- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Poland's new tank...are we dumb now?
Posted on 3/30/14 at 1:13 pm to StuntmanAnderson
Posted on 3/30/14 at 1:13 pm to StuntmanAnderson
It will be interesting in seeing what Jane has to say about it. Our Abrams and the Israeli Merkava became obsolete the moment the AT-14 Spriggan Russian anti tank missile was introduced on the battlefield.
Both were shut down cold on the front lines.
We clearly needed a lighter more defensible armored vehicle that could deliver the TKO and the Bradly just never was up to the task.
I am sure we have something coming on par with this concept. Putting a jet engine in a tank was just downright stupid.
Both were shut down cold on the front lines.
We clearly needed a lighter more defensible armored vehicle that could deliver the TKO and the Bradly just never was up to the task.
I am sure we have something coming on par with this concept. Putting a jet engine in a tank was just downright stupid.
2
Posted on 3/30/14 at 1:24 pm to BarberitosDawg
quote:
It will be interesting in seeing what Jane has to say about it. Our Abrams and the Israeli Merkava became obsolete the moment the AT-14 Spriggan Russian anti tank missile was introduced on the battlefield.
The Kornet as it's called did not render the Abrams or any other MBT any more obsolete than the advent of SAMS made all fighter aircraft obsolete.
quote:
We clearly needed a lighter more defensible armored vehicle that could deliver the TKO
Yes the Kornet can disable an Abrams (BTW, there is a difference between being disabled and "knocked-out")but the answer to this is not to throw away the Abrams and replace it with a vehicle that is not only more vulnerable to the Kornet than the Abrams was, it's also vulnerable to a variety of anti-tank weapons the Abrams was impervious to.
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 3/30/14 at 1:28 pm to BarberitosDawg
The Bradley is very capable, don't let political bs sway you.
There are claims the Iraqis used the at-14 against us in the early 2000's . They are not all they are cracked up to be in terms of accuracy.
In terms of armored warfare the Abrams is top notch and no where near obsolete.
Looks at us strategy against the soviet armored threat. Air power, rotary winged air power, Bradley's, Abrams, and infantry carried anti tank weapons. We have shown what our equipment can do to com block equipment in '91 and in the 200's.
There are claims the Iraqis used the at-14 against us in the early 2000's . They are not all they are cracked up to be in terms of accuracy.
In terms of armored warfare the Abrams is top notch and no where near obsolete.
Looks at us strategy against the soviet armored threat. Air power, rotary winged air power, Bradley's, Abrams, and infantry carried anti tank weapons. We have shown what our equipment can do to com block equipment in '91 and in the 200's.
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 1:31 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News