/k/ - Weapons

>>323762

Good luck because its gonna happen, mark out same gun as leopard

>Combat proven

>combat against durkas

lol thats like saying a car is road proven because it drove through the suburbs once.

>>323762

Some of those are actual arguments though. You can't just mesh legitimate concerns in with the trolls and shitposts and pretend it's all the same "buzzwords".

Unless you think buzzword is defined as a serious flaw which people have complained about for decades but which never gets fixed.

>>323766

>Unless you think buzzword is defined as a serious flaw which people have complained about for decades but which never gets fixed.

Literally the actual Chrysler/General Dynamics marketing strategy since forever, applies to much more than the M1 Abrams too

>Arguing the semantics of allied armor designed and built for different doctrine and combat ideology.

>Not arguing the competence and experience of the crews.

>Being sperglord autists, instead of discussing the flaws and achievements of each individual vehicle based on shared doctrine and joint defense.

Can't wait for the 'but dey tanks, dey all fur da sam ting" posts.

>>323766

The Iraqis were not illiterate durkas. They were battle hardened and well trained from their wars with Iran.

>abrams

motherfucking land battleship. i understand that after usa failed with creating good vehicles on land , sea and air they tried to start anew with underground warfare

you know why shitholes cant operate after Great America Of Burger is done stealing oil from them? all the roads are destroyed by these tanks. Indeed, they make so much collateral damage that they should be outlawed by Geneva convention.

>>323766

medina division got wiped out by the abrams and they were the best armor division in the middle east

>>323779

>polish

>keking about operating

>literally only has GROM

>>323778

>The Iraqis were not illiterate durkas. They were battle hardened and well trained from their wars with Iran.

bullshit

They lost all of their competent commanders during the first few years of the Iraq-Iran war and had to result to human wave tactics and trench warfare due to lack of tanks, the Iraqi army had a severe shortage of tanks for its size and actually fewer tanks than even Assad does now even though Iraq had over 10X the infantry, and of the 4500 tanks Iraq had over 90% were Type-59s or T-55s. The Iraqi army at the invasion of Kuwait was a hastily trained conscript army that was almost all inducted within the past 2 years and had very few experienced troops, it was a last ditch effort to save Iraq from going bankrupt and collapsing as Kuwait held most Iraqi debt and had access to sea ports whereas Iran destroyed all of Iraqs.

>>323783

Bruh most iraqi crewmen were knocking out tanks since you were in diapers

>>323779

you burgers even know why this tank exists?

when america saw superior equipment of Warsaw Pact (btw. in Poland) they shat they collective pants and seeing as they had no chances at all at wining they decided to make a vehicle that could dig over 20 kilometers of trenches so they could give a burial to all these soldiers that would be killed by their incompetence at making good vehicles

>>323782

actually we have Grom(main), agat(support, aka. airdroping tanks on enemy), Formoza(underwater), and 2 brigades of "normall" commandos

send me little migrant boys to fuck

>>323781

>medina division

in fucking 2003

Iraq barely even existed as a state in 2003 and was a complete fucking joke of a military compared to even 1991 Iraq

>>323785

literally every commander and general that participated in the invasion of Iran where Iraq was competent for the first few months was dead by 1983, especially in the Liberation of Khorramshahr and Operation Ramadan which turned into a slaughter of the only experienced Iraqi armored divisions, past 1983 was simply a trench war with little armored combat and few air battle

BEST THREAD ON /k/

>>323779

>>323787

LOW ENERGY

>>323774

ZERO LOST IN COMBAT

all european tanks are homosexual looking

and all russian tanks are t-64s with progressively more ERA

all shitskin tanks are t-64s with metal plates welded on to look like ERA

all gook tanks are t-64s with gundum shit and retard camo painted on

related unrelated, T90 surviving a TOW to the face.

>>323873

>cancerposting

kill yourself you un-American piece of communist filth

>>323885

wow cool vid of a t-64 with shitloads of modern ERA defeating a 60 year old weapons system

>>323869

>>323868

>>323867

>>323866

Oh god it's this guy again.

>>323885

>CALL THE PRESSES

>CALL THE PRESSES

>A FUCKING MODERN MBT

>STOPPED A WEAPON

>FROM 1970

>>323892

but muh russia strong

>>323891

True, 73 easting was badass

wasnt there a battle where like 4 abrams knocked out like 20 t72 in 90 minutes lmao

>>323893

hurdur putin could rekt nato

>>323894

probably the biggest anal rape in the history of armored combat

>>323902

>>323902

Fun fact.

All that brown stuff on the ground there is fecal matter. :^)

>>323906

Amen to that my commonwealth friend

>>323906

Amen my commonwealth friend

>>323905

that really reminded me of my time in afghanistan

>>323908

are you still in the military fellow burgeranon?

everyone I met who went there told me to stay the fuck out of the military since it blows PC anus nowadays. what I don't understand about that vid is why they are trying to suppress/ eliminate (what I imagine) to be like 2-3 guys with aks with machine guns and air support when that terrain seems like a great place for high-caliber marksmen rifles and the like. Im not into the tacticool shit but that looks like colorado a bit and it seems like a great place for a few guys with binocs and 7mm magnums to just do some brown people hunting. not trying to trigger you with my civie talk though

>>323909

T90 has ERA upgrades lmao. just because its modern doesnt mean its good. TOWs dont even scratch the Abrams paint and its from the 70s

>When Armata BTFO an Abrams you're going to make the same argument lol.

that was a good kek dude, thanks for that. You realize we did a pen test on the armatas armor and overpenned with HEAT so I mean

get ready to stop putin dick riding

and lets not forget he cant afford 30 of them lmao and they breakdown mid parade

>>323910

>Imblying

I was a US Contractor lmao

>>323909

fuck off and die pajeet nobody cares about your opinions go suck trudeaus cock because the armata is just a t-64 with some faggot looking gundam shit on it and some advanced optics, go fuck yourself, go fuck your shithole communist country and go fuck your passive aggressive hate for the worlds greatest tank

>>323912

oh shit you guys get paid like football niggers to do that shit

>>323909

BTFO

https://www.google.com/search?q=ruble+to+dollar&oq=ruble+to+dollar+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3231j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

>>323914

Yessuh

>>323906

apparently that was a designated street

Pretty much don't need to form much of an argument to defend amerikkka, we can beat China and Russia in a total war and still have a few good marines left over to shit on North Korea while we're at it. Face it my white friend to the north, youll always be in our shadow. No amount of dickriding putin will change that

>>323909

Not to mention that Saudis have newer tandem warhead variant TOWs and all rebel TOWs in Syria come from Saudi stockpiles

>>323911

That was an earlier T-90A

> TOWs dont even scratch the Abrams paint and its from the 70s

ironically enough Iranian Toophan TOW clones which are exact copies of TOWs sold to Iran by Reagan in the Iran-Contra arms deal are currently cooking Saudi M1A2s in Yemen in large amounts

>You realize we did a pen test on the armatas armor and overpenned with HEAT so I mean

source, faggot

>INB4 some bullshit computer simulation

>>323922

also, here are tons of other examples of M1s being destroyed even with older ATGMs like Fagots that have even lesser RHA penetration

M1A2 ABRAMS IS THE GREATEST TANK EVER MADE IN THE ENTIRE MILKY WAY

>>323924

lol its the same fucking bullshit yemen vids of shitskin jacking off inside of m1a1s with no armour upgrades and democracy now kid keeps shitposting them

>>323911

>TOWs dont even scratch the Abrams paint

They were used to destroy disabled Abrams in Desert storm.

>>323924

>>323922

Don't bother bro. These guys are so jingoist they've lost touch with reality.

>>323911

>lol dont scratch paint

Nobody is actually autistic enough to believe fuddlore of this caliber.

Designated shilling thread. Sa-gay goes in all fields.

>>323922

>yemen

>untrained crews

>no SEP

>no TUSK

>stockpile ammo

keep commie posting fag

>>323931

>ill sure show these amerifats! ill post pictures of big cats laughing! that makes my argument automatically superior!

>>323926

>>323940

Ramadi is in Iraq you clueless fucks and Iraqi tank crews are directly trained by American advisors, which should be especially embarrassing for someone claiming to have served overseas

>>323922

If you think in any shape or form that the T90 gen 5 MBT chances are you have aspergers

Even the T90S doesn't have DU armor dude theyre so stuck in 1989 its sad

>>323943

>implying

Not in the US Military lmao, US DA Contractor

India has T90S's and they shit on the street

>>323942

lol, deflation decreases cost of production and makes exporting easier, you fucking retard.

They fucking use Kontakt-5 dude, we had that shit in our gen 3 tanks lmao

also

>smoothbore

>>323943

who cares anon, do you think they are giving muhammed and abdul top of the line up to date abrams packages?

fucking ARVN got BTFO everytime they didn't have white guys standing behind them, training means jackshit when you are talking about shitskins, they just immediately revert to allahu snackbar PKM spraying in a matter of weeks

>>323885

Replace 70's missile with modern tandem warhead missile and see what happens.

>>323932

>thinking people shill on /k/

>thinking this board is fast enough to shill on

>being a newfag

>>323965

see >>323922

>>323958

>who cares anon

Obviously you do enough to get upset and spam Abrams propaganda :^)

>American training means jackshit when you are talking about shitskins

FTFY, The NVA had fewer Soviet advisers than Iraq currently has American advisers, which are Army sent over by Obongo and not contractors

>>323967

This, also source for the first major TOW purchase by KSA

there are no single warhead TOWs bought by Saudi Arabia

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/kingdom-saudi-arabia-tube-launched-optically-tracked-wire-guided-2a2b-radio

>>323967

>cancernadian still posting

you forgot your cheetah pic you faggot

>>323970

that entire statement about american training is a logical clusterfuck you were trying to imply something about the NVA and compare it to iraq, when I only brought up how shit ARVN was REGARDLESS of the 15 plus years of training they received, also the fact that you are supporting the NVA in a positive manner is literally jane fonda tier faggotry. kill yourself you anti-american piece of shit

>>323976

lol it literally is a fucking t-64 with more ERA fucking street shitters

>>323979

no wait its a fucking centurion? what is that disgusting thing?

>>323971

You forgot to redtext and be insane.

>>323974

>T-72s with veteran crews

Assad Babil isn't even an export model, it was made from spare parts. The void where composite armor goes was filled with concrete.

And the crews were anything but "veteran".

> hand full of export model Abrams get taken out by a TOW missile

They weren't just taken out by TOWs….

>that would grease any tank on earth

Except the T-90 earlier in the thread.

It's like you didn't read any part of this thread, even the comments you're replying to.

>>323981

again the 15 years of training did fuck all for ARVN my original point was that american training means fuck all when the forces are made up of conscripted shitskins who don't want to die for puppets

>>323983

>>323981

Alright, so T-72s with terrible crews bite it in the thousands. And again, that was an old TOW missile. THE POINT STILL STANDS.

>>323983

>being a "serious" guy and "seriously" defending RT talking points

>>323984

>that american training means fuck all when the forces are made up of conscripted shitskins who don't want to die for puppets

You just confirmed what i already said, meanwhile other countries in Europe don't have the same issue

>>323985

>that was an old TOW missile

The TOW clone used to destroy an M1 was, not in the T-90 video though unless you have a source proving that Saudi Arabia somehow secretly ordered and supplied older TOW-1s that haven't been made for 10+ years and most are expired, when they can openly supply tandem warhead TOW-2s

>>323988

I read reports it was a T90S. Theres fucking M1A1s bouncing 125mils lmao

>>323988

holy shit I cannot wait until fucking traitorous faggots like you are deported

>>323996

>I read reports it was a T90S

Its certainly possible as both are visually nearly identical, also a T-90S turret has less RHA

>Theres fucking M1A1s bouncing 125mils lmao

not exactly hard when mostly only HEAT ammo and no Russian DU ammo or even weaker non-export variant 125MM tungsten ammo has ever been exported

holy fuck i did not even know how bad the putin worship was on this board, its even worse than fucking /pol/

>>323988

Looks to me that the crew bailed in the vid. Meaning that it was most likely a penetrating hit. Just because the turret doesn't pop off instantly doesn't mean that it wasn't knocked out.

>>323869

Posting videos, not an AAR or operational study.

>>324013

hey check out this link

http://www.autism-society.org

>>323985

Still consider you a shill/troll but i find the subject interesting and for anyone else reading

Iraqi crews were not well trained and most Iraqi armor was T-55s/Type-59s and not T-72s which is like comparing a M48A1 to a M60A3 with minor numbers of centurions, M48 Pattons and T-72s. The US had been running ELINT and AWACS flights around the Iraqi/Kuwait border for weeks and most Iraqi SAM/Radar sites were shut down to avoid detection, Iraqi armor was concentrated in Kuwait and was facing Saudi Arabia. US forces flanked from the rear against which most Iraqi fortifications and tanks were facing and were not expecting nor were equipped with either passive infrared or encrypted communications which soviet tanks had, in desert storm it would not have mattered if it was T-72s, T-55s, M-60s or even export M1s as they would have all failed against coalition forces in that scenario.

>>324006

>Looks to me that the crew bailed in the vid.

agreed

>Meaning that it was most likely a penetrating hit.

possible but unlikely, i would expect a crew who had hatches open and certainly experienced concussion to freak out either way though

>>323966

>not knowing about famous shills

>Aussie antigunner

>AR57 autist

>VP9 autist

>BCM tripfags

>Century apologists

>.300 BLK autist

>Trump shills everywhere

>Bernie shills everywhere

>literally a libertarian shill thread on the catalog right now

>Desert Tech shill threads have existed multiple times

>HMG shill threads

>karambit shill thread up right now

>Cold Steel shills

>cuckchan shills

>opchan shills

>/pol/ shills on a fucking hourly basis

>/wrol/ shills (these guys are actually welcome and if you don't like them you're unskilled, uneducated, underage, and probably nogunz anyway)

>fuddlore exists at all

>people constantly shill H&K as the god of firearms when their shit is upper middle class at best and placed at shit-tier pricing

>IWI shills (have mostly died off, but you still see Tavor shitposting occasionally)

>Steyr shills (have mostly taken the place of IWI shills)

>this fucking thread

>almost all US military threads

>every non-/k/ politics thread

>lol shill don't real ur new

Kill yourself, my friend.

>>324021

The point still stands that any export tank that is hit by a TOW missile is going to die. And that soviet export tanks get a free pass from this somehow.

>>324024

>The point still stands that any export tank that is hit by a TOW missile is going to die.

your backpedaling intensifies, but there is not enough to either prove or disprove that the T-90 was penetrated in that video

>And that soviet export tanks get a free pass from this somehow.

If anything Soviet export tanks are criticized far more than export variants from any other country, especially US M48s and M60s which have been exported in similar numbers and performed generally worse than Soviet tanks in combat outside of US service, and have also been destroyed by ATGMs in massive numbers.

>>324028

This still doesn't change the fact that the M48 and M60 served well under the US armed forces and are both considered good tanks. The Abrams has also served well under the US armed forces yet is not considered a good tank due to a handful of exports getting their shit pushed in by something that would do the same to any tank.

>>323778

>Battle hardened

(Read as) Fucking exhausted of fight and worn down.

>>323779

wew

>>323781

>best armor division in the middle east

Being the best of the worst…

>>323785

Knocking out export Soviet technology with export Soviet technology in Dune Wars, quite the accomplishment.

>>323787

wew 2.0

>>323869

>Posts video, not AAR or operational studies.

>>323886

Doesn't understand anything.

>>323887

>60 year old weapons system

>t-64

BGM-71 TOW: 1970

T-64: 1964

Math can be a bitch.

>>323891

>muh 73rd Easting

Nigga, get on the fucking level, Valley of Tears. The 73rd was righteous, but not some pitched battle.

>>323902

Highway 80 and Highway 8 was the result of a mixture of Marine, Naval, and Air Force assets, as well as AH-64s and Arty…the A-10 played a role in the destruction…but it wasn't the defining cause.

>>323909

>When Armata BTFO an Abrams

wewaroni

>>323912

What company?

>>323920

Wat?

>>324032

>This still doesn't change the fact that the M48 and M60 served well under the US armed forces and are both considered good tanks.

The same can be said for the T-54 through the T-90 under Soviet/Russian service, but Soviet export variants received a stigma far beyond the level of export M1s.

>yet is not considered a good tank due to a handful of exports getting their shit pushed in by something that would do the same to any tank.

Iraq lost nearly 100 of its 140 Abrams, and KSA has lost around 50.

Also, I don't see this perception at all, there have been M1 Abrams STRONK threads for years now and the perception is that its still a very good tank but just not invincible like some people try to act like.

Why are tank threads consistently the worst thing on /k/

>>324037

because unlike guns, which about 25% of /k/ has experience with, no one has experience with tanks on /k/.

>>323981

>outperformed it so well that they bought even more T-90s yet again since the Arjun I/II project that India has been claiming to be better than the T-72 and T-90 for the last 30 years but has always failed

WEW. That's some old ass news you got there. The T90S is gradually being put into auxiliary forces.

>>324046

Money, bitch. If they can get their shit HA together they'll build more. If they got into some shit with Pakistan Arjun tanks would be the tip of the spear while T-90's would be supporting from behind.

>>324059

>implying Arjun tanks can actually go more than 10KM without engine failure

top kek

>>323985

>so T-72s

Assad Babils.

>that was an old TOW missile

Nope, it was a brand new one with a tandem warhead.

>>323996

>Theres fucking M1A1s bouncing 125mils lmao

Are you speaking of Assad Babils?

There are cases of them using stainless steel target practice APFSDS, which got stuck in Abrams armor and people took pics of it.

Not exactly a worthy foe.

>>324006

It's a 152mm HEAT, if it was a penetrating hit the crew would be dead. Meanwhile the guy right behind the impact point gets out without a problem.

>>324068

> ME ME I'M PART OF THE PROBLEM!

cool?

>>323887

that's a T90. and that's a modern TOW. youre dumb.

>>324065

The Iraqis only had less than 100 Assad Babil, everything else was Russian export model T72 and a lot of Chinese Type 1234 budget xtreme tankeru. are you bringing it up for the mild steel streetshitter armor?

>>324068

You're that one moosefucker that shits every every thread.

You're becoming like faux-kraut, noticeable.

Is the US the only country that can actually send tanks to other countries without help?

>>324037

Because people act as if tanks are some invincible magical beast.

Armor is only as good as the men you've got operating it. If your doctrine, logistics, and training are shit…you're going to have shit for armor.

The Iraqi's where such pushovers in 91', because most of their experienced crews where killed or gone, they had no logistical train to speak of, and they weren't exercising any actual doctrine or tactics.

The T-72 is a beast, but if you're operating it without imaging intensification systems, and with a crew that MAY have one man that has combat experience among it, no widespread communications systems, you're already at a disadvantage to an enemy who has the ability to fight at night, is exercising modern doctrine/tactics, with real-time tactical communications, a logistical train that's leading on their MSR behind their combat units.

Had the Iraqi's consolidated their crews, kept them training hard after the 89' draw down, then once a sizable corps had been established putting their most veteran and battle hardened personnel into cadre roles in each unit, built and maintained even a rudimentary logistical train to support their armor and mechanized forces, supplemented their vehicle imaging systems with hand held systems, putting a tank with vehicle mounted NID and a radio within each platoon to guide fire, and actually exercised some semblance of armor doctrine or even combined arms doctrine…the war may have lasted a good while longer.

>>323885

doesnt look like it survived dude. the crew abandoned the tank

Well, this thread is pure cancer.

>>324199

Nobody cares what you think, fakekraut.

>>324142

it survived, the TOW hit right on that guy's turret position, that was a panic bailout. I'm a studier of armor, not a champion of T90 or Abrams. I'm impressed that the reactive armor works that well, that's a big dick 13lbs warhead.

>>324215

Nice counterpoints, proxycanadian.

>>324199

>>engine that barely survives long marches

That'd be an issue…if tanks marched. Also, it's not the "engine", it's the fan blades on the turbine that get eaten by sand. This was taken care of via fine particulate filter.

>>gigantic fuel consumption rate

The Leo 2 get's about 1gal/mi, where the M1 gets 1gal/0.53mi…fuel economy is about half, so unsupported combat range is reduced by 75mi over that of the Leo 2.

>>still has that fucktarded lifted edge of the turret which allows for easy blowoff/halter shots

wew

>>no autoloader in 16th year of third millenium

>Oh no, another country took a different doctrine route, this makes their armor BAD!

>Leo 2

>Chally 2

>>humongous vertical profile

M1A2: 8ft.

Leo 2A6: 9.8ft

>>have never engaged with actual modern MBTs

As compared to…

>>has only ever been used in one location against singular type of enemy who has zero support fire capability

As compared to what equivalent tank and military?

>>324199

>>engine that barely survives long marches

>>gigantic fuel consumption rate

Non-issues in US service as American logistics and supply trains are among the best, outside of US service though this is a huge issue and largely the cause of the high attrition rate in Iraq, not that Iraq actually needs M1s to lob HE shells at insurgents who occasionally have an AT weapon

>>324087

Assad Babil was the last and least of the T-72s of Iraq, but all of the other T-72s were locally built and to inferior specs.

>The first proper Iraqi MBT was assembled with such parts in a German-built 1986 steel factory near Taji. The factory already had experience in refitting and overhauling badly damaged T-54/55s and T-62s. The first assembled T-72M were released in early 1989, and called “Saddam”, without notable changes compared to the regular T-72M1 but perhaps the steel quality, some electronics omitted, and the fitting of an obsolete IR searchlight. More importantly, the Saddams were downgraded for desert warfare, some suspensions’s shock absorbers were removed. But following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in august 1990, a new UN embargo, far more strict, was passed, which ban everything but the smallest supply parts to maintain existing Iraqi tanks. Critical parts were missing for the completion of the last batches. However, according to Russian intelligence, at least 100 tanks (250 for other sources) were nevertheless assembled, doing ever more concessions, and delivered in the meantime or after the embargo, which tells about the quality of these deliveries. Basically, the Asad Babil was a cheaply downgraded of the already downgraded Saddam, itself derived from the downgraded T-72M export model.

Those last 100 were Assad babils. The others were only based on (not actually the same as) T-72M export variant of the T-72, they were further downgraded by using inferior steel, inferior electronics, and IR searchlights that we could spot from low earth orbit.

All of the tanks lost in 73 easting were domestic built.

So imagine ISIS takes the export variants we gave to Iraq, they build their own local copies of the export variant M1s out of zinc castings or something, then those copies of export variants get BTFO by T-72s and some Russian makes fun of the M1A2SEP TUSK because of this.

This is literally what you are doing you dumb fuck. It is not unpatriotic of me to call you a dumb fuck for doing it, that's just me stating a fact.

>>324306

>That'd be an issue…if tanks marched. Also, it's not the "engine", it's the fan blades on the turbine that get eaten by sand. This was taken care of via fine particulate filter.

Except it means that any incursion with the vehicle instantly means maintenance. Breakdowns, millions of dollars a year in upkeep… you're autistic if you think those logistics lead to a good vehicle.

>The Leo 2 get's about 1gal/mi, where the M1 gets 1gal/0.53mi…fuel economy is about half, so unsupported combat range is reduced by 75mi over that of the Leo 2.

How is something being TWICE AS BAD not a negative point? You aren't even making an argument with this, nigger.

>>still has that fucktarded lifted edge of the turret which allows for easy blowoff/halter shots

>wew

>implying that isn't a valid point

>weak points on armour are a good thing

>>>no autoloader in 16th year of third millenium

>>Oh no, another country took a different doctrine route, this makes their armor BAD!

>>Leo 2

>>Chally 2

>I am only allowed to compare things to the Leopard because it is the only one I have searched on Wikipedia

>>>humongous vertical profile

>M1A2: 8ft.

>Leo 2A6: 9.8ft

>I am only allowed to compare things to the Leopard because it is the only one I have searched on Wikipedia

>>>have never engaged with actual modern MBTs

>As compared to…

>I am only allowed to compare things to the Leopard because it is the only one I have searched on Wikipedia

>>>has only ever been used in one location against singular type of enemy who has zero support fire capability

>As compared to what equivalent tank and military?

>I am only allowed to compare things to the Leopard because it is the only one I have searched on Wikipedia

>>323756

>>323873

>>324199

BINGO!

I

N

G

O

!

>>324316

Nice proxy.

>>Except it means that any incursion with the vehicle instantly means maintenance. Breakdowns, millions of dollars a year in upkeep… you're autistic if you think those logistics lead to a good vehicle.

>What is a particulate filter

ANY "incursion" instantly means maintenance, you autist.

>TWICE AS BAD

On what comparative benchmark? What exactly is the golden standard of fuel economy for an MBT?

>implying that isn't a valid point

It's not.

>weak points on armour are a good thing

What weak points…oh, yeah, you're going on anecdotal evidence.

>I am only allowed to compare things to the Leopard because it is the only one I have searched on Wikipedia

Please, stop with the pleb-tier shit baiting. The Leo 2 is a comparative system because it uses many of the same systems that where born from joint projects between the two nation's that share doctrine and ideology.

>Chally 2, you fucking retard.

Please, going fucking actually learn something instead of shitposting feign arguments from behind a proxy.

I WENT TO SLEEP AND CAME BACK

YOU FAGGOT EURO SHILLS RUINED MY THREAD

>>324416

You can't shit up what is already shit.

>>324416

>start thread with a shitpost

>wonder why thread is shit

>>324447

forgot your cheetah reaction pic, cumlord

One of the best MBTs? Yes. Best MBT? Discussable.

Leo 2A7, Mitsubishi Type 10… they are all very good tanks, in some ways better and worse than M1A2

>>324473

i see you didnt forget your butthurt.

>>324496

frig off

>>324497

>frig off

Go back to Sunnyvale you dirty cheeseburger walrus

>>324500

very fucking funny ricky

actually, why wont usa make a cheap shitty tank for exports? that way they could still own their wunderwaffe abrams and not get fucked over by people they try to help

>>324520

that was a serious question. there is a market for these thinks. i mean look at all these shitty nigger "nations", all of them want a tank but they almost certainly cant buy uber abrams

>>324522

and I just gave you a serious answer because that is really France's, Russia's and China's Territory. It's a market with too much established competition to bother entering. Vickers for example tried and failed miserably; as they could not compete against the hordes of AMX-13's, AMX-30's and Type 59's, 69's, T-55's and even T-62's that could be bought for the fraction of the cost.

The US Arms industry is too incompetent and/or corrupt to compete, meaning if they tried they would deliver something that is not cheap, awful, and could not compete with shit that is already there.

>>324533

Forgot to add the T-64's and T-72's as well. Even though a lot of that shit is going to be monkey models read all they will still be cheap and relatively easy to maintain while still doing the job the nigger nations need them to do.

>>324549

FSA/Al-Nusra rebels are not trained and don't fight like an army even by Arab standards, Arab armies for the most part are designed to counter insurgencies and large amounts of infantry since that is 90% of what all they ever fight and the main problem with Arab armies is a perpetual lack of competent air support and armor forcing them to rely on artillery and WW1 tactics leading to trench warfare with slowly moving frontlines and long stalemates like you see in Syria today and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. There are certainly problems with leadership and politically selected officers along with a lack of training but those are largely inherent to conscript armies and not the largest cause of most Arab military failures on an overall scale.

>>324549

Allahu Akbar=god is great, you infidel.

>>324565

They say that as a reassurance that whatever happens or whatever they accomplish Allah will always be greater than that.

Inshallah is "if Allah wills it".

ABRAMS TANK RUNNING WILD ON ALL THE FAGGOT TANKS ITT

you can't fucking handle the '73 eastings tier anal raping going on ITT

>democracy now american traitor putin shill whining about yemen war

>canadian faggot wishing he wasn't just a shittier version of an american and could shitpost like we do

>random irrelevant yuroshits memeing

>all these pic of t-64s with ERA pretending they are abrams tier

>fucking higgins whining passive aggressively about muh challenger 2 in the corner

>>324533

>>324522

We got the Stingray 2 on the export list. But as far as I know those only went to Taiwan.

>>324549

>Look at the F-35, that was originally supposed to be a cheap exportable alternative to the F-22.

>Americans are constitutionally incapable of building anything cheaply except McDonalds Dollar Menu.

The problem is, the days of engineers and designers like Johnson are long fucking gone and the days of $4,000,000 toilet seats are here.

Defense magnates, bureaucrats and politicians stand to line their pockets with a turd like the F-35. Lockheed comes up with a shit heap. Senators and Congressman (who get their pockets lined, as well as political and lobbying allies) clear a legal and political path for the shit heap, the AF Brass (who stands to get a cushy position in said defense contractors company) makes sure that legacy systems are thoroughly thrashed and then the shit heap is the only "clear" option, because we've sent $1.8T on development and we can't let that go to waste…then we'll drop untold amounts to manufacture and field them, as Lockheed laughs it's way to the bank.

>>323869

If you count pieces of metal or burn out hulls shipped back to USA as not lost in combat.

>>324666

Stingray is a fine tank. Are you aware the Bufords hull is based on the same hull as the Stingray?

>>324669

The only hope now is that the price of bribing politicians rises above what Lockheed can afford to pay.

>>324815

They actually do. There are three columns for American vehicles lost, friendly fire, hostile fire, and accident.

If a tank is lost in combat, such as hit by an enemy missile or tank, the crew abandons it. But it doesn't enter the lists of "lost in combat" because it could still theoretically be fixed, and is still theoretically capable of combat.

Later an F-16 drops a bomb or an A-10 a maverick on the wrecked Abrams so the enemy is denied its use and the wreck enters the lists as "friendly fire" instead of "hostile fire".

Therefore Abrams is never lost in combat.

Same goes for the Apaches, dozens of which were shot down in Afghanistan and Iraq but which always go into lists as "accidents" due to maintenance issues or pilot error. Often it will just say the helicopter crashed, no explanation or mention of hostile fire. Or crash-landed, which makes it almost seem like it didn't get the engine blown off by a manpad.

Whenever a vehicle is lost a lengthy investigation takes place, long enough to take a huge chunk out of media sensationalism, and the longer it is the easier it is to change the results of the investigation.

This was started by Bill Clinton as a way to manage morale in the media, Bush made good use of it, and Obama is using it now.

>>324935

TOW-2A has a tandem warhead, designed to get through ERA. Before ERA it hits for 1125mm RHA, after-ERA it hits for 900mm RHA.

Chally and Abrams have 1470mm RHA versus chemical attacks, Merkava 4 has 1340mm RHA, so they'd be able to take the TOW-2A like the T-90A.

Leopard 2A4 has about 1050mm RHA versus chemical attacks (a shitload of NERA) on the turret from the front, and the other Western tanks like Ariete and Leclerc are weaker, so I'm guessing there's a good change the TOW-2A can rape them.

All things said if the T-90A can defeat the TOW on the frontal turret, I would put it just behind Chally, Abrams, and Merkava to be on the safe side.

But T-90A is the oldest variant which came out in the 90s, the newer ones can't be too far behind the Abrams, and the T-90 with the Arena system would be superior.

>>324516

the mantlet isn't like ww2 german tanks anymore, they're pretty average armor.

also who are you kidding, this inbred goatfucker doesn't know wtf is happening around him. most of the TOW videos are of them shooting them at groups of men. their standard reaction to contact is to form a circle and take a smoke break.

>>324795

i'm still livid obongo dumped weaponry on these "moderates", US troops will be taking fire from these weapons within the decade

t

>>324795

>That one is a M1A2S shot by a cheap Iranian clone of TOW (70's version).

heres another one being used

https://twitter.com/IraqiSecurity/status/705556271525728257

LOL all these buttmad faggots ITT hating on the abrams, gotta love how just posting an image of an abrams instantly brings out the fucking hate

>>323943

training isn't going to magically strengthen a tank's armor, fuckface.

>>323952

WEW, fuck armor penetration, WEW

>>326457

>just posting an image

OP trollpost contains more than just an image, troll.

>>323922

>are currently cooking Saudi M1A2s in Yemen in large amounts

I literally haven't seen any new destroyed Saudi Abram videos in months. The number of Abrams lost in Yemen in nearly a year of war doesn't even stretch into the double digits.

>and KSA has lost around 50.

I'm gonna need sources on that.

>It's literally "the best tanks money can buy", it's KSA we're speaking about, they get first pick often before even the US army…

I can literally think of no weapon system that served in the Saudi Army before the US Army.

Even our F-15E are downgraded export versions with commercial GPS.

>>324107

The irakis fucked up for a number of reasons, but the fact is that the main reason was propaganda: the fucking kuwaiti shits put the daughter of the ambassador in front of the clapper congress to pretend she was a nurse that saw the iraqi troops commit all these terrible shoa-grade crimes. No pics, no video, no proof, it was all made up by some PR agency but everyone fucking ate that turd, specially the TV networks

The fact is that the coalition that attacked iraq in 91 was waaaay bigger and better equipped than the one that attacked in 03, which was basically murrica. There was no fucking chance he could beat that, he should have counter that with his own PR campaign but durka durk was too fucking retarded to figure that out.

Also saddam could've delayed things a bit, stop stealing shit from his country to build his palaces and instead try to take advantage of the crumbling USSR and buy some prime quality hardware at a discount, flankers and shit, and get his forces ready for the big dickening they were going to give to kuwait and maybe iran again, or better yet the fucking saudis.

>>326626

>Even our F-15E are downgraded export versions with commercial GPS.

Are you the Saudi who keeps blaming equipment for why his country sucks? Most other countries would perform better with F-4 Phantoms than you are with F-15Es. Syrians are losing fewer T-64s per engagement than you Abrams, they just seem to be losing more because they have 300x more engagements.

Stop blaming equipment.

You couldn't unify the Arab peninsula during the unification war, but only managed to take a bunch of desert that accidentally proved profitable later.

You couldn't win against the Jews three times, but managed to write yourself out of the losing side and save your fragile self esteem.

You even got invaded by Iraq, and had to beg Qatar and Americans for help in retaking a single town.

You got invaded by Yemenis twice. Saudi Arabia is one of the most populous and richest countries in the area, this is as retarded as America getting invaded by Cuba or something.

The proudest moment in Saudi Arabian history is the Gulf War, when you drove your tanks 150km behind the advancing American and French lines.

You are a bunch of Jew families that ran into the desert because you are shit at warfare.

>>326760

>The irakis fucked up for a number of reasons, but the fact is that the main reason was propaganda: the fucking kuwaiti shits put the daughter of the ambassador in front of the clapper congress to pretend she was a nurse that saw the iraqi troops commit all these terrible shoa-grade crimes. No pics, no video, no proof, it was all made up by some PR agency but everyone fucking ate that turd, specially the TV networks

That would make sense if the rest of the world was one giant living room, but because intelligence agencies don't use prime time media as their sole source, PR only matters in public opinion and political gaming.

PR has jack shit to do with combat readiness, it's a very, very small piece of the pie once past the point of no return diplomatically. Even if Saddam had started an aggressive PR campaign, it'd be a fool's errand. Iraq had no major media to speak of and Western media is at the mercy of their government…or more often in support there of.

>The fact is that the coalition that attacked iraq in 91 was waaaay bigger and better equipped than the one that attacked in 03, which was basically murrica. There was no fucking chance he could beat that, he should have counter that with his own PR campaign but durka durk was too fucking retarded to figure that out.

The difference between the two conflicts are more than just the size of the forces, but PR would have had little effect for the coming end for Iraq in Kuwait. The Saudi's knew ahead of time what the stakes were once Kuwait fell, which is why they requested US protection.

>Also saddam could've delayed things a bit, stop stealing shit from his country to build his palaces and instead try to take advantage of the crumbling USSR and buy some prime quality hardware at a discount, flankers and shit, and get his forces ready for the big dickening they were going to give to kuwait and maybe iran again, or better yet the fucking saudis.

This we can agree wholeheartedly on.

>>326626

there are well over 20 Saudi tanks being destroyed on video, although a lot are likely M60s that are hard to distinguish due to shitty video

>I can literally think of no weapon system that served in the Saudi Army before the US Army.

thats not from my post

also

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-2006-saudi-shopping-spree-29b-to-upgrade-m1-abrams-tank-fleet-02481/

all Saudi M1s have the SEP armor and electronics upgrade package, turret armor thickness varies slightly and DU liners are not present but replaced with composite liners that the US is also using, export M1 armor is not an excuse for the absolute piss poor performance and training of Saudi troops and US troops still performed much better with M1A1s that had no SEP upgrade during the height of the Iraq occupation

>>326760

>Also saddam could've delayed things a bit, stop stealing shit from his country to build his palaces and instead try to take advantage of the crumbling USSR and buy some prime quality hardware at a discount, flankers and shit, and get his forces ready for the big dickening they were going to give to kuwait and maybe iran again, or better yet the fucking saudis.

Saddam tried, Iraq was under massive international sanctions and was not allowed to import or export any arms, most medical supplies, computer equipment or oil

This is also why Saddam had to smuggle parts and domestically assemble T-72 Asad Babil tanks since he couldn't openly buy them

>>326865

>www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a533216.pdf

>most people interviewed in Saudi Arabia

>only a third of people interviewed are actually Kuwaiti with a disproportionate amount of Saudis

>whining about lack of Medical supplies provided by Iraq when Iraq itself had the same problem due to sanctions

into the fucking trash it goes

>>328812

Which is why Abrams Tank Fags are insufferable and literally are the cancer of /k/ that kill every decent tank thread they come across.

>>326785

If you think PR lies dont create wars then you're in the wrong board

PR turned saddam from a shitskin dictator already known for killing shias by the thousands into a freedom fighter in the 80s, and when he went rogue into hitler 2.0

>>328029

Weren't the sanctions after he invaded? I'm talking pre-invasion here

>>326865

>amnesty international

Seriously? those fuckers are biased as shit

>>328818

second

>>328837

>Weren't the sanctions after he invaded? I'm talking pre-invasion here

yes but there was little perceived threat before the invasion of Kuwait, the US told him it was an Arab-Arab conflict and the Saudis were weaker than Iraq at the time, Saddam steamrolled through Kuwait in under 12 hours so there wasn't much reason to build up the military over them either when the economy was about to collapse

>>328837

>If you think PR lies dont create wars then you're in the wrong board

PR only matters in the terms of public support, it serves no other purpose. PR doesn't "create" wars, it just gathers public support for an overt war.

An excellent example is Operation Northwoods, a CIA operation designed to boost public support for overt actions against Cuba through false flag attacks carried out by US Government personnel and blamed on Cuba.

The CIA had been waging covert operations under Operation Mongoose, but the government wanted to commit conventional military forces in an overt action against Cuba, so they moved to fabricate a precedence to garner public support.

If anyone is somewhere they shouldn't be, it's you.

>PR turned saddam from a shitskin dictator already known for killing shias by the thousands into a freedom fighter in the 80s, and when he went rogue into hitler 2.0

The US Government knew what Saddam was and had known since they'd began funding him, they needed a convenient excuse to build up conventional forces during Desert Shield for the initial push during Desert Storm.

Again, PR only serves to gather public support for overt military actions, it isn't what "creates" a war.

>>329151

Did you put in that the filter has to be removed and cleaned every 3 hours? That's a bigger limiter than refueling, in fact in Desert Storm they topped up the tanks every 3 hours because that's just when they cleaned the filters anyway.

>>329151

How butthurt would you even have to be to make something like this? With a faggoty disclaimer at the bottom even.

you faggots dogpiling on the abrams are worse than the one guy that shills it in every thread.

Abrams sucks gas, but the gas it sucks is JP8, avgas. options for a drop-in diesel powerpack have existed forever, they aren't in it for a reason. logistics win wars.

> hurblur muh teutonic Leopaerd 2 is superior

the Leo2 is a parity tank, ffs they have the same cannon.

if the Germans weren't wasting their lives being autistic about unimportant details on tanks they loan to Canadian maybe they wouldn't being replaced by marxists and muslims.

> CHALLY TWO

has an armor layout so stupid only a bong could imagine

>>329236

>>329217

How butthurt would you have to be to make this >>323762? Or even this whole fucking thread in the first place.

>>329151

>Cause it's faced monkey model T-72's it can face mien krupp shteel super soviet ones!

You see this here? this is exactly the double standards I am talking about.

Nothing on paper would explain any sort of advantage a "real" T-72 would have over an Abrams. The T-72 is lighter at the cost of armor all while still retaining a main gun that is not accurate on the move and has less range than the Abrams and yet everyone here says that facing mien krupp shteel super stalin soviets would be a horrible slaughter for NATO. Just like how everyone was saying that during the onset of the first gulf war.

The first gulf war ends with the slaughter of the warsaw pact equipped army despite everyone saying they had the better equipment before the fighting started but then once its all over they all do a 1080 and say that it wasn't the real mystical T-72 equipped with magical stalin powers that will make up for its obvious fire-control and main armament short comings.

And if a gas turbine engine is so awful then why does Russia's best top of the line tank (The T-80) use one?

>>329287

>Nothing on paper would explain any sort of advantage a "real" T-72 would have over an Abrams

actually that would be lower profile and numbers.

>And if a gas turbine engine is so awful then why does Russia's best top of the line tank (The T-80) use one?

>t-80

>top of the line

>>329287

I am not even going to bother explaining what is retarded about this post other than the fact that the double standard exists both ways and you really need to look up those Czech T-72's that were tested by NATO.

>>329287

Also the T-80 is Ukrainian numbnuts and not Russian,and all modern versions of it use a diesel engine. They were smart enough to understand that the Gas Turbine was a retarded idea.

>>329291

The T-80 is (or was) Russia's top of the line MBT during the late stage of the cold war

>>329295

>>329297

No, the T-80 is indeed Russian, and is in service with the Russian army today. They had a gas turbine on it to pretend they were a real threat until the wall fell and they realized their logistics are the equivalent of a horse drawn carriage pulled by starving peasants that ate the horse a month ago.

>>329291

The low profile thing is no longer something the soviets can do because their peasants got too tall by a result of the wall falling and them getting healthy diets. Hence why the T-14 is as tall as any western MBT. It's not something that can really be helped much.

Sage for double post

>>329316

No it was Soviet at the time and all the facilities that can build and maintain the T-80 are all in the Ukraine, along with the T-64, which is why they got rid of them all and stuck with the T-72/T-90's. Why the fuck would the Russians use a tank they don't have the facilities to maintain let alone build anymore?

>>329335

A quick Wikipedia search turns up that the T-80 was made in 3 factories. Two in Russia, and one in Ukraine. The Russians do not use the T-64 anymore because it is old and was replaced by the T-80 as their tank of the line which is still in service in Russia today.

>>329287

T-80 invented the use of turbines in tanks, and it was the most hated tank in the Russian arsenal precisely because of the power plant.

If American tankers had access to a diesel powered Abrams, they would kick the shitty turbine variant to the curb in a second.

>Nothing on paper would explain any sort of advantage a "real" T-72 would have over an Abrams.

Compared to "unreal" T-72s, the "real" T-72 would have actual composite armor and ERA, as well working shock absorbers so the tank can actually stay mobile giving is a decent chance of not being taken out with a single fucking hit from 3km away.

Imagine comparing M1A2 Abrams with an Abrams model using steel armor.

That's what dumb Abramsfags do every time they compare actual Russian T-72s to Assad Babils/Saddam tanks.

>>329354

The M1 Abrams has a turbo diesel engine you idiot. We ditched it back in the 80s because we have working supply lines that can keep a turbine well fed.

>Comparing an M1A2 to an Abrams using steel armor

You fucking faggots do exactly this all the fucking time in these threads with your ISIS videos showing export Abrams being taken out by TOW missiles. And that apparently makes the real Abrams as a whole a bad tank while you ignore all the ISIS videos and two major armed conflicts where export T-72s got BTFO'd but uphold the real thing as a super god tank.

>Abramsfags start shit about how bad the T-72 is cause the ones that the Abrams faced are all gimped to fuck Monkey Models, won't accept that fact.

>When the Iraqi and Saudi Abrams get taken out they bitch and whine how it was not a fair test as it's Monkey Model Abrams

>Start bitching about a double standard

THE FUCKING IRONY

Also it's like none of you fags know what Kontakt-5 is and what it did to all our rounds. We weren't even able to scratch tanks that had it on it

>>329365

As far as I know, it has always been people cheering for the soviet tanks. They were always "the best" since the cold war and everyone said Iraq would destroy everyone in the gulf war because they had these super tanks.

Now that they got completely massacred by Abrams they hide behind the shield of them not being "real krupp shteel" while still denouncing the "real" Abrams by pointing out instances where monkey models were destroyed.

Also

>all these people saging because they know they are spouting bullshit and don't want to get called out on it.

>>329372

>DoD shills said Iraq would destroy everyone in the gulf war because they had these super tanks to sell more M1s

FTFY

in fact the exact opposite was said, the conclusion before the Invasion of Kuwait was that Kuwaiti M-84ABs would outperform Iraqi tanks, but tactics win wars and not individual equipment and the Iraqis greatly outnumbered the Kuwaitis and had much better logistics

pretty much the exact same way NATO tanks outnumbered Iraqi tanks 4:1 in the gulf war and Saddam largely used the same tactics against the Kuwaitis that NATO used against him

>>324021

>Iraqi crews were not well trained and most Iraqi armor was T-55s/Type-59s and not T-72s which is like comparing a M48A1 to a M60A3 with minor numbers of centurions, M48 Pattons and T-72s. The US had been running ELINT and AWACS flights around the Iraqi/Kuwait border for weeks and most Iraqi SAM/Radar sites were shut down to avoid detection, Iraqi armor was concentrated in Kuwait and was facing Saudi Arabia. US forces flanked from the rear against which most Iraqi fortifications and tanks were facing and were not expecting nor were equipped with either passive infrared or encrypted communications which soviet tanks had, in desert storm it would not have mattered if it was T-72s, T-55s, M-60s or even export M1s as they would have all failed against coalition forces in that scenario.

>>329372

Saging cause this is a cancer thread and bullshit is coming from both sides Although honestly Abramboos and Slavboos are the worst for it on /k/ Honestly if you had a T-72 and M1 Abrams fire at each, with their best models, both tank crews would eventually have to give up and go home due to being unable to penetrate each other. That's a fact as they don't have the penetration power to knock each other out when they are sporting their composite armour and Kontakt-5.

The M1 Abrams is not a pile of shit it's made out to be but it's not gods gift to tanking like this thread is making out. Overall it's a decent tank that has to compete with a lot of better tanks Not Slav or Chink, European and Gook one's and the main thing really that lets the Abrams down is it's engine along with the actual cost of making and maintaining the damn thing. But if you make a valid complaint around here everyone seems to fly off the handle over it.

>>329382

This is the problem with slavaboos, they think the Abrams is bad because Russia sucks ass at logistics and maintenance so they make an extra point about fuel consumption and maintenance even though it is a non issue with a country that has the best logistics on earth. And because of our outstanding logistics, we can field a gas guzzling behemoth that would cripple a lesser army with no issue.

And much like Vchan, hotwheels does not have the logistics to keep it running god dammit.

>>329364

>M1

You know full well I was talking about M1A2, not the fucking prototype.

>You fucking faggots do exactly this all the fucking time in these threads with your ISIS videos showing export Abrams being taken out by TOW missiles.

People do this because you've been making FARTHER FETCHED COMPARISONS since the fucking 90s.

This

>export T-72s

Shows exactly how little you know.

>know nothing about tanks

>see this thread, pop my head in to learn something

>know less than when I started

I can't even tell the satire from the shitposting.

>>329411

>Expecting to learn about tanks from /k/

Well there is your problem anon. If you want to learn about tanks you go to /v/, I shit you not they have much better tank threads than /k/.

>>329403

Wrong again. The M1 Abrams and the M1IP Abrams with the diesel engine and 105mm gun served until 1985.

>>329364

>The M1 Abrams has a turbo diesel engine you idiot. We ditched it back in the 80s because we have working supply lines that can keep a turbine well fed.

the M1 now has a multifuel gas turbine which produces more power

>>329428

>Wrong again. The M1 Abrams and the M1IP Abrams with the diesel engine and 105mm gun served until 1985.

also a turbine engine, just for diesel

Gas turbine engine

Cons:

>susceptible to dust

>susceptible to shock

>susceptible to weather

>inefficient in general

>horribly inefficient under partial load

>unrepairable

Pros:

>???????

>>329388

As always, the major argument is

>we've dealt easily with sandniggers, therefore it's good

It doesn't takes genius to estimate how long american tank division will last when it's cut off of its supplies, like it immediately happens in battle against competent enemy.

>>329416

>post on /v/ for anime and tanks

>post on /k/ for video games

>post on /a/ for guns

>>329542

>battle with a competent enemy means divisions getting encircled immediately

Buddy we aren't talking about the Eastern Front in WW2

>>329572

ayyyyyyyyyy

>>329539

>susceptible to shock

no

>susceptible to weather

no

>inefficient in general

yes. worst problem is it's much less efficient than a diesel in idle, which is going to be fixed by an APU

> pros ??????

accelerates like a motherfucker

uses common JP8 like a champ, this is important. diesels don't run it as well.

>>329416

I've seen those threads, hugbox for nerds that don't know shit about shit, mostly bad information, don't take them too seriously

>>329554

>post on /v/ for anime and tanks

>post on /k/ for video games

>post on /a/ for guns

Funny cause it's pretty much true.

>>329587

>hugbox for nerds that don't know shit about shit, mostly bad information, don't take them too seriously

You've pretty much described /k/ Tank threads in a nutshell. I've seen tanks better discussed and more actual citation of real references and journals posted on /v/ than I have ever seen on /k/, talking about the actual field tests of guns and real after action reports. /k/'s research on tanks goes often as far as "Muh Wikipedia" and it's fucking sad.

>>329675

You have a vivid imagination, I read the same threads. half the shit is warhammer 40k spam, the other half is wrong. people like to accept incorrect information that's politely delivered.

if you can't ignore a couple loud idiots to find correct information you're going to have a hard time on a chan.

It and the russian T90 are the only ones who have seen action, so yeah, might as well be.

>>329766

What, you implying Russia would still have an air force, let alone copters 10 days into the war?

>>329587

>not susceptible to shock

>precisely fitted high speed rotating machinery made as light and fragile as possible in order to rotate faster

>has to be suspended on shock absorbers

>not susceptible to shock

>not susceptible to weather

>losing 30% power in high temperature

>losing 50% power in high altitude

>not susceptible to weather

Yah nah get fucked cunt.

Poor efficiency of turbine is never gonna get fixed. Never. It generates even more waste heat than reciprocating engine and converts even less of thermodynamic energy into mechanical work, and that cemented in its very principle. And I wasn't referring to "idle", turbine's efficiency drops from 35% at full load all the way down to 10% at half the load and continues plummeting as the load decreases.

>accelerates fast

>turbine

>accelerates fast

>also implying piston engine doesn't

Would you look at this faggot holy shit.

>>329783

If you were saying US didn't fight against any competent tank division, Russia didn't fight against any competent air force either.

>>329785

Not since WW2, no.

>>329780

every % you just listed came straight from your asshole, amazing

shock absorbers? what the fucking shit??

> Yah nah get fucked cunt.

and why are you so fanny famboozled, VPN Australia? you do know your country USES this tank, right??

the rest of you get a T-80U, because turbines kick ass and I'm cooler than boomarangposters

>>329587

>which is going to be fixed by an APU

If you have to install a small diesel engine just to offset the gigantic failure of your turbine, maybe you should just dump the turbine faggot.

In fact let's see what bright ideas M1A3 is supposed to have:

1. Diesel engine replaces turbine.

2. Optimized armor layout with ERA and APS replaces fuckload of chobham.

3. Autoloader replaces nigger loader.

4. Barrel launched missiles.

THE IMPROVEMENT FOR ABRAMS IS A T-72

>>329803

why are you so hard up for the T72 slavboo? even the real Russians aren't bonertown for it. it's not equivalent to an Abrams and it isn't supposed to be, they have heavy tanks do that. ffs the T72 is running a T34 diesel engine with a supercharger. it's the F16 of the tank world, an inexpensive light vehicle to fill out the fleet.

even in currentyear niggerloader is faster than autoloader.

>>329807

Because you're so against it.

>even in currentyear niggerloader is faster than autoloader.

While the tank is standing still a nigger on steroids can load a single round faster than an autoloader. But an autoloader from 50 years ago can load in six seconds round after round while ramping off a hill.

Bustle autoloaders blow that value out of the water, reloading in three seconds only.

>>329810

The main danger in T-72 and cause of cookoffs are exposed propellant cases carried inside the turret. This is standard procedure for quicker loading, the commander or loader would have the propellant packs between their legs, then would quickly slam it in after the autoloader pushes in a warhead. When hit the exposed propellant packs would start a chain reaction.

At some point it stopped being standard procedure, now T-90s even have blowoff panels, and there are better autoloader designs today.

tl;dr it was stupid but fixable.

>Patria AMV

Uh… you'd get a worse cookoff that would kill more people, except it would happen when hit with much lower caliber weapons.

>>329828

>AMV

Yeah, that would be quite foolish. I shouldn't have thought of that, but we desperately need armoured vehicles.

>>329236

I fucking loved this little retard. RIP in piece little dude. ;_;

>>329803

Having less crew is not a good thing. A loader is one extra person that can perform repairs, first aid, and other combat duty's. Also, auto loaders are fucking heavy as shit and run the chance of breaking down or jamming. Much less dismembering someone who forgot where he left his leg/arm in the middle of a heated engagement.

Turbine engines also give the vehicle a huge combat advantage via high mobility over diesel engines and for the last fucking time, US logistics are second to none so keeping them fed is never an issue.

Barrel launched missiles add nothing at all to the vehicle's combat capability as sabots have already proven they can hit targets from beyond visual range.

You are saying these would be improvements because you are such a slavofile that you believe all countries armies are as fucked up, poor and ass backwards as Russia's.

Just like how fucked up and ass backwards this sites code is

>>329886

>Having less crew is not a good thing.

Yeah it is.

>A loader is one extra person that can perform repairs, first aid, and other combat duty's.

When has a tank ever been isolated to just its crewmembers? Also if this were true, why not then make a passenger compartment for six more guys.

>Much less dismembering

A) Has never happened.

B) There is a metal mesh over the autoloaders path of motion for that reason.

C) Have you ever been in any tank retard? The Abrams has a massive armored, powered hatch slamming down every time someone pulls out a round.

>auto loaders are fucking heavy as shit

Seem to make a tank lighter bro.

>run the chance of breaking down or jamming.

And niggers are invincible right. It's not like a bio or chemical agent can render them useless, right? It's not like they can get taken out by a sprain? An autoloader doesn't leave the tank to get a venereal disease off base.

>Turbine engines also give the vehicle a huge combat advantage via high mobility

No, they don't. Turbines are slightly more compact for the horsepower they deliver, but they exchange that for being many times more inefficient.

>US logistics are second to none

So why the fuck do you need an extra nigger in your tank?

>Barrel launched missiles add nothing at all to the vehicle's combat capability

Hahahaahahahahaha!

>You are saying these would be improvements

I'm not the one saying these would be improvements faggot, the American department of defense is.

>>329886

>Barrel launched missiles add nothing at all to the vehicle's combat capability

gas yourself if you actually believe this

>>329906

>>329924

This just in! a large metal contraption and carousel is now lighter than a chair!

BMP-1s were notorious at loading the gunner's arm and there have been incidents with soviet tanks loading crew members extremity's in the 6 day war

An auto loader also cannot set fuses on air bursting shells and lacks the ability to change an already chambered round. If an a loader gets injured, the commander or gunner can hop down and load himself. If an auto loader breaks in the heat of battle you are S.O.L.

As for turbines, I said COMBAT effectiveness. When you are cruising along in a convoy the engine eats up a lot of fuel that a diesel would do better at. But when the shells start flying the turbine engine will get your tank flying across the field out of enemy fire or flanking around their position.

Gee I dunno, why did everyone ever stop using main gun/launcher combos? The Russians still retain that feature, but they don't carry any of the munitions around in their tanks. Is it because modern sabots gave the same range with less of the finicky expensive electronics?

>>329924

>>329934

>This just in! a large metal contraption and carousel is now lighter than a chair!

I'm pretty sure that you are literally an IQ 85 nigger if you can't see that a bigger turret is heavier.

>BMP-1s were notorious at loading the gunner's arm and there have been incidents with soviet tanks loading crew members extremity's in the 6 day war

The BMP-1 is not a main battle tank, so even if it has a "misshappened" design, it doesn't mean that, say, the T-90 also has the same problem.

And the 6 days war was fought by semites, not humans, so again, it means nothing.

>An auto loader also cannot set fuses on air bursting shells and lacks the ability to change an already chambered round.

And? It's not like they will go around with a loaded gun, and in the heat of battle they will only have so many different targets.

> If an a loader gets injured, the commander or gunner can hop down and load himself.

And that totally won't fuck up their actual combat capabilities, right?

> If an auto loader breaks in the heat of battle you are S.O.L.

How often do they break?

>As for turbines, I said COMBAT effectiveness. When you are cruising along in a convoy the engine eats up a lot of fuel that a diesel would do better at. But when the shells start flying the turbine engine will get your tank flying across the field out of enemy fire or flanking around their position.

With this logic you could reuse the Porsche Tiger's Diesel-electric drive. Just add some capatitators, charge them up, and fly to the fucking moon.

>Gee I dunno, why did everyone ever stop using main gun/launcher combos?

Maybe it's more expensive, so corrupt politicians get more shekels?

>>329934

>As for turbines, I said COMBAT effectiveness. When you are cruising along in a convoy the engine eats up a lot of fuel that a diesel would do better at.

You still seem to fundamentally misunderstand the difference between gas/multifuel turbines, diesel turbines, turbocharged diesel piston engines and naturally aspirated diesel piston engines

both gas and diesel turbines also drink excessive amounts of fuel while diesel piston engines (both turbo and NA) have very low idle fuel usage

>But when the shells start flying the turbine engine will get your tank flying across the field out of enemy fire or flanking around their position.

you can make a diesel turbine, diesel piston engine, or turbodiesel piston engine make just as much power but it will typically be larger

>Gee I dunno, why did everyone ever stop using main gun/launcher combos?

everybody is except NATO

>Is it because modern sabots gave the same range with less of the finicky expensive electronics?

Russia does not export any of its modern Tungsten or DU APFSDS ammo nor do any other major military other than India/Pakistan face a significant chance of fighting other modern armor and would just need tanks for lobbing HE/HEAT rounds at insurgents.

>>329940

Air burst shells are used to engage low flying aircraft along with other pretty important things.

An injured loader is going to mess up the crew more than a broken auto loader because an auto loader keeps all its rounds in the floor. Not exactly in arms reach for anyone in the tank.

>Porsche tiger drive-train

You are comparing two completely different concepts and if your godlike slavic overlords tried the same thing you would say the Abrams is bad for not having one of those.

>>329948

>>329944

The Russians also quit carrying around missiles in their tanks. This is because they most likely did not work just like the Shillelagh missiles. You only hear that they stopped using them with no explanation because Russia has a thing for hiding problems.

>you can make a diesel turbine, diesel piston engine, or turbo-diesel piston engine make just as much power but it will typically be larger

So now having a bigger heavier engine is totally ok but a turret is completely haram?

Also, a loader gives you one extra set of eyes to have on the field. Situational awareness is key.

>>329991

>The Russians also quit carrying around missiles in their tanks.

9M119Ms are still issued

>You only hear that they stopped using them with no explanation because Russia has a thing for hiding problems.

sounds like made up bullshit, source

>So now having a bigger heavier engine is totally ok but a turret is completely haram?

you don't need a bigger and heavier engine to make more power if you have less weight, and the size/weight difference is much smaller from going to a piston engine as opposed to turbine whereas adding an extra crew member greatly increases size and weight from all the extra armor needed

the other main problem with turbines is that they require far more frequent maintenance, even piston engines that make the same power require less maintenance and even if you can compensate for a turbine with logistics still provides a drawback

>>329991

>an auto loader keeps all its rounds in the floor.

You live in an alternate reality where bustle autoloaders don't exist?

Also, yes, the carousel in Russian tanks is easily accesible to the crew, on top of the spare ammunition stowed outside of it.

You don't know what you are talking about.

>The Russians also quit carrying around missiles in their tanks

I'd like a source on that, especially one that states the Russians aren't carrying them in Syria.

>This is because they most likely did not work just like the Shillelagh missiles.

Empty conjecture.

>Also, a loader gives you one extra set of eyes to have on the field. Situational awareness is key.

If the extra SA obtained by a meat-loader was so highly valued he'd be given independant, stabilized sights and would be able to feed targets to the gunner the same way the commander does.

>>329934

>BMP-1s were notorious at loading the gunner's arm

Because the BMP-1 autoloader tightly encircles the gunner and is fully exposed to the crew as well, have you ever even seen the inside of a BMP? No one is talking about or defending the BMP-1.

>An auto loader also cannot set fuses on air bursting shells

Are you retarded? It can launch missiles.

>As for turbines, I said COMBAT effectiveness.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that a turbine engine is more powerful or something. This isn't the case.

>Gee I dunno, why did everyone ever stop using main gun/launcher combos?

No one except Americans stopped using it. Because Americans didn't know how to do it right, they gave up. Right now, after Russians and Jews showed Americans it can be done properly, Americans are considering putting it in M1A3 model Abrams.

>>329991

>Air burst shells are used to engage low flying aircraft along with other pretty important things.

THEY FIRE MISSILES YOU RETARD

>The Russians also quit carrying around missiles in their tanks.

No they fucking didn't, they're constantly coming out with improvements and new systems.

>So now having a bigger heavier engine is totally ok but a turret is completely haram?

Because the piston engine is maybe 250-300kg heavier, whereas your turret design ends up with a tank 15-20 tons heavier.

> the Russians stopped carrying bore fired missiles

the Russians always carry bore fired missiles and they work really really well.

fixed that for you. now stop saying dumb shit about shit that you don't know fucking shit about

>>330334

gr8 thoughts internet blowhard, but every tanker I know wants the fourth man. changing tracks is a bitch, people have to pull security, eyes looking another direction.

even considered, the worst drawback of the autoloader is STILL speed. even the Armata is listing the T72 loading speed of 10-12 rounds per minute, an Abrams crew is going to make 2 shots in the time of their first. that's huge in a tank engagement.

it's too much of a gas guzzler for my liking

>>330345

>loading rounds faster than an autoloader in a tank moving through the cross-country environment

smh tbh fam

>>329151

look at how fucking mad this kid is holy fuck you guys are so fucking immature, you can't even handle the fucking banter for shit. the only MBT in the entire world with any real combat experience is the abrams everyone else is just a fucking showpiece for parades so of course they are "better", mostly because they have never been exposed to conditions where their flaws come out

>>330345

>>330345

>even the Armata is listing the T72 loading speed of 10-12 rounds per minute, an Abrams crew is going to make 2 shots in the time of their first. that's huge in a tank engagement.

If the Armata gets the 152mm cannon, and they load it with nuclear shells, then that will be fast enough.

honestly, comparing t-72 to abrams is like comparing apples and oranges, they are so different from design and doctrinal standpoint.

also everyone knows that the best tank is Merkava

>>330345

Because for some retarded disciplinary reason only the four crew works on most maintenance tasks.

Russians have accompanying vehicles and desantniks helping them with maintenance.

And again they don't have to do filter cleaning every 3-4 hours, or do tread replacement as often because the tank is not overloaded.

Vid related the greatest advance in Abrams engineering.

Meanwhile Russians use a stick.

Also

>an Abrams crew is going to make 2 shots in the time of their first

Sauce that Abrams can reload in 2.5 seconds.

Every vid I've seen takes 5-6 seconds with no interference.

>>330810

>>330334

>unironically being a slavaboo

>shilling this hard for slavic armor

daily reminder that out of all modern main battle tanks the only one that has been used in the field in actually large numbers is the abrams. unlike other countries the americans have an "open" media, which is of course why half of you faggots can even meme without being thrown in prison, our media often releases the shortcomings of our vehicles whereas the other states often lie in excess about the failures of their vehicles as the other anon pointed out with the slavic shelleigah style missile systems which we never see used today but never heard about how shit they were. it might cause you some fucking butthurt but out of all the MBTs out there today the clear leader is the abrams, its the only one that can be fielded in large numbers, its the only one that is supported logistically to the point where it is essentially cutting edge, its also the only one as mentioned before has seen large amounts of action and been successful. sure some americans ITT are shitposting but everyone does that, its just very interesting how mad everyone gets at american shitposting. this entire thread is a classic example of an inferiority complex

>>331074

No one is shilling slavic armor retard, people are merely responding to abrams shills attacking soviet weapons for some reason.

If you start attacking Chally, Leopard or Leclerc, I'm going to give you a piece of my mind and explain to you just as patiently why you're wrong in their case.

God save this board from 12 year old call of duty kiddies who just discovered jingoism.

>>323902

Great in killing escaping people stuck on highway.

>>323896

Weren't the Iraqi tanks basically full-size homemade toy tanks? As I understand the Iraquis made copies of the T-72, but out of soft steel, and stuff like that.

>>333529

They had less than half a dozen actual T-72s from Russia, and they took those apart for parts. All of the rest were built in an repurposed car manufacture factory constructed by Germany. These local shitheapps were termed T-72 Saddam and T-72 Assad Babil.

They used milder steel for structural and armor elements.

Instead of composite armor they used concrete or just left the voids empty.

Their barrels were capable of less pressure.

Their ammunition was local production of inferior loadings, which fucked with accuracy.

They couldn't afford an FCS so they used WWII tank sights, which fucked with accuracy more.

There was no barrel stabilization system so they had to stop to shoot, making maneuver combat impossible.

Their APFSDS were stainless steel with the occasional tungsten round. The steel rounds would embed in American Abrams armor like hedgehog spikes, which led Americans to think they're invincible.

Their infrared system was WWII-tier infrared lamps which made them stick out like a sore thumb on western night vision.

There were numerous other deficiencies, such as their tracks missing shoes or grousers, not having NBC systems, lacking suspensions, and so on.

I think a WWII Wermecht panzergruppe of Panthers could have punched through them with very few losses.

Meanwhile compare it with export model Abrams in Iraq and Afganistan.

They have functional suspensions, engines, have composite armor only lacking the dU mesh (which Chally, Lepard and Leclerc also lack), have modern full pressure carefully calibrated tank rounds built in Germany, fire from full pressure guns, have western fire control systems, barrel stabilization and so on. And some Americans still try to tell me these are "monkey models". It's not close to the level of monkeyism as the Saddam and Assad Babil tanks.

>>333540

This, Iraqi T-72s were inferior to even monkey models and were primarily a propaganda/morale tool since they were the newest tanks in the Iraqi arsenal at that point

Iraqi T-55 Enigmas on the other hand were one of the better T-55 variants and consistently outperformed most other Iraqi tanks in combat and were superior to the Asad Babil in every way except fire rate.