Garvin's awesome wheels!:rotflmao:
Garvin's awesome wheels!I would LOVE to know what it's spewing from its tip (I mean, why would it jizz flames?)
Why would it jizz flames?How would I know? I just typed "penis car" into Google Images. :evilsmile:
ACAMS
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/54872m1a1abram.jpg)
anyways, here's mineGreat to see I'm not the only one who remembers the Mean Machine, then :approve:
(http://www.thewall.de/content/_media/half-life_2:entities:prop_vehicle_jeep:jeep.png)
Sorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
Sorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
I just meant :tank2 in generalSorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
M1 Abrams =/= Challenger 2
I just meant :tank2 in generalSorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
M1 Abrams =/= Challenger 2
(http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_mob1.jpg)Sorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
And your point being?
So your saying if someone owns a particular type of car, no-one else can have it?
Besides, mine's doing a wheelie
(http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_mob1.jpg)Sorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
And your point being?
So your saying if someone owns a particular type of car, no-one else can have it?
Besides, mine's doing a wheelie
(http://[url=http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_mob1.jpg]http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_mob1.jpg[/url])
Mine flies :D
Tanks are usually rated on firepower, mobility and protection, so I'll have a look at those stats on both tanks and compare-Sorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
M1 Abrams =/= Challenger 2
My tank is the best cos its multicoloured. :p
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/23647Balloon-Tank.jpg)
Tanks are usually rated on firepower, mobility and protection, so I'll have a look at those stats on both tanks and compare-Sorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
M1 Abrams =/= Challenger 2
The Challenger 2's main armament is very good, with plenty of potential to fire future natures. It can also do bombardments because of its rifled gun. Split ammo is safer, but takes longer to load than the M1 one-piece. The M1's smoothbore defeats anything at present, but would need a longer barrel to get faster projectiles.
Infantry suppression is poor on the Challenger 2, whereas the M1 has a total of three Machine Guns for dealing with close-range attackers, and may be fitting a remote weapon system for the commander.
The M1 wins hands down on mobility; it has a very powerful and reliable petrol turbine which consumes fuel like Smarties, but goes on and on, compared to the somewhat slower engine in the Challenger 2. On the plus side for the Challenger 2 however, it can go much further than the M1 on a tank of fuel, and even further with its extra fuel drums.
The front of the M1 seems more-or-less invulnerable to most weaponry, while the sides are are weak- numerous M1A1 were lost to RPG attacks. However, I remember a Challenger 2 that that took 8 direct RPG hits and a hit from a MILAN, but still fought on. In comparison, the only Challenger 2 lost to date was due to a friendly fire incident from another Challenger 2 (and even that was left a mess after what had happened).
The strength of the Challenger 2's front is questionable-hence the ERA (Explosive Reaction Armour), but has excellent add-on Dorchester/Chobham Armour on the sides. Plus, you're more likely to survive a turret strike in the Challenger 2, due to its split ammo storage and its electric gun kit- therefore, no Hydraulic Fluid to ignite.
So yes- from what I know, they've both got their advantages and disadvantages- the Challenger 2 specialises in reliability, crew safety and defence, whilst the M1 specialises in speed and attacking capability at varied ranges. Even still, I do see them both as great tanks to have, particularly considering they're both on the same side.
HahahaMy tank is the best cos its multicoloured. :p
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/23647Balloon-Tank.jpg)
Tis a shame my tanks made out of pins.
Tanks are usually rated on firepower, mobility and protection, so I'll have a look at those stats on both tanks and compare-Sorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
M1 Abrams =/= Challenger 2
The Challenger 2's main armament is very good, with plenty of potential to fire future natures. It can also do bombardments because of its rifled gun. Split ammo is safer, but takes longer to load than the M1 one-piece. The M1's smoothbore defeats anything at present, but would need a longer barrel to get faster projectiles.
Infantry suppression is poor on the Challenger 2, whereas the M1 has a total of three Machine Guns for dealing with close-range attackers, and may be fitting a remote weapon system for the commander.
The M1 wins hands down on mobility; it has a very powerful and reliable petrol turbine which consumes fuel like Smarties, but goes on and on, compared to the somewhat slower engine in the Challenger 2. On the plus side for the Challenger 2 however, it can go much further than the M1 on a tank of fuel, and even further with its extra fuel drums.
The front of the M1 seems more-or-less invulnerable to most weaponry, while the sides are are weak- numerous M1A1 were lost to RPG attacks. However, I remember a Challenger 2 that that took 8 direct RPG hits and a hit from a MILAN, but still fought on. In comparison, the only Challenger 2 lost to date was due to a friendly fire incident from another Challenger 2 (and even that was left a mess after what had happened).
The strength of the Challenger 2's front is questionable-hence the ERA (Explosive Reaction Armour), but has excellent add-on Dorchester/Chobham Armour on the sides. Plus, you're more likely to survive a turret strike in the Challenger 2, due to its split ammo storage and its electric gun kit- therefore, no Hydraulic Fluid to ignite.
So yes- from what I know, they've both got their advantages and disadvantages- the Challenger 2 specialises in reliability, crew safety and defence, whilst the M1 specialises in speed and attacking capability at varied ranges. Even still, I do see them both as great tanks to have, particularly considering they're both on the same side.
I do hope I haven't missed/misrepresented anything though, as it's been a while since I've last been near a tank.
(Although for me, Challenger 2 just wins out of the two, as it has a boiling vessel :approve: )
Umm... :rageTanks are usually rated on firepower, mobility and protection, so I'll have a look at those stats on both tanks and compare-Sorry, ACAMS beat you to it.
M1 Abrams =/= Challenger 2
The Challenger 2's main armament is very good, with plenty of potential to fire future natures. It can also do bombardments because of its rifled gun. Split ammo is safer, but takes longer to load than the M1 one-piece. The M1's smoothbore defeats anything at present, but would need a longer barrel to get faster projectiles.
Infantry suppression is poor on the Challenger 2, whereas the M1 has a total of three Machine Guns for dealing with close-range attackers, and may be fitting a remote weapon system for the commander.
The M1 wins hands down on mobility; it has a very powerful and reliable petrol turbine which consumes fuel like Smarties, but goes on and on, compared to the somewhat slower engine in the Challenger 2. On the plus side for the Challenger 2 however, it can go much further than the M1 on a tank of fuel, and even further with its extra fuel drums.
The front of the M1 seems more-or-less invulnerable to most weaponry, while the sides are are weak- numerous M1A1 were lost to RPG attacks. However, I remember a Challenger 2 that that took 8 direct RPG hits and a hit from a MILAN, but still fought on. In comparison, the only Challenger 2 lost to date was due to a friendly fire incident from another Challenger 2 (and even that was left a mess after what had happened).
The strength of the Challenger 2's front is questionable-hence the ERA (Explosive Reaction Armour), but has excellent add-on Dorchester/Chobham Armour on the sides. Plus, you're more likely to survive a turret strike in the Challenger 2, due to its split ammo storage and its electric gun kit- therefore, no Hydraulic Fluid to ignite.
So yes- from what I know, they've both got their advantages and disadvantages- the Challenger 2 specialises in reliability, crew safety and defence, whilst the M1 specialises in speed and attacking capability at varied ranges. Even still, I do see them both as great tanks to have, particularly considering they're both on the same side.
I do hope I haven't missed/misrepresented anything though, as it's been a while since I've last been near a tank.
(Although for me, Challenger 2 just wins out of the two, as it has a boiling vessel :approve: )
Do keep in mind that the M1 Abrams has been in service since 1980 and the current Challenger 2 has only been in service since 1998. This means that comparing the losses of the M1 to just the Challenger 2 would be rather unfair, as it would not account for any losses of Challenger 1's in the Gulf War. Plus, you need to keep in mind that the US has been heavily involved with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and thus are put to the test a lot more than the challengers are (I'm not sure how involved the British got with those wars, but I'm going to assume that it wasn't nearly as much as the US).
In addition, only 800 or so Challenger 1's and 2's have been built whereas 9000+ Abrams have been built.
I drive a nascar. Deal with it.