The nonsense of best tank in world

Yeah our Few Good Men Club big boss used medal ribbon graphics to dish out to members.
My only claim to fame is that although I've never been shot at in a real war, I was once shot in the leg while walking home from the grocers through the notorious crime-ridden Highfields district of Leicester (England) after dark some years ago, serves me right, I should have known better!
3 shots rang out of the shadows across the road; 2 whizzed past my head and smacked into the wall of a nearby house, and the third hit me in the calf, but I just carried on walking so's not to give him the satisfaction of seeing me go down, how kool is that..
When I'd limped home I was surprised to see there wasn't a hole in my leg, just a bloody crater with no sign of a bullet. The police searched the scene of the incident and found a half-inch silver ballbearing in the gutter, so I assumed that's what hit me and it'd probably been fired by a low-velocity home-made gun. (I remembered the third shot had sounded sort of muffled, so perhaps the gun had blown up in his face ha ha!)
Naturally being shot gives me bragging rights for life and I always try to introduce it into the conversation when chatting to people with- "I lived in Highfields for 5 years but I was only shot once in 5 years which isn't so bad"..

PS- It got me quite a reputation as a "bullet magnet" in the area, many immigrants lived there and when they saw me swaggering down the street they'd hurry indoors so's not to get caught in the line of fire, shrieking "Aiieee! it is he who walks with danger!"
I later moved to live in Plymouth, I've been here 15 years and haven't been shot yet but swaggering is a hard habit to break, look-

[video=youtube;QaArap_NpnI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaArap_NpnI[/video]

 

You are not a "military analyst", you are a millennial gamer. And that is obvious in that any time people discuss things outside of the scope of your game, you are completely lost.

 

I play many wargames of all historical periods at the strategic, operational and tactical levels covering ground, air and naval forces and am a Matrix Games press reviewer, and was also on the payroll of Cases games (below) back in the 80's as a playtester and developer, so my street cred as a sh*t-hot military historian/analyst is off the scale. In fact I'm thinking of offering my services to Pres Trump as a military adviser..

 

Have you ever been stationed in a country away from your wife and infant son for 5 months only to have to call her on the phone to tell her you are being shipped off to war, no last kiss, hug, touch, and the last words you spoke to her before hanging up were "if I don't come home from this, I want you to know it is ok for you to remarry if you want, but please, don't change my boys last name"? Have you ever buried the enemy's dead with your e-tool? Ever seen a boys hand turned inside out because he was playing with un-exploded ordinance? Ever seen someone with their leg blown off?

 

Sh*t happens in war. Anyway the moment anybody walks through the recruiting office door to sign up, they're voluntarily giving themselves over to their government to use as they see fit and forfeit their right to complain.
I thought about joining up as a teenager but abandoned the idea because I knew I wouldn't be able to take orders unless I agreed with them, and wouldn't want to fight in a war I didn't believe in.
I actually sent off for a glossy Brit Army recruiting brochure in the 1960's and had a shock a couple of weeks later when a 'Sgt. Butterfield' came knocking my door on a courtesy follow-up visit in full dress uniform, stripes and all, but I dived behind the settee without answering the door until he'd gone.
Later I tore out the preliminary step 1 sign-up form from the back of the brochure and filled it in with the name and address of a kid who lived down the road who nobody liked, and sent that in.
It takes a special kind of hombre to be a soldier but I ain't it..-

"Dad, why did you become a soldier?"
"Because I wanted to meet the enemy up close son, face to face"

 

Oh yes, and everybody knows that the ZX Spectrum was a super hot computer for it's day. Such super lifelike graphics on 16k.

Sorry, now knowing that you are a boomer with such a serious disconnect from reality is even more depressing. I guess you really do think that Missile Command is a fair simulation of operating a missile defense system. Was Atari Football a good simulation of the NFL, and did playing Red Baron simulate being a WWI pilot?

Oh, and in about the same era you were doing that, I was playing other simulations myself. Fast Carriers by SPI was always a favorite, since we could game anything from WWII (Midway) to modern and fantasy simulations (I can't tell you how many times we gamed "The Final Countdown" simulation).



Squad Leader was also a common simulator, and I taught it to a great many people who like me were actually in the Infantry. A good tool for teaching basic tactics.

But what I spent the most of all fighting was probably Wargames Research Group 25mm ancients. Typically a Condottieri army of 300 pieces, circa 1450.

However, even then I knew that was only wargaming. Just like when I was playing Circus Maximus I was not really Ben Hur.

You seem to think playing games like that really makes you a warrior. That is so-so-so-so sad.

 

Yes mate,I've been saying all along that wargames are good training tools!
Here's me (on the right) and Gaz Newton 35 years ago with some of the boardgames (including the Squad Leader series) that we used to play..



PS- in those pre-computer days it was a real hassle trying to find local opponents to play boardgames face to face and I only ever managed to find about 5, but after I switched to computer gaming I was able to find unlimited numbers for internet play.
For example nowadays in Armed Assault 3 on the King of the Hill servers, my team usually consists of an average of 90 human players per game, and the other two opposing teams have the same number in each of them, that's a total of 180 enemy human players coming at you!
I help my boys stay alive by telling them to get the right mindset, namely-
"Be the hunter, not the hunted!"

Armed Assault 3 promo vid- https://youtu.be/AHYUYOR0mw0

 

Tool, not replacement. Still does not make you a military expert. It just means that you know how to play games.

 

Depends what you mean by "military expert" mate, for example some of my wargame opponents are serving military personnel and I manage to beat them more times than I lose..
Sure, they probably know how to march and clean weapons and do pushups etc better than me, whereas my strength is on the tactics and strategy side which comes from years of reading assorted books and articles on the subject and using simple commonsense tactics.
For example here's a compliment posted to me in a wargame forum a while back by a US tank crewman (Iraq vet) with the screenname Lord Bane- "I have been playing the game for many years but have learned quite a bit about the game by reading your fantastic tactical posts."
PS- he was one of the toughest opponents I ever faced because he fought with his brain first and his weapons second, just like I do..

 

Because it is a game!

Good example here from real life. Many times I drilled my squad in a "fake retreat" scenario. Where we give the appearance that we are retreating, trying to sucker the enemy into following blindly into an ambush. We know it is fake, we are not really being defeated, and that at a set point we will turn around and attack again.

But in 90% of war games, a route is a route, planned or not. And you have to make a saving throw to have them return to the battle.

And more times than I care to remember, I watched my bait unit flee right off the table. It is a tactic that I stopped using long ago in war games because of that risk, even though we still drill for it in real life.

Also, in a game you have little to no "fog of war". Most of the time you see exactly what they have where, which eliminates a lot of the uncertainty that you would face in real life.

That for example is why when I am playing a game like WGR 1925-1950 (with no fog of war), I play with very different tactics than I would say Civilization, which does have fog of war.

But in the last decade or so, my main 2 games migrated to Warhammer Fantasy (being unable to find many interested in 25mm historical armies) and Axis & Allies. Even after over 30 years I find A&A an excellent beer and pretzels game that I can teach to a beginner in an hour.

Of course, I also tend to completely throw away the "traditional playbook" in a way that completely confuses my opponents. If you are familiar with the game, traditional rules of thought is that Germany must build tanks and go all out against Russia, Japan must attack Pearl Harbor, the US must counter-attack against Japan, Russia must set in for defense from the start, and the UK must build bombers.

Absolutely none of which I ever do unless I am fighting a new player. My own unconventional tactics have been so effective that I have not lost a game in over 20 years (and won many tournaments). But ultimately, I know it is just a game and not real life.

 

Yay, I play games unconventionally too mate, it keeps my opponents reeling on the ropes, but unlike you I do get beat sometimes..
"I'm a little wounded, but I am not slain; I will lay me down to bleed a while. Then I'll rise and fight again"- John Dryden, poet 1631-1700
You say you play Axis and Allies, I might buy it myself and come looking for you..

 

That was a lovely outbreak of butthurt, OP.

 

Oh I do also, just not in that game. One of the reasons I rarely play anymore is the lack of either good opponents, or somebody masochistic enough to play me more than 4 or 5 times (I do not count the losses I had when I heavily handicapped myself, like no attacks first round or two, large cash grant to opponent at start, all tech to opponent, etc).

 

Which is true, although Saudi Wahhabian ones do have it and about twenty of them was lost to Houthis. Not that it matters in guerilla war, because most of the time tanks are lost due to ATGM hits in the side of a tank in this type of conflicts.

That was a lovely outbreak of butthurt, OP.

Plus it is not "three" Leopards destroyed, make that a dozen. At least that was claimed in DW article.








Although you should probably refer to those AT weapons as "Soviet", since both Metis ATGM and Konkurs ATGM, which were used against those poor Leo 2 are old as fuсk.

The "propaganda" of Leopard 2 not handling ATGMs good enough? Not that much propaganda in this statement. Have some class, just suck it up like the Americans did, when photos of M1s blown to bits started to emerge. Your toys are not that "great", especially in the wrong hads. Get over it.

More imaginary propaganda. I can't recall anyone saying it was put in full scale production in the first place.

Which is false. They never got their hands on T-90 to begin with. T99 is more or less idignious Chinese design, although the chassis resemble that of T-72.

 

On the internet you'll never be short of opponents, I used to have over 20 play-by-email games of Combat Mission going at the same time. Generally speaking only about 5 players out of every 20 gave me a hard time because like me they were dedicated to winning. Some of the remaining 15 were fairly good too, but most of them were in it just for fun and weren't serious players and I actually felt guilty at beating them..

PS- I was kicked out of the German-owned Wargames-Player Club after a few months there because I refused pointblank to challenge lesser-experienced guys to use as cannon fodder just to work my way up the league table like the boss wanted me to do.
I told him "No way mate, I'm only going to challenge the hard men because I don't want easy wins!"

 

It is an so often done error in wars to use tanks as stationed bunkers and this makes any tank in world always a sitting duck to anyone with a working AT weapon and some skill to use them. This lesson was given so often in history in and since WW-2 … but people will not learn it.
It is the same with this nonsense at Jet fighters where in history since WW-2 was so often told that dog fights are over and will not happen due to whatever suddenly superior technology of missile, stealth etc. … but in reality it is still important!

 

Tanks can serve as a mobile bunkers. Modern tank, when well entrenched, in hull-down position, facing enemy with it's turret's front is a fearsome opponent, invulnerable to most of RPGs and ATGMs, except the latest ones.
I'd say it has more to do with incompetent crews, poor organisation and situational awareness, overall weakness of their operators. There are plenty of vids with Turkish vehicles nailed by ISIS ATGM crews. They often stand out in the open and do literaly nothing after one of their vehicles being toasted. They are being picked out one by one without any resistance whatsoever. Same with Saudi Arabya or Syrian army.

The frontlines are clear around Al-Bab, yet IS sneaks an ATGM launcher for a flanking attack. The whole situation over there is ridiculous. The supposed-to-be second strongest military in NATO and their bearded proxies miserably fail to take a single small city from ISIS and manage to take severe losses, which might have reached hundreds dead at this point. Complete and utter incompetence, very common among militaries in that part of the world.

Not that it really matters. Well, if they had end of the line tanks, like Merkava 4 with APS, or a T-14 with APS (not operational), or a Leopard 2A7+ (not operational), electronics or extra armor might have saved the day, but, alas, it comes down to personal skill and proper command, which is clearly not the case with Turks, or any other army involved with boots on the ground in current ME confict. Except Hesbollah and IS, maybe.

They copied it 60 years ago. They have moved away from direct copying as of late. They might resemble other designs (like Type 96 and Type 99 chassis resemble that of T-72, or J-31 resemble F-35), but it almost never a simple copy these days.

 

No they don't...they tow them around like their aircraft carrier!

 

I think you mean 2016 mate, and if you're referring to Trump, he's a good strong leader, not like your incompetent traitorous EU politicians..

 

Never been in a tank, but with all the effective anti tank weapons available, a tank looks like a good place to die.

 

I hate touch screens on tablets ...

Anyway, ...

the calling for a strong leader alone is dangerous and earned until now only, always and everywhere in world some sort of dictators. What makes Trump looking strong at least? That he made some things what he told in election campaign before and that he goes over the will of anyone else.
But looking on these things itself, they are often evil, nonsense and against any value for what the USA is not only standing for in the world, but which they demand to hold at others.

And Europeans = traitorous? Nah ... incompetent EU in many cases a clear yes, but to blame all Europeans this way is nonsense.

 

Any Europeans who vote for traitorous parties and politicians must be traitors themselves..
"Which is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?"- Obi Wan Kenobi

Below- Big shot Herman van Rompuy of the EU, hasn't he got a face you'd like to slap?..-



..and Hillary "Popeye" Clinton could do with slapping around too..
(or is she doing a Monica Lewinsky impression?)

 

A general critic on the so called political establishment is often understandable and I do by my own too ... but it does not end in the fact that I follow a rat piper of left or right.

 

The T-34 would like a word with you.

 

It's a T-34/85 made in the Kirov Tank Plant and it's a really nice guy.