Tenk thread

Discussion in 'Boats, Planes, Other' started by The Niggar King, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. thats seriously awesome!
     
  2. Craziest ever?
     
  3.  
  4. Sweden raging homosexuality gweilo

    why not stop with sodomy penis in ass hole contraption

    and show fact abourt some real tenk

    like T-64B

    or T-80

     
  5. i just started playing as a KV2 in worldoftanks (awesome free online tank game).... i got it fully maxed out, its SLOW as hell, and the turret is easy to spot... but i can one-shot most of the medium and smaller sized tanks which is fun <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

    if you guys like tanks, try the game, its a lot of fun. ive been hooked for 3 or 4 weeks now.
     
  6. Question:

    Why is country like France and UK buirld own tank like "Leclerc" and "Challenger 2"? Maybe is understand why during cold war buirld own tank like "Chieftain" but why today when is so many good purchase tank option availability?

    Design and buirld tank from scratch quite #$%#ing expensive. Unit cost go down with time and number that is produce. Maybe when buirld something like B-2 which add whole new dimension to warfare big cost like that justifiable. But Leclerc and Challenger 2 is not B-2. And very hard to compete in export market against existing tank when their price fraction of your tank price.

    What is Challenger 2 or Leclerc have Leopard 2A4 and M1A1 is not have? Challenger 2 have better armour, Leclerc have better mobility, both have slightly longer gun and maybe more advanced sighting/fire control.

    What is Challenger 2 or Lecler have Leopard 2A6 and M1A2 sep is not have? Maybe nothing.

    Now if is France devil who decide what tank to buy. You have choice buy 100 Leclerc or 250 Leopard 2A6 for same price, why choose buy Leclerc?

    Is like Canada not buy Leopard, buirld own bear tank, buirld 20 unit, $35M each.

    For country like America or China is quite sensible buirld own tank becaurse operate many thousand. Also other country maybe not like to sell tank to China, afraid is drive over hippie student and uyghur muslim. Sometimes Europe country so stupid, make no sense.
     
  7. Or Sweden strife wagon 103.

    Toyota minivan maybe more useful in combat.

    But maybe is make sense becaurse Sweden person like CitroenSM have affection for useless gadget that don't work.

    Oh hey maybe next Sweden tank courld be "Tsar tank", only replace gun with artificial penis that is push in other tank exhaust pipe, make engine failure.
     
  8. A lot of these decisions are driven by politics and not economics. For the largest contracts, often militaries don't have control over their own budget. Outsourcing a major government contract when you have continuous employment problems is a major political minefield, and neither the UK nor France expect to be fighting a major tank battle in Europe any time soon, so it seems like a relatively harmless action in regards to their own security. When they go to romp in some other people's desert, they'll only be bringing a small number of tanks and Dassault Mirage 2000's anyway. There's also pride, which has cost France I don't know how many billions of dollars deriving everything they use independently, all the while admitting they need to maintain the ability to re-integrate into NATO immediately if anything of consequence happens.

    This happens to a lot of small and medium sized militaries. They request to their government procurements that would be tactically and strategically important, and the government goes ahead and buys equipment that's politically important instead. Only the largest militaries have the advantage of tactical and strategic procurement being politically good too. And Australia, but I don't know how they swung that one.
     
  9. France and UK maybe is belong to largest militaries when measure by military expenditure. Only America and China spend more.

    This part still make no sense inside head: "They request to their government procurements that would be tactically and strategically important, and the government goes ahead and buys equipment that's politically important instead".

    Is like need to buy kill plane flying missile, government buy hello kitty rifle cleaning equipment instead, get more votes.
    Maybe is good China not have this kind of problem, all the bribing and corruptiorn inside government & military much cheaper than the France way.
     
  10. Yeah, but I was sort of debating if I should put them with medium sized militaries; in terms of personnel that's definitely where they fit. A lot of their budget goes to things every solider gets, including their wage and the standard of living that their soldiers demand. Regardless, I think they fall into the medium-sized mindset though in the way they conduct their business.

    Anyway, that fault you can see everywhere. Using Canada just as an example (because I'm familiar with it); the 'arctic presence' is something that's been sold a lot in Canada politically. The DND has made it clear what it thinks is the appropriate way to go about that: expand the existing Rangers program to bush pilots (the Rangers are a special reservists unit composed of local Inuit hunters and the like, whose experience make them ideal scouts and guides for regular forces or primary reservists in the arctic), and provide them with cheap, rugged aircraft. The DHC-6 is the arctic bread-and-butter bush plane; its dirt cheap, hard to break, and spares are everywhere in the North. A DND study said the way to go was to subsidize or underwrite the purchase of these for Ranger units; it upholds the livelihood of these people in a place where jobs are scarce, in addition to providing a year-round surveillance presence and utility / S&R support platform, and the only permanent arctic air force base specializes in maintaining the things. The final decision in light of this? A $4 billion class of ships which will be southern docks for 6 months of the year, armed with a couple .50 cal guns. It utterly fails in its intended goals; but its an impressive spectacle, and the PM's Cabinet has ultimate control over such a purchase.

    The same point goes for inane Swedish tanks: they don't serve to fight battles. Their primary purpose is to uphold Swedish jobs. Same reason the Eurofighter (and everything else EADS makes) is assembled, conspicuously enough, in bits in each of the most concerned countries. It sure as shit isn't because its the most economical way to do things. Or how Japan is willing to pay $130 millions per unit for an enlarged F16. Same reason the Dassault Rafale exists at all.
     
  11. "The final decision in light of this? A $4 billion class of ships which will be southern docks for 6 months of the year, armed with a couple .50 cal guns. It utterly fails in its intended goals; but its an impressive spectacle, and the PM's Cabinet has ultimate control over such a purchase. "

    Which class of ships are you talking about? More info please.

    And yeah, the Japanese F-2... it's almost F-22 money and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force could operate 2 F-15s trough their service lives for the cost of a single F-2. In terms of performance it really doesn't give Japan an edge against current PLAAF Su-27/30 and the J-11, let alone Chinese future aircraft.

    EADS... let's not go there.

    From what I hear, the upgrades made to the standard leo 2A5 in the Strv 122, although costly, have been quite successful. The biggest improvements are the FCS and navigation/command/communication systems. In addition it features some appliqué armour on the turret roof and in the full and the GALIX system for close defense & smoke.
    It was the 60's Strv 103 that sucked ass.
     
  12. No contract has been signed yet, but most speculation points to 6-8 ships of very similar capability as an under-armed Norwegian Svalbard class.
     
  13. Kill Harper maybe
     
  14. #42 CitroenSM, Sep 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  15. a turd on treads
     
  16. #44 The Niggar King, Sep 24, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    When I ever say I want strange tank?

    And Strife Wagon 103 is excrement in so many ways.
     
  17. The best thing about 103 is that when push empty casing from rear, is look like Hubei mountain rat make excrement.
     
  18. Contract signed today for 6 Arctic Patrol Ships (seems to include Bofors; +2 options; domestic design but still heavily influenced by Svalbard)

    It was part of the largest procurement contract in Canadian history ($35B), and also includes:
    - 15 Surface Combatant (common hull for frigates/destroyers but different weapons systems / sensors)
    - 2 Joint Support Ship (underway replenishment + sealift + command & control; +1 option)
    - 1 icebreaker (will be the CCG's largest ship and flagship)
    - Plus $7B on 7 non-combat Coast Guard vessels, and $2B on about 100 'small ships' split between the Coast Guard and Navy
     
  19. #47 The Niggar King, Nov 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  20. I'd rather we design/build useless military hardware at home than buy from abroad.

    fosters talent and helps industry maybe?

    I was going to mention JSS - VI mentioned already. capability, who cares - it will serve its purpose and one of the main criteria was to bring work to Canada, which it will.
     
  21. Yes pay $5 billion for expensive dildos

    get 3 jobs

    not worth it maybe


    All miritaly equipment quite useless in time of peace but if something is useless when peace and useless in war and also expensive, maybe spend money to #$%# pandas with platinum dildos more sensible.
     
  22. someone has to build, maintain and parade the expensive dildos for like 25 years.
     

Share This Page