Відео

🛥

apolloduck. com/display.phtml?aid=292676

@amforbes No, it's a security features - you have to controll throttle and break.

två år senare.... ser i alla fall lovande ut.

Gillade artikeln i Din teknik väldigt mycket :)

everyone just shut up! Stay out of the US

lol tzzz

Blastbgnu you moron nice answer tommysp.

Rofl.... 1st: it IS a Touran, is likely a VAN... 2nd: it is NOT a ToUAreg, the SUV... Inform yourself before making stupid comments

What the Fuck is a Touran? Don't you mean a Toureg?????? idiot

vaddå luktar fis, metangas för bilar är i princip luktfri. Dags att läsa på kunskaperna lite tror jag :P

flat side? the 2A6 uses mexas armour forward on the turret. it is no longer flat. also the leo 2 can burn diesel, kerosene and i think jp8. oh by the way, this "chobham" armour the m1 uses, well sorry to break it to you but it was developed in the UK and the challenger, abrams AND the leo2 all use it. the leo just adds mexas armour on top of this.. now what would u feel safer in? a rolling chernobyl, or a german tank protected by multiple types of armour?

The Leopard use a half of fuel in contrast of m1a2. The challenger crews also train in munster (Germany)! Greek has voted in 2003 against the challenger 2 and voted the the Leopard 2a6. The Emirates voted the leclerc instead of the challenger 2. Could it be that the Challenger 2 is not "the best tank in the world"??? I don't say that the Leopard the best tank of all tanks is, but it is the best tank for german conditions!

P7!? Hah! Thought I recogniced that windmill ^^

Well, the Abrams sucks gas like none other, due to the turbine. Everything has it's pros and cons. Pros = better torque throughout the power band. Cons = .5 MPG.

oh right... I presumed the fuel tanks were about the same as in leopard 2... appearantly not. But if the both tanks are capable of using diesel, then why is everyone arguing about fuel efficiency? :P:P so stupid...

Abrams uses JP-8 or diesel, but can also burn gasoline for limited durations. Abrams fuel tanks are located in the front and rear, not the sides.

good 4x4 buth not in the city

Well, in that case I can not say nothing, because I not well-know in fuel quality. And if you are correct, well, all things have advantages and disadvantages, but in that case, obviusly there are more advantages, if not, they never try to use gas and they will use diesel. Oh, I almost forgot: correct, as far as I know, the M1M2 use gas.

I wouldn't really care about the fuel cost... but the fuel quality. The last time I checked, Abrams uses gas as fuel? correct? Leopard 2 uses diesel. The biggest difference in the battlefield with this is that diesel is not as flammable as gas... making Abrams much weaker against impacts on side armour (where the fuel tanks are located)

Well the M1A2 sep abrams was rated the best electronics by most exparts i know. A. the gunner can spot a target a 8000 meters away with a specail sight! b. the othher sights are the most advanced yet... so in my opinion the M1A2 sep has the best electronics, but thats my opinion...

yes there was actually one or two cases when an Abrams was disabled by 1 or 2 rpg-9's but yes there was alos many cases where the abrams survived abut 8-10 rpg-7-9's pretty cool

Thank you; but, with respect, it is dificult to know if the USA is really the richest country in the world, and depends, the richest country in what thing? (I do not want to start an endless discusion about this theme, and I am sorry if I offend you, I say this because I am sure many people think the same, today only in a few things is clear the USA superiority, remembre that the Abrams uses a Rheinmetall cannon)

meminem i agreee who cares aout fuel costs the usa is the richest country in the world,so.... and i aloso agree with the hallenger thing

Obviusly the Challenger has a better survability percentage than the Abrams because it has been lees proved in combat. And the fuel economy of the Abrams is not very important, because the USA`s economy can take that high fuel cost.

Awesome! ¡Sorprendente!. 8 RPG`s and an anti-tank misile!. How can be true?. Where do you get that information?. But wait, it depends too of the type of RPG´s and misile that they use on that Challenger; that RPG´s musn´t be of the best quality and fired with much acurracy

I do not agree, you are forgoten the electronic of the french Lecrerc, that is a electronic tank, and the Shtora-1 defense system of the T-90 is very original. También importan los sistemas de contramedidas, no sólo el blindaje físico

the only time u saw an abams on fire is when about 10 rpgs hit its side and back armur and was tahe nhit by an anti tank mislle and the ammo exploded but the crew survived because of the blast doors. and an abrmas has not been blown in to peices, it has only lost parts of its side skirts by rpgs

ok ye it does hav the best sighting systems and only 18 abrams were damaged but repairable.and a couple challengers were dammaged and one destroyed but thats only cause there are 20 times more abrams in iraq and most challenger that are tehere dont do much

yes it does have a bad fuel econemecy and a high heat sig. but yes it is very mobile and has great battle record. and wat the hell r u talking bout, bad sighting system, its the best in the world (espesially the m1a2 sep it has the most advanced electronics in the world)

actually the abrmas Du penetrating dart has better penetration. also the abrams uses chombham with enhanced DU plates making it evenly protected as the challenger 2. the m1a2 sep is a little better than both of them, but they are still damn good tanks

this tank is good but the m1a2 sep is just a little better. I love the abrams.