[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=27611" target="_blank">Tank purchase to cost $1.3 billion for questionable results</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/13-military" target="_blank">Military</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Streaker" target="_blank">Streaker</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-11-27 12:31:18
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[tritium]

Wow!! New Leopard tanks for the Canadian military.

I'm glad to see my tax dollars "really" at work, rather than buying second hand / used British subs and ships that don't make it back to Canada.

[Streaker]

[Heavy_Metal]

a penny spent on the safety and security of our fighting men and women is a penny well spent.

....unless of course as tritium points out its for a leaky sub.....

[Canadian_Mind]

I'm quite happy we made the purchase, now lets double the number of combat vehicles (not bridgelayer or engineering vehicles) from 16 to 32.

[Scape]

Leopard > MGS

[Canadian_Mind]

quite. tanks can survive a nuke blast and continue operation in an irradiated area. an MGS's tires would melt if the vehicle wasn't already destroyed by the explosion.

just an example of their durability... I don't think... scratch that; I hope tanks aren't placed on the nuclear battlefield. cause if and when I get into them, I'd hate to be driving around in the middle of a nuclear warzone.

[putz]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

quite. tanks can survive a nuke blast and continue operation in an irradiated area. an MGS's tires would melt if the vehicle wasn't already destroyed by the explosion.

just an example of their durability... I don't think... scratch that; I hope tanks aren't placed on the nuclear battlefield. cause if and when I get into them, I'd hate to be driving around in the middle of a nuclear warzone.

and you know this from all the tanks you've driven in nuclear wars??

[Canadian_Mind]

Nope, unfortunately my information about a tanks capabilities in a nuclear battlefield are for the most part intuition and what I've read about what they're designed to do. If you know differently, then please say so.

In any case, I WOULDN'T want to be driving one in a nuclear battlefield, no matter how capable they are.

[Freakinoldguy]

putz putz:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

quite. tanks can survive a nuke blast and continue operation in an irradiated area. an MGS's tires would melt if the vehicle wasn't already destroyed by the explosion.

just an example of their durability... I don't think... scratch that; I hope tanks aren't placed on the nuclear battlefield. cause if and when I get into them, I'd hate to be driving around in the middle of a nuclear warzone.

and you know this from all the tanks you've driven in nuclear wars??

[sasquatch2]

$1.3 billion to purchase 120 modern tanks is a real bar-goon compared to the $1 billion the LIBRANOs spent on buying carbon credits from Russia.

[sandorski]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Nope, unfortunately my information about a tanks capabilities in a nuclear battlefield are for the most part intuition and what I've read about what they're designed to do. If you know differently, then please say so.

In any case, I WOULDN'T want to be driving one in a nuclear battlefield, no matter how capable they are.

I'm really going to go out on a limb here and say that your Intuition is wrong. Even if the tanks didn't melt into a puddle, the crew would be quite overdone by even thhe standards of the most crazy Cannibals.

[Tricks]

sandorski sandorski:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Nope, unfortunately my information about a tanks capabilities in a nuclear battlefield are for the most part intuition and what I've read about what they're designed to do. If you know differently, then please say so.

In any case, I WOULDN'T want to be driving one in a nuclear battlefield, no matter how capable they are.

I'm really going to go out on a limb here and say that your Intuition is wrong. Even if the tanks didn't melt into a puddle, the crew would be quite overdone by even thhe standards of the most crazy Cannibals.

Yeah how in hell can anyone think a tank or it's crew would survive a nuke. I mean, if a regular bomb can destroy it, and even certain bullets can pierce a tank's armour, chances are a nuke will fuck it up.

[SprCForr]

They wouldn't survive the blast effect.

They would survive the fallout.

[ridenrain]

Obviously, it's not going to help if you're right below it but the post WW2 tests showed that tanks can survive. The Soviet Union pretty much staked their future on that fact.
Tanks weigh around 40 to 60 tons so their not likely to be thrown about, nor penetrated by flying debris. That thickness or armor is going to slow radiation down too.
Almost all modern tanks have an almost sealed cabin, overpressured with filtered air, as long as folks kkeep the hatches closed. It's for chemical warfare but it works against nuclear dust too. That's also going to help the crew survive the huge overpressure that moves out with the shock wave.

Scroll on down to the neutron bombs for a quick reference.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html