Yeah your speed and fuel capacity will come in handy for all the routing your crews will be doing.[/quote]
explain me please,i don’t understand.
im sorry about my english[/quote]
routing = running away
yes,also,in the geography of the pampa,you will find the challenger will have a difficult,like in the mud.[/quote]
But not much more difficulty than the TAM - it only has 0.1kg/cm2 more ground pressure under it. Don’t just look at the weight of the tank, look at the ground pressure.[/quote]
it was designed for the argentine geography.
also designed for the cheap and good use in his purpose.
the tank is used in the pampa as in patagonia,also in border with chile in hard practices,where it has good involvement.
there are lots of antitanks weapons.
the most important now are planes
we have enough planes to defend our territory,buying expensive shit without knowing why isn’t wise.
also,we have the best pilots.
we will buy planes.
but no one needs army more than the 1st world power now.
because everybody who starts war losses,except if the world power is at his side.
the wars are going to be erradicated.
so,the tam will be used in internal defense.
Really?
[quote=“festamus”]
Really?[/quote]
yup
we had some of us fighting in ww2 in your side at raf. who helped.
Really?[/quote]
yup
we had some of us fighting in ww2 in your side at raf. who helped.[/quote]
Dead, or 80 year old pilots aren’t really a factor today.
Really?[/quote]
yup
we had some of us fighting in ww2 in your side at raf. who helped.[/quote]
Dead, or 80 year old pilots aren’t really a factor today.[/quote]
there are some living still,they have been in a magazine reported last week.
and the malvinas pilot were and are great.
Pity they couldn’t beat an enemy force in outclassed aircraft that they outnumbered 20 to 1 eh?
Pity they couldn’t beat an enemy force in outclassed aircraft that they outnumbered 20 to 1 eh?[/quote]
eh?
yes they could,but depends on their objetive.
also the support in ground and the help of the 1st world power!,that’s why they couldn’t.
Pity they couldn’t beat an enemy force in outclassed aircraft that they outnumbered 20 to 1 eh?[/quote]
eh?
yes they could,but depends on their objetive.
also the support in ground and the help of the 1st world power!,that’s why they couldn’t.[/quote]
How many aircraft did the US send to the Falklands then? Your ‘invincible’ pilots outnumbered the Sea Harriers 20 to 1 and lost. Unless their objective was to be shot down in large numbers, they failed.
Pity they couldn’t beat an enemy force in outclassed aircraft that they outnumbered 20 to 1 eh?[/quote]
eh?
yes they could,but depends on their objetive.
also the support in ground and the help of the 1st world power!,that’s why they couldn’t.[/quote]
How many aircraft did the US send to the Falklands then? Your ‘invincible’ pilots outnumbered the Sea Harriers 20 to 1 and lost. Unless their objective was to be shot down in large numbers, they failed.[/quote]
aircraft?,they fully suported you,i dk in aircrafts.france also supplied you.
outnumbered sea harriers and lost?,the pilots didn’t lost,the taken in the land lost.
No Argentinian ATA victories IIRC? Anyone?
we kicked you in the british invations in 1806 and 1807,and with partisans,militia and people throwing burned oil on your heads
we kicked you in the british invations in 1806 and 1807,and with partisans,militia and people throwing burned oil on your heads[/quote]
Not many planes in the 1800’s, dumbarse.
we kicked you in the british invations in 1806 and 1807,and with partisans,militia and people throwing burned oil on your heads[/quote]
Not many planes in the 1800’s, dumbarse.[/quote]
i know grease ape.
but you asked our victories.
if i was wrong,it’s because im talking in your dirty languague,and you not in mine.
No I didn’t, I stated to the forum population, that the your “great” pilots scored not a single air to air victory against our harriers during the war and was seeing if anyone would concur.
No I didn’t, I stated to the forum population, that the your “great” pilots scored not a single air to air victory against our harriers during the war and was seeing if anyone would concur.[/quote]
why they are so much respected,and i hear lots of airforces want to be like our.
we didn’t had air to air fights as i know.our weren’t equiped well to take away harriers.
they didn’t battled there.
USA gave you the sidewinder misiles.
we blow up lots of your expensive ships with our paper planes.
you not
our unique air to air attacks we avoid the enemy radar and went for ships
no combat.
they just attacked and gone
you couldn’t see them.
Hi Erwin
The CHALLENGER, WARRIOR etc have the so-called “Chobham” armour, specifically developed to defeat hollow-charge weapons such as the HEAT warhead in a Panzerschreck, RPG 7 or whatever.
That’s why the US uses it on its ABRAMS, the Germans on LEOPARD 2 and the French on LECLERC.
I post below an extract from the VC citation of Pte Johnson Beharry (source: http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/ophons05/beharry.htm
[i]Private Johnson Gideon Beharry - Victoria Cross
Published Friday 18th March 2005
Private Johnson Gideon Beharry from 1st Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment is the first person to receive the Victoria Cross since 1982 and the first living recipient since 1965.
Pte Beharry receives the Victoria Cross for two separate acts of outstanding gallantry of the highest order whilst based in Al Amarah, Maysan Province, Iraq, in 2004.
In the first incident on 1 May 2004, Pte Beharry was driving the Platoon Commander’s Warrior armoured vehicle that had been called to the assistance of a foot patrol caught in a series of ambushes. The Warrior vehicle was hit by multiple rocket propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. The platoon commander, the vehicle’s gunner and a number of other soldiers in the vehicle were injured. Pte Beharry showed initiative and great courage driving through the ambush, taking his own crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then demonstrated outstanding bravery by extracting his wounded colleagues from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire. He is cited on this occasion for “valour of the highest order”.
Whilst back on duty on 11 June 2004, Pte Beharry was again driving the lead Warrior vehicle of his platoon through Al Amarah when this vehicle was ambushed. A rocket propelled grenade hit the vehicle and Pte Beharry received serious head injuries. Other rockets hit the vehicle incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew. Despite his very serious injuries, from which he is still recovering, Pte Beharry showed great strength of character, taking control of his vehicle and driving it out of the ambush area before losing conciousness.[/i]
I have emphasised certain sections. This is WARRIOR we are talking about, which is only an APC/IFV. CHALLENGER 2 has much more armour, and yet, after multiple hits, Pte Beharry was able to drive his WARRIOR out of the ambush.
I show you this so you can consider whether a hand held AT missile stands much of a chance against CHALLENGER.
Erwin you are talking that thing again that you shouldn’t do.
In other words sh1t.
Your airforce was completely outclassed by a numericaly inferior force. Your attacks on the ships was because you had to attack the ships as part of the concept of OPs. Not because of some secret master plan.
Your air force was very gallent in it’s attacks on an individual pilot level, i will give you that. But as a formation they were tonk. And basically were shot out of the sky every time they left the black top.
hi mate,a hand held at missile comes in different caliber,we have last technology heavy rocketlauncher imported.
i put the panzerschreck as an exmaple
i see that situations you are putting,but it’s just an argument like ironman’s had.
it isn’t proved.
he proved with one of those that the carbine is an assault rifle :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: .
the apache can destroy a challenger,yes or no?