73 replies to this topic

[Rayburn]

Close second to the M1 is probably any modern or half-modern tank from Russia like the T-90 in BF2 but I have to agree, the M1 seems to be the tank which is most present in videogames.

Edited by Rayburn, 16 June 2007 - 07:05.

[CoLT]

But then you do realise that most games depicting conflicts involving M1A2s such as Iraq or USA-Russia conflicts also involve tanks like the T-72. I know plenty of games that use the T-72 as well as the Abrams and whenever there is an Abrams in a mod, there is usually a T-72 as well. Yet the Shockwave team is using the T-72 in the mod when the T-72 is just as overused as the Abrams.
Lookswise, I really don't see what makes the Abrams so ugly... I think most Russian tanks, minus the T34-85 and the T-90 and fugly. The Chinese Type 98 is a nice looking tank... But a majority of tanks aren't built for looks and they tend to be on the ugly side (see WW2 Tiger..)

The whole Anti-Abrams-in-Shockwave argument is stupid. They don't want it in the mod, just accept it jeez... Modify shockwave if you want to add the abrams in, it's not hard....

On the real world side, I find the Abrams is really too much of a gas guzzler for my liking. I am seriously wondering if the mass deployment of Abrams tanks to Iraq was partially responsible for the rise in the price of petrol.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

if you guys are bitching about the M1 then you should have noticed that we have never put in a T-90 or the T-95 ingame either. It just other stuff look way more cooler and they are not used by other mods (AKA originality on our part) and the generals universe is totally fictional and allows us to take a lot of creative liberty. the main reason hostilities exists for the M1 is that in zero hour modding the M1 has left a bad taste. Every mod that added the M1 made it almost uber and for some reason the most annoying breed of people had the history of suggesting it in the shockwave forum. So for the most part i hate it not because of the tank but what it stands for (Reborn and N00bs) in the Zero hour modding community. the only mods that can rightly use it are TC based on current conflict. We have way better ideas then to consider something as unoriginal as the M1.

[Razven]

Gentle reminder,
This is not about putting the tank in, it's the points raised when answering why not putting the M1 tank into the mod.

So, I have a feeling it's what the M1 tank represents within the game, a symbolism of overpowered and over uber units. It's not the tank that has a bad name, it's those who put them in their mods.

[Axel of Sweden]

Generals would be kinda boring if tanks were realistic,

A crusader fires a kilometer and destroyes any light vehicle in one shot,

Also armed with machine gun that spray down infantry and helis with ease,

Kinda indestructible

Think off the overlord!

Edited by Axel of Sweden, 16 June 2007 - 21:16.

[Areze]

And planes would be nigh unbeatable by anything but the heaviest defences and nukes would wipe out the whole damn map.

[Axel of Sweden]

One stinger missile destroys a helix,

Particle cannon requiering ´100 powerplants

The patriot shoot,s down anything with one missile

and have reload the entire missile "pack" after 4 missiles with would take about 3 hours´

Helix smaller then chinook,

Chinnok carrying 80 rangers,

Flashbangs that make enemies blind,

and immortal overlord

That is defeated by low gas

[Zancloufer]

Overlord defeated by low Gas, Roflcopter.

Though there are some good points. The only Strategy game I played where units are depicted realistically is Steel Pathers I and II. The Abrams is almost unstoppable, but mind you the bugger is too expensive to deploy on masse, and can be killed by a HE missiles impacting the top.

[Areze]

But rarely can you get a good shot to the noggin on that thing.

Also for realistic Overlord, the thing would weigh so much it wouldn't be able to move, it would sink into the ground and crush pavement.

Edited by Nightshadow, 16 June 2007 - 22:08.

[Zancloufer]

Might not. Depends on weight distribution. Though it would crash through some streets, and probably could run over some buildings.

[Areze]

No matter what on mud and dirt it would be completely unable to move. It would weigh probably 5x that of a tiger, and they were too heavy.

[Razven]

Considering that it has a Nuclear reactor in the chassis for the engine, I think there's enough juice for it to take a long walk before breaking down.

[CoLT]

Keyword: Walk

[Razven]

Metaphors, learn to use them.

[Nexolate]

Wow, such a big flamer argument over one unit.

It's over-used, that's all I have to say.
Whether it's ugly or not, I don't care. I'm not really that biased when it comes to something that can kill me in less than a second.

P.S. Gimme a Challenger 3 anyday.

[Kris]

Nexolate, on 17 Jun 2007, 17:27, said:

Wow, such a big flamer argument over one unit.

It's over-used, that's all I have to say.
Whether it's ugly or not, I don't care. I'm not really that biased when it comes to something that can kill me in less than a second.

P.S. Gimme a Challenger 3 anyday.

I agree with this, The Abrams is overused...

The reason the abrams got known for its firepower its because it was used against obsolete T-Series Iraqi tanks. If you look closely, In any tank simulators or modern warfare games you will see the abrams always killing obsolete T-Series tanks because thats the only type of tanks it can really kill...

The real test of its firepower is when its used against modern tanks like british challenger or any modern european or Chinese tanks and without any air support.

@Overlord thing: I think its possible in our current world with our current technologies to build overlord tanks because we are developing lighter but more durable tank armor plus already have the technology to build and give tanks some nuclear engines.

Edited by Chris, 17 June 2007 - 07:54.

[Rayburn]

Axel of Sweden said:

Generals would be kinda boring if tanks were realistic,
A crusader fires a kilometer and destroyes any light vehicle in one shot,
Also armed with machine gun that spray down infantry and helis with ease,
Kinda indestructible
Think off the overlord!

O RLY?
http://forum.cncrene...showtopic=14093

Axel of Sweden said:

Imagine invisible radiation that wont dissapear for years
That would be scary,
"Radioactive exposure detected"
And toxins that will only start affect your troops when got back to base
Waitin for day makin a tank in a war factory the size off your base
Veeeery long airfields
Nukes blowing up the entire map!
All artillery have infinite range!
Tanks with MG,s!
Vehicles running out off fuel!
IMBA USA!
Rust!
Blackouts!
It, would be cool!

lol, contradiction!

[Waris]

Oh, let him change his mind for once

Anyone knows the massive mover NASA used to move the shuttles to the launchpad? Well if that thing can move, so do a RL Overlord.

[CoLT]

People's Liberation Army, on 17 Jun 2007, 15:13, said:

Metaphors, learn to use them.

I know what a metaphor is....

I was referring to the slow speed of the overlord. You said "walk" and it was previously mentioned that the Abrams was capable of "sprinting" at high speed. I assume you read the previous posts so I was poking at the use of "walk" in relation to the Overlord's speed....

I figured you were developed enough to understand....

[Razven]

Meh, you should have been clearer when you post. It's kind of like saying "You jew, come over here." at a nazi concentration camp.

Anyway, thanks for clearing it up though.

[Whitey]

The M1 tank is hardly newer than the T-72, and the ones used in the first Gulf War weren't too up to par with the ones used today, and in under a year the 5th most powerful army in the world was throwing down arms, primarily because of a large tank invasion using M1 battle tanks under the direction of Schwarzkopf. I'd say that is why they are so respected.

[Eddy01741]

Solo Wing, on 15 Jun 2007, 14:34, said:

Paladins look nothing like the Abrams.
The M1A3 would be fictional and thus futuristic.
The Sheridan, even upgraded would never match an M1A2, let alone an A3.
Generals is a fictional timeline and the Comanche is futuristic, put the two together. The USA in generals was never about old but upgraded technology, unless you count the F-117.
The Abrams is big and fast and has reasonable armor, but its 120mm is no match for an overlord and perhaps even weaker than a battlemaster. Its improved armor would make it more of an Ironside toy than the Predator tank that he has (which has improved weaponry...
And lastly, the US is in the game, the Challenger 2 is not an American vehicle now is it? If there's a US team, keep it US.

They do slightly (never said exactly), it has a similar hull, and the abrams has a better sloped turret, and the paladin has wierd stuff on top of it (probably a human manned PDL), but they look pretty similar. The Scorpion or overlord look NOTHING like the Abrams, the paladin is the closest of an vehicle in generals except for mods that put in the abrams.
M1A3 would just be a M1A2 with possibly a larger calibre and longer barreled gun (i'm thinking 140mm), thicker armor, maybe a better engine (gas turbines are uber fuel guzzlers), maybe some kind of anti-air missile.
Lol, I never said a sheridan would match even a M1 (the original), it's simply a light tank with a 152mm SHillegh (bad spelling) missile system on it, and can also fire normal gun rounds. I mean, a Centurion could kick it's ass if it got the first shot (well, probably a Panzer IV could if they got the jump on it).
Abrams armor is called "Burlington" armor (British C1s use first generation chobham armor, British C2s use second generation chobham armor named "Dorchester" and Abrams uses CHobham based armor called "Burlington" armor). Burlington armor is basically A mix of Ceramic tiles and RHA (Rolled HOmogonous Armor (steel)), wrapped around some DU (Depleted Uranium). I think Crusaders or Paladins would have same or better armor by then, and Ironside's tanks.... well they have probably better+anti-missile systems.
I never said the C2 was from USA, I simply said, there are equal or better tanks out there (although personally I don't like the C2 very much, rifled guns FTL IMHO).

"People's Liberation Army" said:

Solo Wing,
Even if it's a fictional timeline, the game still bases itself on technology that the US uses today. The M-16 for the ranger, the US Cargo Plane, The B-3 (more like B-2 Spirit), the F-117, Patriot Batteries and of course the Humvee. Of which the M-16 has served since the Vietnam war alongside the Sheridan. The US in the Shockwavemod is about hi-tech state of the art technology that suits the purpose, if something that is useful but not up to par, there's probably a quick fix for it since it takes too much time and effort to remake something that a old but still useful unit can fulfil with a minor upgrade.
We have the M16A1, A2, A3, A4 (in use now) and probably up to A5 or A6 in Generals time.
We have the Sheridan Mk. II
We have 17 variants of the Humvee. The TOW version, MG version, Avenger and LOSAT, not counting the LOSAT in .95, we still have 3 of the same thing. Not purpose built or state of the art, but it gets the work down.

My above statements focus on the realistic aspects, not the game. Realism and balance is best left to the mod team.

Eddy,
What does fuel consumption, being in the US, your hate for the Reborn mod and how gameplay value and traits of what the US military is depicted at matter?
Oh, and go look like the the Abram thread back in the Shockwavemod Suggestion forum or any other. The point that "It's butt ugly" is always followed by the points I raised in some combination. So your first point is moot.
I think I've read the No-go-list more times than is has been edited by now, I never said that I wanted it to be in the game, I am addressing the points on why people say it shouldn't be in the game asides from the fact that the team doesn't like it, which is a perfectly understandable point. Maybe you should be less hostile to those who try and talk about the matter at hand with a much more cool-headed attitude.
Maybe I should discuss about the Apache Longbow, but then again, most of my points stated here by work for the Apache too, so let's not try and be redundant.
Zoom, you have 3 Humvee Variants. I bet Humvees have also been used in plenty of games too, might as well not use that many Humvees then.
Lack of originality trumps nothing, that's like saying that the M115A2 is unoriginal, oh wait, it's just an upgrade from the A1. Technically Imagery also allows a M1A3 in the game if the team wanted the tank in.
Let's see, the Comanche was still in the development stage when the Generals game was first developed. I guess EA's fortune telling screwed up there. But the Abrams was in before the Generals idea came out and still pretty active up to now, at 2007.
Let's see, if I compared the the weight of a blue whale to a Tiger Shark, it would be kinda like comparing apples to oranges or maybe even a Abrams to a Overlord. Oops, you just did that. The weight of a Overlord is probably near 3 to 4 times the weight of a Abrams. The closest you could get is probably a large Crusader or a slightly down sized Paladin tank. A MBT could possibly fit any US General other than Granger. Balance and stuff like who gets what is best left to the mod team.
High tech, not brute force. Explain how a MBT that outranged, outgunned and out survived the entire Iraq conflict, twice not be high-tech. With a near zero casualty caused by enemy action. I think that's pretty high-tech.
You are talking about lifespan in a game where WWI tankettes are firing missiles glued to their turrets, The Chinese are using T-88s, Red Guards use bolt action rifles and then we have EMP and lasers...and then EXOSUITS!
Hitler was a scheming fuck, going across a neutral country to get to France. Too bad he lost. But considering that the fight with the GLA is probably based on the current War on Terror, then hell why not the M1 tanks? It's not like they're not in Iraq anymore.
Are you implying that I'm American cause I don't know what you're trying to point out if you're not. American or not, the fact that you mixed the disagreeable points of both the M1 in real life and for gameplay and originality reasons is rather biased isn't it?

Edit 1: Responding to Rayburn,
The fact that the M1 tank can take a DU round in the face and the crew unharmed is pretty amazing. The tank was stuck and it took 5 thermite, a box of 50.cal rounds scattered inside the interior, the shell and charge pile box opened to wreck the interior. And then they had to blast a hole through the back of the tank with another M1 tank so that the enemy can't claim it as a trophy. And after that, the tank still looked complete (no major parts missing) from the outside.

You don't know that the Rangers use M-16s besides by two cameos. Also, for all intensive purposes, compared to the German, Austrian, and British main assault rifles, the M-16 is.... "not so much".
Yeah, your right about fuel consumption, that's just my "oomph" against the Abrams.
It's everybody's hate for reborn mod, anything in Reborn is used in plenty o other mods (he steals stuff from other mods and stuffs it into one mod), and we all hate reborn, and reborn represents lack of originality to the extreme.
Maybe the reason why the Apache isn't in ShW is the same as the Abrams (it is), and they are plenty good reasons (well, nobody cares about ugliness or timespan, it's just too unoriginal, period.)
I never said it was butt-ugly: "First off, I don't give a shit, and I don't think too many supporters of ShW give a shit about the looks of an Abrams. Basically, every single vehicle on the GLA side is more ugly and less "sleek" than the M1 Abrams. DOes that mean I support it? NOOOOO!!!!!!!"
That's me^^ saying that I don't give a shit about the looks of a Abrams, as long as it is rendered well (I'm fine witht he scorpion and marauder, they look ugly as hell but they are fine with me).
All three humvees were in original ZH, and 2 were in vanilla, that's called "default units", not "unoriginal added units". I guess you forget that there are mortar humvees and laser humvees too, and i guess that we shouldn't have auroras since every other mod has it too lol. /sarcasm
"Explain how a MBT that outranged, outgunned and out survived the entire Iraq conflict" That soounds like the overlord there, eh? High tech would be like more acuracy, not higher caliber, higher velocity guns, and it would mean high tech defense systems instead of just almosot brute forcing off shaped charge/heat rounds with thick composite+DU armor, eh?
Gla uses old/russian tech, China isn't high tech, is it? And Exosuits, lasers, and such are "high tech".
uh, yeah, I'm trying to point out that both the Abrams tank is not all it's said to be, and that it's not suitable for shockwave. And no matter what you say, Abrams tank will ALWAYS be too unoriginal, and you, and everybody else, knows it. And also that the Abrams has no place in a balanced game of generals (either have it replace the Crusader or Paladin, or make it OP, or make it weak, or make it like a US version of an overlord).

" Well, the M1A2 is constantly underrated thanks to the Game Industry, above all. Whether it is being torn up by an alien machine or devastated by a few RPG hits, the M1 MBT is never displayed at full potential. The Abrams is fast, agile, armored, and it packs a punch. While the CHallenger may have superior firepower, the Abrams has its own perks. A lot of these come from its internal technology. Externally, the M1 holds more Anti-Infantry devices too. The Challenger's armor may be better but the M1A2 can outrun it. The Abrams is also like a decade older so its really not too balanced a match."

Well, it's for balance reasons, you can't have a machine go 45 mph, have armor impervious to anything but top attacks and DU rounds from a comparable gun to it's own, and accurately hit every time a target from a couple miles away, can you? It's just like Sniper rifles, they make them a lot more inaccurate than they are (like in BF2, if your pointing righat the chest, it can still miss), it's all for balance.

Challenger doesn't neccesarily have better firepower. Their guns are of the same caliber, the Rheinmetall M256 120mm Smoothbore, and the Royal Ordanance L30A1 120mm Rifled. THe key is smoothbore vs. rifled. Rifling gives the round more stability in flight, and has a flatter trajectory, the thing is, with fire control systems so advanced nowadays, they can calculate the impact of gravity on the round, and therefore, the only use for flatter trajectory is a little longer range, they can both still shoot from thousands of meters away. Rifling hinders the use of HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) rounds, although that can be gotten around by certain methods. They can use HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) rounds, which are less effective than botht eh APFSDS and the HEAT rounds, but is a pretty good demolition round (breaks through concrete easy). Smoothbore on the other hand has a higher muzzle velocity, but slows down later on, it also has a less flat trajectory. Smoothbore rounds are made accurate with fins, and can use HEAT rounds, and APFSDS rounds. So basically, the only difference is the secondary armament, HEAT vs. HESH, and both have their arguements. And Also, for sheer firepower, i've seen experts go either way with smoothbore or Rifled. The abrams has one more top mounted machinegun than the CHallenger, that's not much.

Also, I wouldn't say the Challenger's armor is neccesarily better, "Dorchester" armor is second generation chobham armor used in the C2, "Burlington" armor is chobham based armor, not sure which generation it is based on, probably the first. But Abrams has DU encased within the "Burlington" armor, DU is extra dense, so probably the Abrams will have a better time fairing with Kinetic Energy Rounds (Solid shot, Capped Solid Shot, APDS, APFSDS, Tapered Bore Shot etc.) But the C2 will have a better chance against Chemical Energy Rounds (Mainly Heat, Hesh is technically chemical energy, but it uses shockwaves to destroy armor, instead of a molten jet of metal). But then again, Heat rounds as of this point are very useless against modern armor, they are thwarted by both ERA and Composite armors like Chobham. However, as I see it, the CHallenger armor is better sloped then the Abrams (just by a tiny bit, but every bit matters) So i'm not quite sure on this matter.

The terrible fuel consumption balances out the Abrams superior acceleration and top speed compared to the C2.

Also, The Abrams is like 14 years older than the C2, but it is constantly upgraded with new varients and new armor packages, right now the best there is is the M1A2 SEP. Before, the Abrams had the 105mm British Based Rifled gun, and no DU in their "Burlington" armor.

Also, the Abrams is never shown at it's full potential in game for balance and fun-factor reasons, but other modern tanks arn't either. WWII Era tanks are often underrated by games (like in BF1942, taking 4 Bazookas to the front or two to the back before dying, etc., also being damaged by little pineapple grenades lol).

"The heart behind the Abrams is a helicopter turbine, tipping the scales at just north of 1500 hp. It'll drink just about anything, which can prove helpful if you're in the desert and there's not a tanker truck for miles. The only bad part is a turbine isn't exactly the stingiest powerplant on earth. Diesels, like the one in the C2 and Leopard, although a little less powerful, create less noise, while still giving the tank adequate mobility."

The C2 has a 1200 HP Diesel IIRC, and the Leopard 2 has a Multi-fuel 1500HP Diesel engine (can't use as many fuels as the Abrams, but it can still use most normal fuels like Kerosene, Diesel, Petrol(Gasoline) etc.). The 1500HP Abrams engine isn't that good, may I remind you that the Abrams is also 68 tons, and the Leopard 2 is only 59 tons, which gives it a much better fuel/weight ratio.

Ironically, what hpapened in the gulf war sometimes is, that about four hours after the tanks came through, a whole convoy of fuel trucks had to come through to refuel them, and they would be attacked by the Iraqi Army instead of the tanks themselves, much easier targets, eh? lol

Also, don't forget that the Diesels generate a lot less heat, the Abrams engine is a Turboshaft engine, which uses basically jet propultion to turn a shaft intstead of internal combustion pistons. So it creates massive heat (the good thing is that when starting up or accelerating from 0mph it doesn't leave a huge black smoke plume). The Abrams has slightly better acceleration than the Leopard 2, but the Leopard 2 has a higher top speed by a couple MPH. HOWEVER... if that 45mph governor thing is true, then.... well, the Abrams is obviously superior lol.

I also agree with the Leclerc thing lol. THe Leclerc is faster than all the "family" of western tanks, but it's inferior in probably every other way, and it just looks horrendous (the turret is ugly).

"Close second to the M1 is probably any modern or half-modern tank from Russia like the T-90 in BF2 but I have to agree, the M1 seems to be the tank which is most present in videogames."
I'm not sure, the C2 and Leopard 2A6 are pretty damn good, As good or better than the Abrams unless the US government is hiding some super top secret super high technology in the Abrams that the public doesn't know about. Russias tanks are... different. their newest tanks alll use 125mm gun/missile launcher guns. They have HEAT and DU rounds,a nd their engines are comparable, the only place where they are really different is armor. The T-72 was still using RHA (basicallly, just steel), the T-80 and T-90 both use SOME sort of Composite armor, not sure what kind. most sources (may I add in, from a POV of a western military analyst) say that they have inferior composite armor to the CHobham Based armor in the C2, Leopard 2, and Abrams, and I would probably agree. But the place the Russia shines most in is ERA. Explosive Reactive Armor, when a HEAT round, or any other projectile hits the ERA block,it explodes out, thus canceling a LOT of the energy if not all of it on modern ERA types like Kaktus and Kontakt (I belive that is the right spelling). It has ALSO been proven that new ERAs like Kaktus and Kontakt can reduce the energy of not only HEAT rounds, but also Kinetic Energy rounds, or mostly APFSDS rounds. THey have been shown to reduce the APFSDS energy by around 30% (http://www.strategyp...ms/2-14375.aspx)(http://fofanov.armor...v.ua/index.html , go to the Kontakt 5 Article)., and also blunt the tip of the APFSDS projectile which is very importatnt. So either the Russian T-80s and T-90s are superior to the Abrams/C2/Leopard 2A6, or inferior, nobody's really sure since we don't exactly have a stockpile of Russian tanks with advanced ERA that we can test on, do we.

"But then you do realise that most games depicting conflicts involving M1A2s such as Iraq or USA-Russia conflicts also involve tanks like the T-72. I know plenty of games that use the T-72 as well as the Abrams and whenever there is an Abrams in a mod, there is usually a T-72 as well. Yet the Shockwave team is using the T-72 in the mod when the T-72 is just as overused as the Abrams.
Lookswise, I really don't see what makes the Abrams so ugly... I think most Russian tanks, minus the T34-85 and the T-90 and fugly. The Chinese Type 98 is a nice looking tank... But a majority of tanks aren't built for looks and they tend to be on the ugly side (see WW2 Tiger..)

The whole Anti-Abrams-in-Shockwave argument is stupid. They don't want it in the mod, just accept it jeez... Modify shockwave if you want to add the abrams in, it's not hard....

On the real world side, I find the Abrams is really too much of a gas guzzler for my liking. I am seriously wondering if the mass deployment of Abrams tanks to Iraq was partially responsible for the rise in the price of petrol."
Well, the T-72 isn't in many C&C ZH mods though, unlike the Abrams, which is what matters in my mind at least.

I agree that Russian tanks are ugly for the most part, their T-34 design was effective, but very ugly (small oddly shapped turret mounted in the front of hull, etc.), it looked like literally a seperate hull, and turret, and the turret was just "Shoe-horned" on there, but it was damned effective, wasn't it. The Whole KV/JS series was ugly too, and their T-10s and T-54/55s and T-62s looked ugly too, all having a bowl shaped turret (they were uncomfortable for the crew too, too much fatigue isn't good). The T-72,80, and 90 look okay though. They have rounded turrets, but not as much of a bowl as it used to be. And then the Chiormy Oriol (bad spelling), which is "Black Eagle" translated into English, is like a longer T-80U Hull with a more "Western" style turret, with more of a sloped, angular shape in the front then a round shape, and has an Overhanging Bustle (that huge thing that sticks out ot he back of most Western Tank Turrets). And amen to gas guzzling on the Abram's part, no wonder the Russians changed their engines int eh T-80s to Diesel engines from Gas Turbines from the T-80U models and up.

"if you guys are bitching about the M1 then you should have noticed that we have never put in a T-90 or the T-95 ingame either. It just other stuff look way more cooler and they are not used by other mods (AKA originality on our part) and the generals universe is totally fictional and allows us to take a lot of creative liberty. the main reason hostilities exists for the M1 is that in zero hour modding the M1 has left a bad taste. Every mod that added the M1 made it almost uber and for some reason the most annoying breed of people had the history of suggesting it in the shockwave forum. So for the most part i hate it not because of the tank but what it stands for (Reborn and N00bs) in the Zero hour modding community. the only mods that can rightly use it are TC based on current conflict. We have way better ideas then to consider something as unoriginal as the M1."

Super QFT. Especially in the case of Abrams in Reborn, going as fast as a light tank, almost as much armor and firepower as the overlord, and comes with a machinegun too.

"So, I have a feeling it's what the M1 tank represents within the game, a symbolism of overpowered and over uber units. It's not the tank that has a bad name, it's those who put them in their mods."

QFT as well, although it may just be symbolizm it still gives any mod a bad image and an image of unoriginality. Althoguh for FPS games, it's the total opposite (tanks are anything but uber).

"Chinnok carrying 80 rangers,"
I think you switched around the C-17 GLobemaster and the Chinook, the Chinook can't take even 25 rangers.

"I agree with this, The Abrams is overused...

The reason the abrams got known for its firepower its because it was used against obsolete T-Series Iraqi tanks. If you look closely, In any tank simulators or modern warfare games you will see the abrams always killing obsolete T-Series tanks because thats the only type of tanks it can really kill...

The real test of its firepower is when its used against modern tanks like british challenger or any modern european or Chinese tanks and without any air support.

@Overlord thing: I think its possible in our current world with our current technologies to build overlord tanks because we are developing lighter but more durable tank armor plus already have the technology to build and give tanks some nuclear engines."

Yeah, the Abrams destroying T-62s and T-72s and against poorly trained crews is almost no proof against how good it is against modern armor. The only proven tanks are tanks like the Centurion and older, proven by the Isralis against similiar or better tanks (T-72s are far newer than Centurions, and they still get the shit beaten out of them almost by a 10:1 kill to loss ratio, but it's mostly by superior training).

It is probably true that we could build a overlord tank, every aspect except propaganda towers lol, no free healing in our world. I'm not sure that you could put a nuclear reactor in a tank, I mean, the ones in Submarines are pretty big (they take up like 1/3 of a submarine) and the ones on a Nimitz class... just massive. But one thing is for sure, you can't put a fusion reactor in there lol. However, it is unlogical to build one,especially on the two guns in one turret thing. I mean, since they are still in one turret, they can only kill one targert, and not two seperate targets, I think that modern tank builders would put in one mbig gun instead of two medium sized ones, it makes sense becauuse in this age, tanks don't have "health" for the most part, projectiles either destroy the tank, or scratch it.

" The M1 tank is hardly newer than the T-72, and the ones used in the first Gulf War weren't too up to par with the ones used today, and in under a year the 5th most powerful army in the world was throwing down arms, primarily because of a large tank invasion using M1 battle tanks under the direction of Schwarzkopf. I'd say that is why they are so respected."
Also that they, and C2s, had no losses in the first gulf war. At least their armor is proven against HEAT projectiles over this timespan for the most part (some freak accidents where an RPG-7V has peenetrated a Abrams armor somehow have happened).

[Razven]

We know Rangers are using M-16s becuase of the Cameo and the 3 round burst.

The Abrams is supposed to trump the Cold-War T-series becuase it was built to last and as a defence, not like the T-series where it's design was to be able to field massive armies and charge the Abrams, casulties be damned.

[Rayburn]

``
"Close second to the M1 is probably any modern or half-modern tank from Russia like the T-90 in BF2 but I have to agree, the M1 seems to be the tank which is most present in videogames."
I'm not sure, the C2 and Leopard 2A6 are pretty damn good, As good or better than the Abrams unless the US government is hiding some super top secret super high technology in the Abrams that the public doesn't know about
´´
That's not what I meant to say, I was still talking about the presence of tanks in videogames. IRL, Leos and Challengers are the toughest competition but as far as the popularity in games is concerned, number 2 after the M1 is usually any tank from Russia. My statement wasn't about real world stats. Just want to make that clear. The T-90, I'm not sure about either.

Edited by Rayburn, 18 June 2007 - 18:36.

[Razven]

The M1's popularity is partly due to it being the ONLY tank combat tested and won.