A Tank Fact. Just because.. did you know? tum hpr. e om Since its introduction in 1993 and extensive ehwhat use, the only thing that' s ever destroyed the Briti A Tank Fact Just because did you know? tum hpr e om Since its introduction in 1993 and extensive ehwhat use the only thing that' s ever destroyed Briti
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (335)
[ 335 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - flemsdfer
Reply +241 123456789123345869
(04/16/2014) [+] (70 replies)
stickied by cirruss
The same is said about the M1 Abrams.
#15 to #1 - anon id: 9be954e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
actually no, many M1's have been destroyed by I.E.D.'s. Lrn2Google
User avatar #139 to #15 - propanex
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
you also have to remember the I.E.Ds are commonly made from ******* huge ass bombs that PLANES drop. They just rig them to explode a different way. I think if a Challenger 2 was hit with the same IED bomb it too would look like the M1A1 above.
User avatar #190 to #139 - postie
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
6 April 2007 – in Basra, Iraq, an IED shaped charge penetrated the underside of the Challenger 2 resulting in the driver losing three of his toes and causing minor injuries to another soldier.

Not destroyed.
#199 to #190 - lozarus
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Because there is only one size of IED amirite?

IEDs are basically what the diaper heads can get together.
Strap a 1000 pound bomb to an IED and its bye bye tank. Any tank and all tanks.
#282 to #199 - anisbanana
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
no one said it was indistructable *******, he is saying that no rpg, no ied has ever destroyed one YET. And you must be retarded if you think you can sneak a 1000 pound bomb under a tank. Hell it wont even fit under the ******* tank, not to mention trying to get it to run over. ****, people are stupid...
no one said it was indistructable *******, he is saying that no rpg, no ied has ever destroyed one YET. And you must be retarded if you think you can sneak a 1000 pound bomb under a tank. Hell it wont even fit under the ******* tank, not to mention trying to get it to run over. ****, people are stupid...
#289 to #282 - lozarus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
You do know you can bury a 1000 pound bomb withouth anything sticking out above it? You just, make a hole in the ground, big enough for a 1000 pound bomb, which isnt that big to being with, put it there and you put a mine detonator instead of the regular one.

The japs did it in WWII with great results.
User avatar #193 to #190 - propanex
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Who said that IED that hit the Challenger 2 was the same size bomb as the one used above on the abrams?

Learn to read and comprehend.
User avatar #198 to #193 - postie
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Who said it wasn't the same size, it could have been the same size, it could have been smaller or larger. The M1 could have been hit in a vulnerable spot, like it's fuel tank whereas the Challenger was struck near the front.
User avatar #215 to #198 - propanex
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
M1 Tank Rollong Over IED in Iraq
User avatar #222 to #215 - postie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
What, is a video of an M1 driving over what is clearly a small IED supposed to prove your point?
User avatar #224 to #222 - propanex
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Whos to say the one used on the Challenger was small... just like the one in the video?
User avatar #229 to #224 - postie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
If the IED that hit the Challenger was the same size as the one in the video, that Abrams would have sustained the same damage, if not more, as they use the same armour.
#288 to #229 - anon id: 75f9018c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
You're a dumb mother ****** - Coming from someone who is actually IN the military.
User avatar #272 to #229 - sspacecore
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Can't get much more autistic than this guy.
#182 to #139 - sgtdalesmith
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Actually , a Challenger has been hit with IEDs and come away with some damages. Wasn't destroyed like the M1A1 above.
One Challenger 2 has been hit with 70 RPGs and still survived the experience.
User avatar #255 to #182 - clannadqs
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Being in the US army, I can safely say that the Challenger has seen a minute amount of combat opposed to the Abrams. In every major battle within Iraq and Afghanistan, you always see M1s in the shot, not Challengers. While the Challengers have seen combat in both regions, a few missions per tank is nowhere near what the M1s went through. Sorry, but no tank is invincible and both tanks use generally the same armor. Those destroyed M1s were from friendly fire or huge IEDs. IEDs that no modern tank would survive. I'm sorry, but the idiots who think the Challenger is superior simply due to it being hit by multiple RPGs are ignorant on the matter. It all depends on where those RPGs hit the Challenger and I am willing to put money down on those RPGs not hitting that tank in the same day. Guess what? That vehicle went back and got repaired at the FOB. Essentially it would be a brand new tank by the next time it went out on patrol. Also, sorry to tell you guys this, but tanks are generally outdated. That's why the US puts massive amounts of funding behind our Air Force and Navy and not its tanks for the Army. If we wanted to, we could easily come up with a tank better than both the M1 and the Challenger II as the M1 is decades old. There is simply no reason to. I would love to see how that Challenger does when a nation has air superiority.
#298 to #182 - anon id: 9ae06165
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
And there you have it, an M1A1 made in the 70's...... not and A2
#253 to #182 - clannadqs
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #18 to #15 - flemsdfer
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
I thought we were talking about combat though
User avatar #28 to #18 - britexplain
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
No, the content was only saying that the Challenger mk II has been in many combat scenarios and still not been destroyed.
User avatar #204 to #15 - reaperriley
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
They say both, and both are wrong. Both tanks have been destroyed by IEDs.
#16 to #1 - anon id: 9be954e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
#17 to #1 - anon id: 9be954e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
#62 to #1 - anon id: 7df8e610
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
which is a flat out lie since a number of M1 Abrams were notoriously destroyed during the 2nd gulf war by hostile RPG fire

you hear that? the sand people killed your big scary tanks with a grenade on a stick


(you probably didn't know because of USA USA USA!)
User avatar #64 to #62 - flemsdfer
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
You kill any point you try to make when you're a huge bigot about it. No matter how correct someone is, nobody listens to an asshole.
User avatar #177 to #62 - nitsuan
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Accept what you said is not true at all. The Abrams can take multiple hits from an RPG in the same spot of armor and do just fine.

(You probably didn't know this because of **** USA! **** USA! **** USA!)

And don't try to tell me wrong. One of my close friends is an M1A1 armor crew member, and he knows his stuff.
#205 to #177 - kainhall
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
ok, then explane this....www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUvoaD6Vnkg


the crew probably lived thew all of them however..... which is waht really counts. we can always make more m4 shermans/m1 Abrams.


i feel if ww2 happened today, the m1 would be exactly like the m4, good, but gets its ass kicked on the daily.
User avatar #209 to #205 - nitsuan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
In one of my previous post I point out that we scrap tanks that are disabled in the field. I other words, we blow them the **** up when we can't bring it back; better as scrap then in the hands of out enemies. Also, I'm willing to bet those are from IED's, not RPG rounds. Some have what appear to be RPG holes, but that doesn't mean that's how they went down. In fact, some don't even look destroyed for the most part, just seriously damaged.
#248 to #209 - kainhall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
seriously damage is a killed tank... any time the crew bails out, its a kill.

you may not kill the crew, but you ****** it up enough the crew is no longer shooting back. aka, victory, aka kill.

all of thows tanks were probably repaired.

you think the Abrams is this invincible wall of freedom.... and its not.....

www.rense.com/general44/what.htm

at the tiem that was written, only 2 tanks had been "killed" but MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY have been mobility killed. aka tracked, a tracked tank is USELESS!!!

one tank was hit by an RPG, and killed
the other, they really dont know what the **** hit it.... probably an rpg or some type of SABOT penitrator.
#250 to #248 - kainhall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
then again... reports also say that the tank took ******* 35 RPGs and drove back to base that night....
#71 to #1 - anon id: 0d11f928
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
True - but only just. A large number of M1 Abrams have been disabled, abandoned or put out of commission by IED's and other weapons during the Iraq/Afghan wars.

However, that's not to say it's a worse tank than the challenger 2 - after all M1 Abram's have seen a lot more combat than Challengers, and have therefore been subject to more enemy fire.

I will say this for Challenger - it has a kettle built in for boiling tea.
User avatar #72 to #71 - flemsdfer
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Well the M1 Abrams has a deep fryer built in for twinkies. 'Murica
#164 to #72 - kainhall
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
wait.... brit tanks have places to make tea..... what are you saying again?


also, britian surpassed america in the obesity rate.... something like 50% USA, 51% brits..... again, what were you saying?

but really, i wish our tanks had tea time facilities.... tea is ******* good.
#220 to #164 - anon id: 629ffa05
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
you and sgtdalesmith are ******* stupid if you really believe there is ANY country with more than half it's population being obese.

America has about 32% obese people of it's adult population.
#185 to #164 - sgtdalesmith
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Actually , your wrong.

People overweight/obese in the UK -64%
People overweight/obese in the US - 70%

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25576400
#203 to #185 - kainhall
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
oh, 6% and only another 200 (total guess) million living in the states..... were about even.

i know for a fact i saw a think on how the UK was bigger around than the us.... idk, statics can be messed with to suit whatever need. maybe it did not factor in overweight, and only obese.... idk
User avatar #294 to #203 - welfarekid
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
There are 300million people in the US btw.
#317 to #294 - kainhall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
yup, i know this.... i was guessing the number in Britannia at roughly 1/3rd
User avatar #318 to #317 - welfarekid
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
You are right though, by population GB has a bigger waist.
They eat their fried fish and chips and creamy spinach and cream soups and ****.
#319 to #318 - kainhall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
lol, .... im from a poor family in small town montana.... i eat deer steak, deer stew, fish i caught that day, and lots of hamburger helper, we make with deer meat. and pizza.... im 6 foot 5, 180ish pounds.... aka, not fat. but i eat probably 6000 cals a day.

i think these people that hate merika, if they actually met a decent person, and spent some time here, would change their views.
User avatar #320 to #319 - welfarekid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
I am 6'3. I weigh 153lbs.
And I eat a lot. But I also am in Delayed entry for the USN. So I work out too (but I weighed 135lbs in January, but I didn't work out and lived with my dad who didn't feed me, I now live with my mom who makes a decent living as a flight nurse)
#321 to #320 - kainhall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
navy wanted me for the navy nuke program.... scored a perfect score on the ASVAB 99th percentile.

decided to study computer science(so much math), but really thinking of pilot or musician.
User avatar #322 to #321 - welfarekid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
That's actually what I am in delayed entry for, I am a Nuke. I am excited I ship out Nov. 18. It is an awesome program if you can make it through school and I am sure you would, if you wanted to do it.
Are you still considering the Navy at all?
#323 to #322 - kainhall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
ya.... kinda getting broke. actually get escorted out of college by the police.... the uni lost my registration and thought i was a bum in the dorms. they said come back next year, ps you still owe us 2400 bucks for 5 weeks of school.
User avatar #324 to #323 - welfarekid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
**** that.
If you want to be a pilot, I can't help you, but Navy pilots are the ****.
Nukes, make bank, especially out of the military.
If you are looking to any other branch, I can't help because I am Navy all the way.
Although with that 99, you can go ahead and rule out Army and Marines.
#325 to #324 - kainhall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
pilot as in commercial. ive watched enough "american heroes" (changed it from military channel to that to not make merika look so militant.)

anyway, watched enough ww2 and now day footage to know i dont want to get shot at. i also game with a bunch of ex-marine force recon guys.... they all loved it, but hated it. know what i mean?

if i went in it would be for the nukes.... idk if im going to be able to lie when they ask about my drug use AHAHA. my ass controlling a reactor, lol.
User avatar #326 to #325 - welfarekid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
Idk, Malaysia flight 370 OOOOooooOOOOOooooOOO
(im just kidding)

and yes I completely understand I don't wanna be shot at either. Typically Naval pilots are scouting. Like for flight 370 or to find submarines. They sometimes get in confrontations with other pilots, but only in times of war.
but I definitely am not trying to get shot at either, a reason i am a nuke and not a SEAL.

Well, as long it was Marijuana for experimental purposes you're good.
And if you're disclosing you've done it, you only did it twice. Ya catch my drift?
unless you have any charges.
#327 to #326 - kainhall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
got a paraphernalia ticket that the judge takes off my record after 6 months...
#328 to #327 - welfarekid
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#206 to #203 - sgtdalesmith
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Your complaining to me that it was only a difference of 6% when in yours it was 1%
#246 to #206 - kainhall
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
not complaining.... but i just like how people say OMG MERIKA SO FAT LOLOLOL GO EAT A HOT DOG

when your only 6% less fat..... instead of 1000 pound woman, its 940 pound woman.... its nothing..... its basicly the same ****.

BOTH COUNTRIES HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FAT PEOPLE...... MOST COUNTRIES DO!!!!! its not just merika.... and the lot of us hate the merika ****.

not people saying it, but the **** inside this country that is "merika". deep fat fried everything ETC....

User avatar #314 to #72 - shoryuken
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
I'm going to look that up, that's just so funny
#231 to #71 - vorarephilia
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Challenger 2 served 1998–present with around 446 built.    
M1 served 1980–present with +9000   inb4 WHAT 9000?  built.    
they both kick ass. but of course the challenger 2 is going to have fewer casualties than a tank almost twice its age and combat deployments.   
   
gif unrelated.
Challenger 2 served 1998–present with around 446 built.
M1 served 1980–present with +9000 inb4 WHAT 9000? built.
they both kick ass. but of course the challenger 2 is going to have fewer casualties than a tank almost twice its age and combat deployments.

gif unrelated.
#210 to #1 - tomthehippie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
And now the military is coming out with a railgun Abrams.
#150 to #1 - removekimchi
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
M1 Abrams have been known to deflect shots from other Abrams on the front armor

There were a lot of friendly fire incidents during Desert Storm.

Anyway, the Abrams, Leopard and Challenger are all basically the same tank.

#243 to #150 - anon id: 57a8526a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
There somebody said it. If these 3 beasts would take it on in a real combat scenario it would all come down to crew training, vehicle maintenance and luck.

I think the same can be said for the Leopard2A6 vs M1A2 Abrahams vs Chalanger 2 vs T90. Not sure about the French Leclerc.
User avatar #302 to #1 - spyisspy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Actually, during the 2nd Iraq War, an Abram was downed from an RPG-7's rocket going down the exhaust pipe.
#55 to #1 - nobleknight
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
But the M1 has been disabled in combat
User avatar #176 to #1 - EaTroFKITTENS
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
After what I'm pretty sure is the RPG 29 has been introduced recently, they've been disabling M1s left and right with a HEAT warhead with over 1,200 mm of effective penetration
#212 to #176 - anon id: 629ffa05
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
If you are talking about the original M1A1 which was made in the 70's, then yes, those have a weakness in urban areas. (any grenade in the back can simply disable the tank) However upgraded/newer versions of the Abrams exists, which doesn't have this problem anymore.

Those M1A1's are never used in any urban area (optimally), they use A2 with some kit, or A1 with a kit.


Also Challenger is not yet destroyed because there are less than 400 exist overall. For comparison there are more than 8k active M1's in the US alone.
User avatar #183 to #1 - phaegitt
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
well then clearly an M1 Abrams never had to fight a Challenger 2.
User avatar #61 to #1 - itsnotimportant
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
shame it's not true about the Abrams : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams
User avatar #200 to #1 - gatorade
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
All you naysayers ******** on the Abrams, if there were 8000 Challenger 2's then the result would be the same thing.

8000 Abrams
450 Challenger 2's

Just saying.
#3 to #1 - infraredanus
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
OP better ****** sticky this.
User avatar #4 to #1 - Maroon
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
As far as I understand America has never lost an Abrams
User avatar #6 to #4 - flemsdfer
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
When we first deployed the Abrams I think we lost like 6 to friendly fire.
#45 to #6 - jazzytheferret
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
"I bet I can hit you before you hit me"
#5 to #4 - nightstar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
To enemy fire? Or just in general?
User avatar #241 to #1 - fuelnfire
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Believe a few have been wrecked by friendly Apaches as well.
User avatar #23 to #1 - nitsuan
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
That's true and not true at the same time. No Abrams has ever been lost to enemy fire. They have, though been disabled by enemy fire and then destroyed by the crew to prevent it from falling into enemy hands, and lost to friendly fire in an incident.
#37 - PenguinsOfMars
Reply +260 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
The only combat vehicle to ever challenge a Challenger 2 was a Challenger too?
The only combat vehicle to ever challenge a Challenger 2 was a Challenger too?
#187 to #37 - anon id: 9061a275
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Challenger 2 challenged by challenger that is a Challenger 2, too.
#189 to #187 - PenguinsOfMars
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
ron paul hater roody-poo are you trying to piggyback on my pun?
#270 to #37 - inkfox
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
#60 to #37 - PubLandlord
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
User avatar #63 to #37 - azraelthemage
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
God I love puns.
#68 to #37 - worldofwarcraftdog
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
you silly bastard
#219 to #37 - PenguinsOfMars
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
thanks for giving me a top comment for my birthday guys
thanks for giving me a top comment for my birthday guys
User avatar #25 - jinxter
Reply +206 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
The only thing that ever killed Hitler was Hitler. So...
#58 to #25 - nagafever
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
**nagafever rolled image** omg hitler was a tank?! it all makes so much sense now...
wait, no. still doesn't make sense. but almost.
#195 to #58 - flomosho
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
What you said didn't make sense m999    
   
 Hitler killed himself you uncultured ****
What you said didn't make sense m999

Hitler killed himself you uncultured ****
#65 to #58 - anon id: 29ba2560
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Combat vehicle. Humans have great potential for destruction, and their vehicle is their body.

Bam
User avatar #208 to #25 - anonefgthree
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
>hiter
>suicide
Nice jewish propaganda
#35 to #25 - nothingatall
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
User avatar #46 to #35 - jesusrevolution
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
dat Wolfenstein Hitler
#8 - cyberconnor
Reply +105 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
British tanks have tea making facilities
#145 to #8 - aTastyCooky
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
And every person manning their tanks must be a 9/10 model

Meanwhile here in merica
User avatar #242 to #8 - cowisbeast
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
true, but tea making facilities just means it can boil water..
#73 to #8 - fistpump
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
#232 to #8 - phoenixfeather
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
User avatar #50 to #8 - amirblumenfeld
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
In other words, a kettle.
User avatar #165 to #50 - Encarna
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
I think you'll find it's called a "Boiling Vessel"
User avatar #24 - nitsuan
Reply +79 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
It's not saying much. The Challenger 2 has never really gone toe-to-toe with any aircraft or modern tanks since it's time in service.
#57 to #24 - onecommentonlyone
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
I am no expert at this stuff but did read somewhere than one did survive roughly 100 RPG rounds. Say what you will but that is pretty badass.
User avatar #135 to #57 - crimsonsunshine
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
An RPG to a Tank is like a snow ball to you. it's annoying not lethal.
User avatar #136 to #135 - Faz
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Wrong.
User avatar #142 to #136 - crimsonsunshine
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Not really since the deadliness of an RPG is due to shrapnel. RPGs really can only kill lightly armored vehicles and helicopters
User avatar #143 to #142 - Faz
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
An RPG has a high chance to destroy/immobilize a tank if it hits from behind or above.
User avatar #148 to #143 - crimsonsunshine
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
No you don't immobilize a tank with a shot from behind. Maybe if this was WWII era tanks but not 70-80's tanks
#313 to #148 - anon id: 4a042bd3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/18/2014) [-]
hey man, dont worry about this troll. What he said is pretty much word for word quote from COD game hints they give you before an online match.

TL;DR Dumbass this COD logic applies with real world logic
User avatar #217 to #143 - tehfalconguy
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Battlefield kid identified.
User avatar #184 to #57 - nitsuan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
I've never heard of that story before, but haven't attempted to look for it yet, so I won't say it's true or not true. What I can say, though, is that the RPGs that insurgents were armed with are obsolete Cold War era weapons, nothing like the ones that are employed by the Russian military today. They are pretty weak against Modern and ultra modern era tanks like the Abrams series, Challenger 2, Leopard series, or the newer Russian tanks. The Challenger 2 tank is a pretty mean machines, don't get me wrong, but I'm just saying the fact posted by OP is kind of a given considering the Challenger 2's combat record.
#194 to #184 - onecommentonlyone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Fair enough, I can't remember where I read it either, it was a couple of months ago. All that sounds very credible, although I do know very little about the subject, I bow to your superior knowledge. I did read about the tank though afterwards and it is a serious machine.
#138 to #57 - comradewinter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
RPGs were more useful back in the day when tanks were good for withstanding bullets and frag grenades. They pack a punch, but against heavily armored targets like post-Cold War and even some post-WW2 tanks, they just explode on impact without leaving more than a dent. It's essentially the same effect the earliest rockets had a few hundred years ago. Great for ******* up **** and making a fire, not so great at punching through hulls and walls. As a general rule, if 10 RPGs can't stop the tank, then a hundred will likely not. Unless you hit in the same spot and dig deeper for every round.
#22 - boxofwonderz
Reply +67 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#66 to #22 - juodojiakis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
sauce? i'm guessing the guys are engineers or someone similar, sort of advertising the tank?
User avatar #77 to #66 - sleepingdogtwo
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Noodstop Leopard
Netherlands, supposedly a mere breaktest used for a little stunt, involving a german Leopard 2 (Maybe 2A5, I can't tell).
The .gif is sped up, still pretty neat whatsoever.
User avatar #79 to #22 - DisgruntledTomato
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Those two guys to the 3rd in from left practically filled their pants.
User avatar #32 to #22 - blueboysixnine
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
that's some damn fine braking power
User avatar #48 to #22 - Rageguyftw
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
It's like driving into a mission marker in GTA you come to a sudden stop.
User avatar #43 - okamiterasu
Reply -22 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
what 'extensive combat' have the British been in since 1998
User avatar #52 to #43 - monkee
Reply +53 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
#67 to #52 - widar
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
So against nobody who actually has realistic anti-tank capabilities.
User avatar #78 to #67 - snowshark
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
In Iraq a number of US tanks were disabled by short-ranged anti-tank fire. The same could not be said of the Challenger II with one tank taking an alleged 100 RPG shots without being disabled.

Also, the most dangerous foes the Challengers have ever had to face are the United States of America, namely the few cases (out of many) of friendly fire from US troops that involved Challenger Tanks. There was a case when a US anti-tank aircraft demolished two UK Scimitar light reconnaissance tanks but was unable to disable the Challenger II.

Also, in the case where the one demolished Challenger II was disabled it was an incident of UK friendly fire in pitch darkness during the Iraq war in 2003 where the offending Challenger tore the turret off the victim tank with a single round. In that single six-day engagement 18 soldiers lost lives to friendly fire, mostly from US troops. Two were killed by the Iraqi forces.

It was quite a disaster all things considered but if nothing else it proved the capabilities of the Challenger II.

The tanks have not been really put through the ringer like you would have seen with tanks during the world wars but the same is true of the US Abrams tank.
User avatar #82 to #78 - kommandantvideo
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Sounds to me like the troops in those light tanks just needed some freedom
User avatar #90 to #82 - snowshark
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
I like that 'Freedom' has become a 'Murica gag and good manners have become a Canadian gag but how the hell did the British end up with "U wot" instead of a tea-related freedom counterpart.

It kinda baffles me.
#95 to #90 - kommandantvideo
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Americans drink tea, too
#151 to #95 - anon id: ec8dd96f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
What's with the picture of the British guy drinking tea in the USA box?
User avatar #153 to #151 - bobthedilder
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Gene Wilder isn't British.
User avatar #99 to #95 - WozzaBuddha
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Cold tea, or tea with weird tails coming out of the tea bag
User avatar #104 to #99 - snowshark
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
The tails are to be able to take the bag out of the tea easily but in all honesty there's no point to them unless you don't have a teaspoon to stir the tea in which case the **** are you doing, bro?

So you can see the logic, it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Also, the **** happened to pyramid teabags? I remember Johnny Vegas in the Tetlea comercials going on about how good they are but that doesn't seem to be the case since Twinings (the superior company) still uses flat bags. *shrug*
User avatar #107 to #104 - WozzaBuddha
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Those pyramid bags were the best, even if they didn't do anything, they were still amazing, I was peeved when there were no more
User avatar #110 to #107 - snowshark
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
They didn't do anything? Then it must have been a passing fad since traditional bags are easier to store and you can get more in each box.

Also, I love how in the UK we have adverts where comedians and stuffed animals praise the mechanics of teabags. I don't even know how we got to this point but it really feels like the UK has no ***** left to give.

User avatar #119 to #110 - WozzaBuddha
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
When you start to talk about the mechanics of teabags I think an immediate life re-evaluation is needed
User avatar #133 to #119 - snowshark
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Why?
#96 to #95 - snowshark
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Yeah but with Britain it's sort of a religious thing. Not that it's tied into faith or anything, there is just a -lot- of tea-drinking in UK culture.

E.G: In Britain it is an offence punishable by death to partake in the satanic bile that is 'Iced Tea'.
User avatar #81 - theforeseen
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Can we at least agree both the Challenger MK2 and the Abrams are both good tanks and we have far better war capabilities then a lot of the world rather then have a flame war between two allies....again
User avatar #84 to #81 - sgtwilling
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
This guy.. he gets it.
User avatar #85 to #84 - theforeseen
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Well im tired of the fact we get petty ******* arguing over what country they where born into is the best , cant we go back to bullying the North Koreans and other poor retarded countries XD
User avatar #86 to #85 - sgtwilling
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Haha I'd prefer that.
User avatar #87 to #86 - theforeseen
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
You and me both mate.
User avatar #94 to #81 - ComradeBritish
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
They're both similar designs, great tanks all over. I prefer the Challenger over the Abrams because I can make tea in it and that's like the greatest thing in the world to me.
User avatar #100 to #94 - theforeseen
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
******* too right XD
#2 - letrollzor
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#7 to #2 - cirruss [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#10 to #7 - navien
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#56 to #10 - szatan
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#11 to #10 - cirruss [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
#93 - wereking
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
165 mm HE round inbound
User avatar #202 to #93 - gatorade
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
lol, that tin can with the garbage bin on top fires a round like that and it would not do much to a Challenger.
User avatar #101 to #93 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Ah the KV2. A glorious derpgun you got there sir
#103 to #101 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
how bout his baby brother then ? With the 122 ?
#197 to #103 - eating
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
kv1 with derp
User avatar #105 to #103 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
A fine tank.
User avatar #106 to #105 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
bought the KV-5, slow to get going but pretty great tank so far
User avatar #108 to #106 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Still a part of the derpfamily?
User avatar #109 to #108 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
It's a premium tank, ity has a 107 mm gun if i'm not mistaken
User avatar #113 to #109 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
I see
User avatar #114 to #113 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
aint got a premium tank ?
User avatar #115 to #114 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Nope
User avatar #116 to #115 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
your choice my dear friend. so by this thy knows i'm mainly doing the Russian heavy line, What if i may ask are thou doing ?
User avatar #117 to #116 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Mostly russian medium line but as i have had a rough time on the A20 so im kind of stuck
User avatar #118 to #117 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
is that the line that starts with the BT-2, fast tank btw which improves with the BT-7
User avatar #120 to #118 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Yea that line. The A-20 is just after the BT-7 but i have until just recently sucked at the game
User avatar #121 to #120 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
dang, if did u fully research the BT-7 and 2 ? cause then u can get free experience to get past it if u rlly can't play well with it ?
User avatar #122 to #121 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
I have but i have no gold nor do i have money to buy gold for
User avatar #123 to #122 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
that kind of sux :/
User avatar #124 to #123 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Only like 1800 xp left before i get the T-34. i can hold out until next month when i get more money
User avatar #125 to #124 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
what blew my mind the most is that i can only go 1 direction with me KV-2. It takes 92.300 RESEARCH to even unlock the damn tier 7 artillery. and i don't even want it XD
User avatar #126 to #125 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
But you can go for the T-150 right?
User avatar #128 to #126 - wereking
0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
already unlocked it with my KV-1 :p
User avatar #163 to #93 - snashy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
king of derp ftw!
#334 to #93 - panzerfront
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2014) [-]
thats 152mm the only tanks that I know of that mount a 165 are the M728, a centurion varient and a churchill variant not a KV-2
User avatar #336 to #334 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
such late response
User avatar #338 to #93 - zomaru
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/06/2016) [-]
Glorious Russian Mobile Artillery cleverly disguised as a tank.
User avatar #129 to #93 - becke
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Just keep the KV-2 for ***** and giggles and go with the other tanks like the KV-1S or T-150
User avatar #130 to #129 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
yeah i did, got the T-150 with the 122 gun on it. slow but steady
User avatar #131 to #130 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
What servers do you play on btw?
User avatar #132 to #131 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
europe servers, too bad though cause i would love to play with Vechs once
User avatar #134 to #132 - becke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
Agreed
#159 to #93 - inkie
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
>165mm   
>KV2
>165mm
>KV2
User avatar #161 to #159 - wereking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
i know they nerfed it to a 155 gun but when i unlokced it it still had a 165 gun. but then i updated and i couldn't research a 165 but a 155 mm gun
User avatar #162 to #161 - inkie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
it's always been the 152 M-10T.
#171 to #162 - kainhall
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
your right.... kv2 should have a 152mm gun.


162 and 155? what the **** is this, world of skanks? that games ok, with its highly unrealistic HP system, critical no damage shots, and amazing MM. ya, i use to play it.


if you want to play tanks with a game that might teach you something... red orchestra ostfront 41-43. should buy ro1 and ro2 anyway because their amazing games.
#173 to #171 - inkie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
..It always had the M10 Howitzer. World Of Tanks isn't meant to be a simulator either, it's an arcade game that balances realism with fun.   
   
The KV2 never had any "162" or 165. I don't think a 162mm caliber exists. There is a 165 exists but it's a demolition gun for M60 Pattons and Centurions used by Army Engineers.
..It always had the M10 Howitzer. World Of Tanks isn't meant to be a simulator either, it's an arcade game that balances realism with fun.

The KV2 never had any "162" or 165. I don't think a 162mm caliber exists. There is a 165 exists but it's a demolition gun for M60 Pattons and Centurions used by Army Engineers.
#175 to #173 - kainhall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
thought so.... man, the kv2 in ro1 was fun to use... one large shot that basically crushed any tank in front of it.
User avatar #179 to #175 - inkie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
I might play War Thunder ground forces when it leaves open beta.
User avatar #249 to #179 - besle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
GF is pretty fun to play, but still pretty damned buggy though. Might be awhile.
#245 to #179 - kainhall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/17/2014) [-]
well.... because it uses proper damage models and actual model damage instead of HP, it SHOULD be a lot better game. plus better grafx, and multi-core support.