I think you mean Tomahawk Mk IV... A number of designs were... ahem... ‘borrowed’ from Macross (things got legal, they’re not longer allowed to use Macross mechs).

Even if you buy the disc... you don’t own the game. You own the piece of plastic it comes on. Check the EULAs that come with most games. The clue is in the acronym... End User License Agreement. You’re not buying a game, you’re licensing the ability to play it.

Orrrrr maybe they’re just not making any money because their games are bad?

The chart is a little misleading, though. The Nevada was an early battleship, and much shorter than the Iowas (and other late-war/post-war battleships). An Iowa-class ship is a hair over 300' longer than the Nevada.

I really don’t know what you were expecting? It’s not like the movies. What happens to a tank after getting hit is largely dependant on what hits it, where it hits it, at what angle it hits it, etc etc. Not every shot is going to penetrate (otherwise, what’s the point of armour), and every shot that does penetrate…

You may want to try the forums over at tank-net.com. I’m sure they have any publicly available information, much of it posted already if you dig for it.

This topic needs some backing music...

Thanks, appreciated. And yeah, after a bit more research, the Challenger 2 was hit on the lower hull while climbing an obstacle. This is traditionally the weakest spot on the front of a tank, so not surprising. The C2 does have partial frontal ERA along the lower hull with the tier 1 armour upgrade for just this…

Only one Challenger 2 was considered a complete write-off, and that was friendly-fire damage from another Challenger. Not aware of any penetrations beyond that. The only US M1A2s being destroyed that I’m aware of were top/side attacks. Lots of Iraqi M1s have been destroyed, but they lack the upgraded armour in the US…

I don’t think there’s enough time for deflection before detonation, and if there was deflection after detonation, then that would have a detrimental effect and the armour has effectively done its job, anyway (same idea as spaced armour).

Just a follow up from my previous post, but here’s a pic of an K1 next to an M1. Highlights just how different they are.

See previous responses. Shot traps aren’t really a concern these days. See the Leo 2A5/6/7 (and some A4 upgrade packages like the Evo, Revolution or 2A4 CAN), Type 99, Type 10, Altay (which was designed/built with assistance from Korea) etc.

Shot traps have never been an issue with HEAT. It detonates on contact regardless of angle. Most modern tanks also have good composite armour protection on the frontal arc for just this reason. HEAT is usually only an issue on the side/rear/top.

The K1 isn’t a copy of the M1, but it was based on the M1 design and also originated at Chrysler Defense. It’s physically smaller than the M1, and the turret form while very similar at first glance, is different (angles, gun mantlet that projects forward of the turret etc). Same family tree, but different animals.

Not a USian, but I get the impression that most people’s view on military overspending and waste comes from the R&D and procurement side of things rather than the rank and file spending.

I never said why they were doing it, just that they were. It’s entirely their doing.

The Saudi’s are the ones keeping the price low in the first place. Demand didn’t decrease, they stepped up production. They’re flooding the market.

It’s been tried. Just about every major tank producing country tried it leading up to and during WW2. All of them abandoned it as it meant additional weight with no benefit, additional time needed to prepare the tank for rail travel/prepare for fighting, additional complexity, etc etc.

Actually, in this case, cue would be correct. As in ‘anything that is said or done following a specific action’. You could cue the queue (ordered line) of sexist assholes, though.

I would imagine a lot of it gets filmed and/or photographed, actually. For liability purposes alone.