrong here, but doesn't the contracts for producing/manufacturing stuff for the US army usually go to the lowest bidder?
Just adding my 2 (BILLION DOLLARS) to the Disscussion, Russian Body Armour Beats Western Armour, hands down The American Body armour systems of issue have had major production problems, thousands being issued that have flaws making them pretty much nothing more than a paper weight. Russian systems are cheaper, have been proven to be very effective and are more reliable than Western systems If you compare all this Dragon Skin hub-bub to something that we would see in use with FSB, MVD etc... then we see that the Russian Suits are Much, Much Much cheaper, and still can stop a Ak Round when in firefights Hah, In Russian Servace people buy whatever shit they want (as long as Their CO has no problem) Noting why we saw so many differnt uniforms in Afghan/Chechen etc...
I heard that "Dragonskin" body armour doesn't perform very well in extremes of temperature and is basically useless. There was a couple of other things that effected it too (EDIT: That the modern soldier is exposed to every day) making it useless. Can't remember them for the life of me.
The US tend to focus a lot on style and elegance, while the russians more thing of functionality, epically displayed during the space race: The us spent millions of dollars trying to invent a pen that could write in space - the russians used a pencil. If we look aside from the fact that the Cooper Space pen was in fact a worthwhile investment in the long run this shows the differnce between the US and Russia pretty well.