w00t new "tanks" for canada

Maplegyver · **w00t new "tanks" for canada -** 10-29-2003, 08:44 PM

FUCKING w00t
i guess
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmi ... pment.html

Machette · 10-29-2003, 08:52 PM

I think we need more submarines... 2 for each ocean eek:

Short Hand · 10-29-2003, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machette

I think we need more submarines... 2 for each ocean eek:

better watch out ninety is going to get all mad bout that comment.

Machette · 10-29-2003, 08:55 PM

That is true...but oh well

geRV · 10-29-2003, 08:58 PM

Not exactly a tank btw. "Mobile gun system" or something theyre calling it.

Bazooka_Joe · 10-29-2003, 09:02 PM

A LAV with a cannon on top. Man, when are people gonna learn you need treads.

Proteus · 10-29-2003, 09:16 PM

I wouldnt mind having one of those bad asses.

Jotun · 10-29-2003, 09:30 PM

whats going on prot? no sig? we going anti-sig for a while?

ninty · 10-29-2003, 11:32 PM

As pointed out, thats not a tank.

And I couldn't cre less about how many submarines we have or if they even work. The Navy are a bunch of gays who sail around and fire missles from 100kms away while i'm leopard crawling through barbed wire with AK rounds flying over my head.

Treads? I doubt it. We don't need them. The government is tryig to make a "modern" army.

We have leopards now. Do we use them? Nope. We'd have to get the states to lift them or ship them to wherever.

Strykers can fit in a CC-130 Hercules, so were supposed to beable to transport them, but i'll believe it when I see it.

Tanks are going obsolete. Fighting is movig from the field to the streets. FIBUA is more of a reality than ever before. Its tough to fit tanks down city streets Strykers offer a 105mm punch with the agility of a LAV III. Too bad were not purchasing more. 66 of these things is nothing. We need 500 of them.

Thats why this government is so gay. We get blown up, so people say we need more vehicles. So the govt says OK and they buy 66 of them and everyone thinks everything is OK now since we got new AFV's. Well 66 aren't going to help much. Especially for the deployments we get.

[GDC]_Polemarcus · 10-30-2003, 12:53 AM

[img]http://www.keysystemselectric.com/rob/canadiannavy.jpg[/img]

[2ndS.S.]Enigma · 10-30-2003, 06:45 AM

congrats you replaced kick ass leapord tanks with an apc with a big gun on it... NICEEEEEEE eek:

Zoner · 10-30-2003, 06:48 AM

[quote="[2ndS.S.]Enigma":fc540]congrats you replaced kick ass leapord tanks with an apc with a big gun on it... NICEEEEEEE eek:[/quote:fc540]

Did you not read ANYTHING ninty said? rolleyes:

pest · 10-30-2003, 07:01 AM

[quote=Zoner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by "[2ndS.S.

Enigma":5db2e]congrats you replaced kick ass leapord tanks with an apc with a big gun on it... NICEEEEEEE eek:

Did you not read ANYTHING ninty said? rolleyes:[/quote:5db2e]

Nope, I quit listening when he flamed the navy first off. Stupid grunts. wink:

[GDC]_Polemarcus · 10-30-2003, 07:04 AM

*bump* - had to correct the image.

10-30-2003, 08:57 AM

unfortunately that dumbfuck Donald Dumbsfeld thinks the US doesn't need REAL tanks anymore.

I hope I don't live to see the day that Dumbsfeld's overglorified APCs get slaughtered by obsolete T-72s because they're ony armored against a 20 fucking millimeter cannon