View Full Version : Some Tank Photos
Operation Ivy
11-04-2003, 09:39 PM
Bunch of Tank photos mabe seen before...US Russian German British and French Tanks
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/m1-tank-16.jpg
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-90s.jpg
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~steven/images/ukchal25.jpg
http://bushsupporter.org/war/pi080902a3.jpg
http://www.haaland.info/leopard1/versions/bilder/leopard1a2_threetone.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/leopard-c1_58.jpg
http://www.jetpix.com/webfiles/army/army7.jpg
Inside of Abrams ^^^^
http://desktop.wz.cz/technika/tank_abrams02.jpg
http://forum.apan-info.net/Summer_02/jpeg_med/020320-A-9680K-037.jpg
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/gallery/warminster/images/0123801.jpg
http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/france.Leclerc1.jpg
http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/upsidedownThomasVrenngard.jpg
The unbeatable Leo^^^ :D ...dont get mad at me Leo fans :P
IDFM203
11-04-2003, 10:05 PM
These are two new pics of the latest markava from Israel....
http://www.idf.il/idf_in_pictures/images/2003/october/dotz-28.10.03-03.jpg
http://www.idf.il/idf_in_pictures/images/2003/october/dotz-28.10.03-01.jpg
Marxist203
11-05-2003, 12:47 AM
Im getting sick of the Merkava...bring on some Oliphants or Leclercs!
redhawk_six
11-05-2003, 12:59 AM
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/leopard-c1_58.jpg
Ah, I'm going to miss the Leopard C1 and C2 when the Army replaces them. :(
Imagine, replacing a MBT with an APC.....
wholagun
11-05-2003, 01:30 AM
These are two new pics of the latest markava from Israel.... idfm203 - Markava that means chariot in Hebrew does it not? And i must say out of any tank out there, Markava looks the meanest,, The Markava has nice looing sloping armour, now im not expert by any strech when it comes to tanks, however I heard that sloping armour doesn't matter with heat rounds, i heard sloping armour is only good against sabbot rounds. Is that true? Like i said i know jack when it comes to tanks.
Guttorm
11-05-2003, 01:49 AM
Anyone NOT from scandinavia recognize this one?
http://www.haaland.info/norway/storm/cv90_fart.jpg
Norway's army uses this for Mech inf.
kinghk
11-05-2003, 02:11 AM
Anyone NOT from scandinavia recognize this one?
http://www.haaland.info/norway/storm/cv90_fart.jpg
Norway's army uses this for Mech inf.
So does Sweden, Finland and Switzerland.
It's not a MBT by the way.
Guttorm
11-05-2003, 02:18 AM
NOpe, it's not an MBT, never said it was, but it's got belts and a turret, just as all the other ones.
Just thought I'd post it, as I think it's cool... :)
It's the Norwegian IFV.
And it's been modified to Norwegian specs.
IDFM203
11-05-2003, 02:46 AM
These are two new pics of the latest markava from Israel.... idfm203 - Markava that means chariot in Hebrew does it not? And i must say out of any tank out there, Markava looks the meanest,, The Markava has nice looing sloping armour, now im not expert by any strech when it comes to tanks, however I heard that sloping armour doesn't matter with heat rounds, i heard sloping armour is only good against sabbot rounds. Is that true? Like i said i know jack when it comes to tanks.Sorry buddy, I was a paratrooper in the IDF so my knowledge of tanks is about as good as yours.
But I do agree with your assessments of the looks of the tank. it does look awsome indeed!! :D
My knowledge about the markava is only from friends or reading about it (or going in one in one occasion) but that is all. I was not in the tank corps(sp?) so any technical questions can be best handled by any of the Israeli members that was in the tank corps(if there are any here)
oh and you are right with the hebrew meaning of the tank.
Shalom :D
perdurabo
11-05-2003, 04:08 AM
Anyone NOT from scandinavia recognize this one?
http://www.haaland.info/norway/storm/cv90_fart.jpg
Norway's army uses this for Mech inf.
:) as name of pic says CV90(-30-with bushmaster2 canon ;-) ) :) but there is a tank on that basis CV90-120 or so with Swiss RUAG 120mm canon :) (Jordanian Falcon turret uses it too)
aktarian
11-05-2003, 04:10 AM
idfm203 - Markava that means chariot in Hebrew does it not? And i must say out of any tank out there, Markava looks the meanest,, The Markava has nice looing sloping armour, now im not expert by any strech when it comes to tanks, however I heard that sloping armour doesn't matter with heat rounds, i heard sloping armour is only good against sabbot rounds. Is that true? Like i said i know jack when it comes to tanks.
It matters. If you have 20 cm thick armor and is set @ 90 degrees (vertical) heat jet has to burn through 20 cm. However if you put 20 cm armor at an angle it has to travel longer way.
kinghk
11-05-2003, 04:51 AM
:) as name of pic says CV90(-30-with bushmaster2 canon ;-) ) :) but there is a tank on that basis CV90-120 or so with Swiss RUAG 120mm canon :) (Jordanian Falcon turret uses it too)
There is a CV90 with a 105mm canon also
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_2.jpg
unwanted
11-05-2003, 05:08 AM
The CV90-105 was just a prototype modell , the CV90-120 is probably the one that is going into production ...... Still not sure about that .. but here is the Swedish version of it anyway ..
http://unwanted.silentheroes.net/bilder/s_cv90120.jpg
kinghk
11-05-2003, 10:25 AM
The CV90-105 was just a prototype modell , the CV90-120 is probably the one that is going into production ...... Still not sure about that .. but here is the Swedish version of it anyway ..
[img]http://unwanted.silentheroes.net/bilder/s_cv90120.jpg[img]
Is there any other versions then the Swedish one?
Kampfhamster
11-05-2003, 12:44 PM
CV90120 would be good for Switzerland. Heavy tanks like the Leopard 2 are awful to handle on the narrow streets and towns of Switzerland.
http://afd.dev.imagefinder.ch/Lists/400/6186.jpg
aktarian
11-05-2003, 01:03 PM
CV90120 would be good for Switzerland. Heavy tanks like the Leopard 2 are awful to handle on the narrow streets and towns of Switzerland.
Just make sure enemy knows it too and ask them not to attack with heavy armor. ;)
Kampfhamster
11-05-2003, 01:20 PM
Okay, why not. They can come. I just imagine a convoy of tanks on a narrow mountain road and a detachment of M109 on the other side of the mountain. :lol: Knock the first tank out and the whole convoy is f***ed
Why do you think we have less then 400 Leopard 2?
Switzerland has a lot of mountains and our streets are not as wide as the american roads.
Too bad we don't have MLRS and attack helicopters :roll:
aktarian
11-05-2003, 01:35 PM
Okay, why not. They can come. I just imagine a convoy of tanks on a narrow mountain road and a detachment of M109 on the other side of the mountain. :lol: Knock the first tank out and the whole convoy is f***ed
Why do you think we have less then 400 Leopard 2?
Switzerland has a lot of mountains and our streets are not as wide as the american roads.
Too bad we don't have MLRS and attack helicopters :roll:
1. Defense never won war.
2. How do you plan to go on offensive agaisnt enemy with tanks without tanks of your own?
Kampfhamster
11-05-2003, 01:39 PM
erm, we are a defensive army. Our army is not equipped with a lot of heavy stuff.
And we have tanks, just not that many
Okay, why not. They can come. I just imagine a convoy of tanks on a narrow mountain road and a detachment of M109 on the other side of the mountain. :lol: Knock the first tank out and the whole convoy is f***ed
Why do you think we have less then 400 Leopard 2?
Switzerland has a lot of mountains and our streets are not as wide as the american roads.
Too bad we don't have MLRS and attack helicopters :roll:
1. Defense never won war.
2. How do you plan to go on offensive agaisnt enemy with tanks without tanks of your own?
1. Defense never won war.
rofl
AirZone
11-05-2003, 02:01 PM
Okay, why not. They can come. I just imagine a convoy of tanks on a narrow mountain road and a detachment of M109 on the other side of the mountain. :lol: Knock the first tank out and the whole convoy is f***ed
Why do you think we have less then 400 Leopard 2?
Switzerland has a lot of mountains and our streets are not as wide as the american roads.
Too bad we don't have MLRS and attack helicopters :roll:
1. Defense never won war.
2. How do you plan to go on offensive agaisnt enemy with tanks without tanks of your own?
1. Defense never won war.
rofl
rofl
yom kipur war ?
I whould go on 48...
woot
Operation Ivy
11-05-2003, 03:12 PM
Heres 4 more from OIF
http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/Tank.jpg
http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/Tank1.jpg
http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/Tank2.jpg
http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/Cool.jpg
aktarian
11-05-2003, 04:27 PM
rofl
yom kipur war ?
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Israel cross Suez canal and tried to encircle Damascus? Seiing how they started war on eastern side of canal and SW of Damascus this sure as hell look like offensive actions.
rofl
yom kipur war ?
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Israel cross Suez canal and tried to encircle Damascus? Seiing how they started war on eastern side of canal and SW of Damascus this sure as hell look like offensive actions.
Ok...let's leave for a moment 73 war...
What about 48 ?
IDFM203
11-05-2003, 04:33 PM
rofl
yom kipur war ?
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Israel cross Suez canal and tried to encircle Damascus? Seiing how they started war on eastern side of canal and SW of Damascus this sure as hell look like offensive actions.israel was attacked so when it reponds it is a defensve war for israels part, now its fighting doctrine is to go on the offensve and as such did that but it most defintly falls under defense.
shalom :D
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Israel cross Suez canal and tried to encircle Damascus? Seiing how they started war on eastern side of canal and SW of Damascus this sure as hell look like offensive actions.
This happened in a later phase of the war.
In the first three days the IDF had to stop the Arabs from advancing into our territory and succeeded in doing so, of course after that we went on the offensive. ;)
aktarian
11-05-2003, 04:45 PM
Ok...let's leave for a moment 73 war...
What about 48 ?
Israel was on offensivce in later parts, specially since late 1948.
IDFM203
11-05-2003, 04:47 PM
Ok...let's leave for a moment 73 war...
What about 48 ?
Israel was on offensivce in later parts, specially since late 1948.yes it was on the offensive later in trying to push them back!!! its still a defenive tactic in a defensive war for its very survival.
shalom.
:roll:
how can we would be offancive in 48 ? please exsplain me.
aktarian
11-05-2003, 04:47 PM
This happened in a later phase of the war.
In the first three days the IDF had to stop the Arabs from advancing into our territory and succeeded in doing so, of course after that we went on the offensive. ;)
My point exactly. Now all we have to do is explain this to others here.
aktarian
11-05-2003, 04:53 PM
:roll:
how can we would be offancive in 48 ? please exsplain me.
On night 8./9. 1948 (after cease fire ended) Jews* went on offensive trying to brake ring around Tel Aviv, dislodged Syrians from Nazareth and attacked Jerusalem. Main thrust was aimed at Lido and Ramla (I'm using non-English book here so names could be spelled differently than in English). On 15.10. again attack on Egyptian positions in Faludja (not the one in Iraq). Later taking Nagev and reaching Gulf of Aqaba. sounds hell lot like offensive operations.
*I use term Jews because at that point there was no Israel yet.
IDFM203
11-05-2003, 04:59 PM
:roll:
how can we would be offancive in 48 ? please exsplain me.
On night 8./9. 1948 (after cease fire ended) Jews* went on offensive trying to brake ring around Tel Aviv, dislodged Syrians from Nazareth and attacked Jerusalem. Main thrust was aimed at Lido and Ramla (I'm using non-English book here so names could be spelled differently than in English). On 15.10. again attack on Egyptian positions in Faludja (not the one in Iraq). Later taking Nagev and reaching Gulf of Aqaba. sounds hell lot like offensive operations.
*I use term Jews because at that point there was no Israel yet. I don’t care to respond to each battle in the hope to not make this a drawn out 1948 discussion........
simply, What you fail to understand is that Israel was attacked in a bid by the Arabs to kill every Jewish man women and child, so anything it does is in a defensive nature. defence doesn’t mean that I have to sit from where I am and just shoot my weapon there and not move. No defence also means that after being attacked you get up and move forward in trying to repeal the invading and attacking forces.
shalom :D
My point exactly. Now all we have to do is explain this to others here.
Israel was defending itself in the 1973 Yom Kippur War (or any other war for that matter).
idfm203 has already wrote Israel's fighting doctrine is to bring the fighting to the enemys territory.
Israel went across the canal and deep into Syria in order to make them call upon a cease-fire, get strategic advantages and trading cards for the after war talks.
aktarian
11-05-2003, 05:21 PM
"Defence implies reacting to and controlling or defeating another's initiative./.../In military sense, defence implies resistance to attack." Johannes Gerber, "Defense" in Brassey's encyclopedia of land forces and warfare.
In every war the side that was attacked won it went on offensive at some point. I challenge all of you to give me an example of war in which side that was attacked and won stood entire war on the defensive.
In 1948 Jews went on offensive in later part, that is late 1948-49. In 1973 Israel went on offensive after stopping Egypt and Syria.
aktarian
11-05-2003, 05:25 PM
Israel was defending itself in the 1973 Yom Kippur War (or any other war for that matter).
idfm203 has already wrote Israel's fighting doctrine is to bring the fighting to the enemys territory.
Israel went across the canal and deep into Syria in order to make them call upon a cease-fire, get strategic advantages and trading cards for the after war talks.
Basically refusing to stand on defensive and striving to go on offensive. My point exactlly.
The point is that a deffensive army can win a war.
aktarian
11-05-2003, 05:52 PM
The point is that a deffensive army can win a war.
Not with standing on defensive entire war. I'm yet to see an example of this.
Kampfhamster
11-06-2003, 06:47 AM
The point is that a deffensive army can win a war.
Not with standing on defensive entire war. I'm yet to see an example of this.
Well, what's your opinion what the swiss army should do? Use tanks, MLRS, bombers and attack helicopters for offensive warfare?
That's just for political reasons absolutely impossible.
And then: how many tanks did the US Army deploy to Afghanistan?
I've never saw a Abrams in the mountains there :roll:
aktarian
11-06-2003, 07:32 AM
Well, what's your opinion what the swiss army should do? Use tanks, MLRS, bombers and attack helicopters for offensive warfare?
Explain to me how do you plan to retake territorry enemy occupied without going on the offensive?
That's just for political reasons absolutely impossible.
You abviouslly don't distinguish between offensive war and offensive actions. I sugest you look distinction in any dictionary of military terms.
And then: how many tanks did the US Army deploy to Afghanistan?
I've never saw a Abrams in the mountains there :roll:
Were US forces on offensive? I was under impression it was SF actions and NA offensive. And NA used tanks. Russian ones.
As for current US isn't on offensive. It's more like search-and-destroy actions. If US would emabark on operations like Magistral or Pandshir I-VIII you would see tanks or gun armed AFVs
Basically refusing to stand on defensive and striving to go on offensive. My point exactlly.
Offense is the best defensive strategy...
AirZone
11-06-2003, 11:06 AM
Basically refusing to stand on defensive and striving to go on offensive. My point exactlly.
Offense is the best defensive strategy...
amen..
aktarian
11-06-2003, 11:45 AM
Offense is the best defensive strategy...
It seems we finally agree.
OH...... :cantbeli:
In 73 we won the war in deffence way...after we won..we switced to offencive...what so hard to understand ?
Basically refusing to stand on defensive and striving to go on offensive. My point exactlly.
Offense is the best defensive strategy...
amen..
And violence creates love and peace. Uh, wait. It doesn't go like that...
aktarian
11-06-2003, 11:58 AM
OH...... :cantbeli:
In 73 we won the war in deffence way...after we won..we switced to offencive...what so hard to understand ?
Bloody hell, this is exactlly what I'm saying for the last 20 posts or so. :cantbeli: :bash:
OH...... :cantbeli:
In 73 we won the war in deffence way...after we won..we switced to offencive...what so hard to understand ?
Bloody hell, this is exactlly what I'm saying for the last 20 posts or so. :cantbeli: :bash:
:cantbeli:
But this is exactly yhe point !! that deffensive army can win a war...
Kampfhamster
11-06-2003, 04:09 PM
@aktarian: I guess you don't know much about swiss tactic.
We are a small country and our army isn't that strong. Our main weapon was always the infantry, so we don't have a lot of artillery and tanks.
And then is Switzerland surrounded by friends. There is no huge tank army. The army took the older Pz68-tanks already out of duty. And a lot of Leo2 were stored in depots, due the fact, that they are expensive to maintain.
And now explain me how do you want to move a tank battaillon in the swiss mountains?
aktarian
11-06-2003, 06:18 PM
:cantbeli:
But this is exactly yhe point !! that deffensive army can win a war...
Don't you remeber what you said in your previous post? :bash: Let me refresh your memory:
OH...... :cantbeli:
In 73 we won the war in deffence way...after we won..we switced to offencive...what so hard to understand ? (emphasis added)
aktarian
11-06-2003, 06:30 PM
@aktarian: I guess you don't know much about swiss tactic.
We are a small country and our army isn't that strong. Our main weapon was always the infantry, so we don't have a lot of artillery and tanks.
And then is Switzerland surrounded by friends. There is no huge tank army. The army took the older Pz68-tanks already out of duty. And a lot of Leo2 were stored in depots, due the fact, that they are expensive to maintain.
Let's assume for the sake of argument Switzerland is attacked. at some point Swiss stop enemy. What will you do?
a. Leave things as they are and give up occupied territory to be taken over by occupier
b. Counter-attack
If a. then you loose. You will prevent enemy from occupying your country but he will have some parts of it. That might be enough for them. Maybe they had limited goals, maybe they woun't push on and hold to what they have. Anyway you loose.
If b than you should attack. What will you do, send infantry agaisnt tanks? ATGMs are fine on defensive but not that effective on offensive. If you will attack with infantry and ATGM armed APCs/IFVs you might drive enemy out, but you will certanlly suffer heavy casualties. Far greater than if you attack with tanks.
And now explain me how do you want to move a tank battaillon in the swiss mountains?
Carefully. With helicopter landed infantry occupying sides of canyons, with high elevation guns (eg SPAAGs) ready to respond to attack from higher ground, with attack helicopters or attack planes close at hand, with SP arty (or even better SP mortars due to higher elevation of their guns) leapfrogging along your route, with good recconaissance and good engineer vehicles ahead of your convoy (to clear the mines).
Basically in same way as Sovs moved their convoys in Afghansitan after they figured out what works and what doesn't.
God bless the arabs :cantbeli:
Kampfhamster
11-07-2003, 11:04 AM
I don't say that we don't need tanks, but something lighter than the LeoII would be good enough for us.
General Petrovic
08-10-2008, 05:29 PM
:cantbeli:Yo, guys, post some pics-I'm not posting them because I don't know how, but I'm sure that at least one or two of you guys do know how to post pictures, so please, do so. Anything related to the military will do-ANYTHING-just stop bickering or randomly stating "god bless the Arabs."
GiladS
08-10-2008, 05:49 PM
Wow... this thread is ancient.
bogdan45
08-10-2008, 06:32 PM
Ukrainian T-84
http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/t84.jpg
http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/t84_2.jpg
http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/t84_3.jpg
http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/t84_4.jpg
General Petrovic
08-10-2008, 08:38 PM
Ukrainian T-84
http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/t84.jpg
http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/t84_2.jpg
http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/t84_3.jpg
http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/t84_4.jpg
Bogdan, for your pictures and your support of Serbia, I salute you. You are awesome.
Hammer_G
08-12-2011, 12:24 PM
It seems the tracks are in the wrong way ?
http://A.imageshack.us/img3/420/img1307ck.jpg
http://A.imageshack.us/img853/4464/img1306k.jpg
Supposed to be like this way ?
http://www.imagedoll.com/out.php/i45338_m48-marines-vietnam.gif (http://www.imagedoll.com/show.php/45338_m48-marines-vietnam.gif.html)
Frank the soldier
12-11-2011, 06:17 AM
At the follow LINK , a lot of my Pictures with Tanks , Vehicles ......
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.