The last thread was contracted out
Pesante Pasta Edition
> What's this thread about?
As usual this thread is for the discussion and pics of tracked and wheeled AFVs of all kinds from MBTs to supertanks to self propelled AA guns. Please keep it civil and cite sources for statistics.
Indubitably, the Italian Army had a certain penchant for the applications of light armoured vehicles in warfare, Italy being one of the first nations prior to the Great War to express an interest in the development of armoured cars with the Isotta-Fraschini Tippo RM. However, possibly due to the theatre of operations in WWI being limited to mountainous terrain, tanks never became ingrained in the military mindset of the Italians after the war. By WWII, Italy had still clung onto limited fleets of light tanks, tankettes and mediums to form the bulk of their armoured hitting power. In spite of this, Italy did produce a single model frontline heavy classified tank, the 26 tonne Carro Pesante P26/40. The tank is notable for existing by way of Mussolini’s direct order for the P40 to be produced in 1940, an order fulfilled by the firm Ansaldo. The initial order was pegged at 500 tanks after acceptance in May 1942, and this sum was later doubled after the design was perceived to be a useful asset. Unfortunately, only 21 would be completed before Italy’s capitulation in the war and these few completed tanks were commandeered by German forces, but would see comparatively little action. The tools and schematics were also taken custody of by German designers, who would then create another 100 or so before the war’s end. Issues were rife throughout its life: poor armour thickness (60 mm LOS) exacerbated by riveted joints, no proven engine and anaemic mobility as a result. Potential upgunning and armouring was considered, but never got off the drawing board.
> Gun
Rifled 75 mm L/34
> Dimensions (l w h)
5.82 x 2.8 x 2.52 m
> Weight
26 tonnes
> Engine
275hp diesel
> Speed
35 km/h
>>27808467
OP: As always, feedback, suggestions wanted and appreciated.
Another heavy tank, this time from the Italians, although it was a bit of a lightweight compared to its contemporaries. About the lack of a designated engine for the design, it was so improperly managed that a significant portion of the tanks went without engines for the rest of the war and consequently spent their lives as immobile pillboxes.
The upgrades that were planned included a longer barreled 75 or a 90, and improved armour to 80 mm, including a possible shift to welds for improved protection, dubbed the P43, while bis version was planned to sport a better engine. Another prototype that did get a pilot was the Semovente 149/40, a self-propelled artillery piece. It did not fare well in trials, but interestingly enough, it ended up at Aberdeen for American evaluation after the war.
As always, enjoy the thread, and if you have any questions, shoot away.
>>27808474
More tank news, as per the new format.
If you have more queries regarding a news story, just point it out, and I’ll further elaborate and provide links.
The government of Lithuania has requested a deal with the US for 84 Stryker 8x8 Armored Personnel Carriers, in a potential buy estimated to be worth $599 million USD. The Strykers are also supposed to come with 30 mm cannons and Remote Weapon Systems, either European sourced or US manufactured to fulfil local IFV requirements.
The US Army has also exercised an option with defence conglomerate BAe Systems for more M109A7 Paladin Self Propelled Artillery vehicles, the latest in a string of deals which is expected to be finalised with this move. The Paladin, which had been in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP), began being delivered to the Army back in April 2015.
After much deliberation, Thailand and Ukraine may be close to an agreement for Thailand to license produce Ukrainian designed BTR-3E1 APCs. The Thai Army had ordered 220 BTR-3E1s in the past, which are currently being produced via the Ukrainian Kharkov Morozov Machine Design Bureau, also the producer of T-84 Oplot tanks, another AFV the Thai Army has purchased in the past.
Thursday also marked the conclusion of the final phase of the monumentally large scale NATO run exercise Trident Juncture, involving men, materiel and AFVs from every single NATO partner, and non-participant nations such as Australia and Austria.
And that’s all for now.
>>27808479
>The government of Lithuania has requested a deal with the US for 84 Stryker 8x8 Armored Personnel Carriers, in a potential buy estimated to be worth $599 million USD. The Strykers are also supposed to come with 30 mm cannons and Remote Weapon Systems, either European sourced or US manufactured to fulfil local IFV requirements.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/lithuania-m-1126-stryker-infantry-carrier-vehicles-icv-30mm-cannon-and-m2-machine
This is the first export (potential) of Strykers themselves and not the main LAV family. It is also noteworthy that they will have a pintle mounted M2, a confirmation of what that one anon said.
>>27808474
i usually just lurk these threads, since i am mostly a planefag, but holy shit what is that massive thing in the background? reverse search only gives me the little italian thing
>>27808569
I would have capped more of the things he said had there been a warning the archive would go poof.
On a different day he mentioned that the M1127's getting the RWS, when fit with Javelins, had two and no gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LHtr2__EIw
according to this video
Russian are sending surplus T-72B1 to Syria, to replace destroyed SAA T72A/AV/M1
>>27808600
Wood mockups of Jagdtigers and Jagdpanthers.
>>27808600
Jagdtiger. Late war German super heavy tank destroyer built on the Tiger II's chassis. Most of them were abandoned by rookie crews panicking at the idea of an air attack, or because they got stuck or out of fuel.
>>27808474
Italy had plenty of smart people to design tanks, but their industry was set up and run in such a fucktarded way everything took too long to develop and production speed was hampered.
>>27808631
>>27808673
so, i did a bit of looking up, and i just dont know why the fuck this thing was even built. its heavier than a god damn king tiger, wich wasnt really known for its agility or reliability. and its much bigger and heavier than the TD on the panther chassis. what was the purpose of the 128(!) mm gun? what did it do that the long 88 didnt?
not saying its noot cool as fuck, because it is
>>27808698
What's that, oh good anon?
It doesn't look like the standard AT version. Is that an autocannon?
Saw a convoy of Strykers on my across Snoqualmie Pass earlier today. I would have taken some pictures but I was heading east at an undisclosed speed and it was already dark.
I imagine they were going from Yakima to Fort Lewis, how often do they do that sort of thing?
>>27808785
The long and short of it is, it depends. I saw a train load of Bradleys and Humvees at one point in Virginia.
Sup, /k/. /tg/ here.
I'm working on a game that heavily features armored vehicles, and I've hit a bit of a roadblock. Most weapons in this game have you rolling a number of dice equal to the relevant stat, then comparing it to the weapon's to-hit stat. For example, you fire a cannon, your Stability stat is 7, so you roll 7 twelve sided dice. The cannon's Accuracy is 9, so you need a 9 or better to hit, and you get lucky and score 4 hits. The cannon has a Rate of Fire of 3, so you can only get three hits max. The cannon's Damage is 2, so it deals 2 damage per hit.
Now, somewhere in here, your target gets to roll his Armor check. Armor checks will work essentially the same way as attacks do; you roll a number of dice equal to your Armor, trying to roll equal to or higher than your Armor's Hardness.
My question is, should succeeding on an Armor check deflect Hits or Damage? Thematically, succeeding on an Armor check represents the shell bouncing off the mech's armor entirely, but if you make Armor deflect hits, you encourage nothing but spamming lots of high ROF guns that will get a lot of little hits. By the same token, if you make armor deflect damage, you'll encourage spamming lots of low ROF guns that deal lots of damage with each hit.
So I need some sort of middle ground; does anyone have any ideas?
I might go for making it deflect damage to encourage lots of big guns simply because that's what actually happened...
How vulnerable was the ammunition storage in Western tanks before blow-off panels became a thing in the Leopard 2/Challenger/M1 Abrams?
I've been reading about Soviet tanks and in many Cold War analysis reports I often see them report that the T-64/72/80 autoloader mechanisms are less vulnerable to ammunition cook-off as the autoloader carousel sat very low in the hull.
But the Soviets used combustible propellant bags as part of their two-piece ammunition, compare this to Western 105mm ammunition which used complete shells, and I start getting confused.
In most other /k/ threads talking about tanks, I hear the usual "lol Russian tanks immediately blow up because the autoloader is shit, muh blowoff panels!" and can't get a proper answer to my questions.
So instead of working on the IFV like I should, I've been reworking the tan/k/
>>27808718
Germans wanted to make sure they stayed ahead of the curve, and looking at what America, Britain, and the Soviets had ready to go near the end of the war it's hard to blame them. They just weren't really efficient about it ironically. As for the 128mm it was supposed to retain much better long-range performance than the 88mm.
>>27809205
In the Challenger at least, the L14 propellant system means that the explosive component is kept safely sealed away while the nonexplosive part is kept in the turret inert.
>>27809077
Deflect damage, it also reflects the reality of a situation where there is only a partial penetration with sabots.
Germans wanted to make their Panther and Abrams rip off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_101
Planning to put a turboshaft in the tank giving it an enormous hp/ton ratio.
Increased fuel consumption, but turbines have the advantage that they run on anything combustible.
>>27809373
seems like it was too ahead of its time
>>27809224
Holy shit, I only now just realized that the tan/k/ from a lateral view looks like a fucking relikt garnished pancake.
Sup zipperheads, I'm planning a trip to Kubinka for June 23rd 2016. If this thread is still around by then would you guys like pictures of all that glorious armour?
>>27809570
Yes, yes please do post
>>27809601
Will do, just trying to find a flight that ISN'T over 2,000$
>>27809570
Requesting pics of the Stalins at Kubinka.
>>27809570
yes, please focus on the modern prototype
Hey guys, I know it's not a real tank but this has been bothering me for years, I've been looking for this plastic model
It goes by the names of:
panther 3a
schwarzwulf
e79
It's originally from a game called Panzer Front which was kick ass for its time.
I want a model tank of this to paint up but I've never had any luck finding a supplier.
>>27809777
*schwarzwolf
>>27809777
That picture is spooky as fuck.
>>27809777
dat sloping
unf
>>27808569
The UK has been eying Strykers recently.
>>27809224
Who needs gun depression anyway?
>>27808467
>Tippo
Tipo*
It's literally "Type"
Also
>pesante pasta
it's the other way around - Pasta pesante
>sorry for being anal but I had to
>>27810076
>hydropneumatic suspension
>>27809777
Go to /toy/ and post in the scale model thread. It's almost all War Vehicles, primarily tanks.
>>27808718
>what was the purpose of the 128(!) mm gun? what did it do that the long 88 didnt?
Throw a much larger and more effective HE round.
>>27808718
Germany R&D suffered from stupid useless competition to gain Hitler's favours and thus fundings. This meant they kept shitting out new projects and they all got funding if Hitler took a liking to them.
Hitler liked big guns and heavy armor, so yeah that's how it came into being, also the Ferdinand/Elefant... and many other projects. The airforce suffered particularly from this: Hitler and friends really loved Messerschmitt A LOT to the point of funding every whim and new bullshit idea they came up with, which postponed the service of the Fw-190 by precious months. Was the german R&D smarter, the Fw-190 would have been flying operationally by late 1939, allowing it to be in front line service for the start of the battle of britain, which might have really changed things.
>>27810103
That's awesome. How often does it break?
>>27810369
one a month
but she is fine after that day
>>27810130
The 109 was still a great plane, even if it suffered from being an antiquated light fighter design.
It was a very cheap and simple aircraft, even the landing gear was done so that you could remove the wings without having the support the plane.
The Panzer IV was even more antiquated than the 109, the leaf spring suspension harmed it greatly.
The Panzer 3 carried weight much better than the IV thanks to its torsion bar, the IV was too nose heavy and the leaf springs didn't like that. But the IIIs turret ring was too small for the long 75 so that ends that.
Soviets thought that the 109 was more fearsome than the 190 but on the West front it seemed the opposite.
>the Fw-190 would have been flying operationally by late 1939, allowing it to be in front line service for the start of the battle of britain, which might have really changed things.
Might, but I think the biggest problem with the 109 was that it simply didn't have the operational range to effectively battle over Britain. And the 190 had just as little range.
In the end I hope we can all agree that the Ho-5 was the best aircraft cannon of the war.
Essentially just an M2 Browning but modified to fire a shortened Hispano cartridge, only problem is that during the war Japan lost the ability to produce high strength alloys which meant they had to limit the muzzle velocity of their Ho-5 cannon.
Initially the muzzle velocity was 820 m/s which later dropped by around 100m/s or so.
Japan liked to copy the Browning, their Ho-103 was a lighter Browning with a higher rate of fire firing a slightly smaller cartridge.
And the Type 3 was also an M2 Browning firing the slightly larger Hotchkiss rounds.
>>27810441
for best aircraft cannon, i'd say the hispano
>>27808616
>Russian are sending surplus T-72B1 to Syria, to replace destroyed SAA T72A/AV/M1
That's a really big boost to the syrian tank force.
The T-72B1 with kontakt 1 will be a big force be considerd.
>>27809205
>How vulnerable was the ammunition storage in Western tanks before blow-off panels became a thing in the Leopard 2/Challenger/M1 Abrams?
Pretty vulnerable.
>>27810729
They will still be vulnerable to dual warhead ATGM, but it will help replace those raggedy looking ones you always see from ANNA footage
>>27810729
Syria already have T-72AV or T-72M1 upgrade with kontakt 1, done by Ukraine
the B1 main advantage over SAA current tank is frontal armor and gunner sight
>>27810758
But it still has much better protection against dual warhead simply because it has better base armor then the T-72AV and T-72M1
>>27810760
Yeah with other few things like commanders sight and maybe better gun stabilizer and gun barrel.
Also there are 3 different armor layot on the T-72B depending on the production year.
>>27808852
holy shit, can i get some more info on this.
>>27810729
interesting pic, a T-72B with K-1 ERA but have T-90 track
after a little research, it is accually a early T-72BA, an upgrade pack from the 1999 not 1987
>>27810791
>T-72BA
>>27810822
Woops I ment
what do you mean T-72BA?
>>27810834
look at the track, they are T-90 track
>T-72BA (the object 184A) \ T 72BA1 (object 184A1). The emergence of this option - a consequence of the modernization undertaken during the overhaul of the T-72B at Uralvagonzavod. The first batch of upgraded machines were put back in 1999-2000. Modernization involves improvements to the level of the most advanced T-72B Release 1991 MSA 1A40-1 (1A40-1M later, and since 2005 - 1A40-M2), install new stabilizer arms 2E42-4 "Jasmine", increased resistance to mine the bottom additional armor plate near the driver's seat, replacement of chassis and engine on those used in the first series of T-90 (sample 1993 engine B-84MS), or T-90A (from 2003 - B 92S2) and installation of explosive reactive armor "Kontakt-5" (the first series of T-72BA partially preserved "Contact-1" [source not specified 272 days]). Modernized thus machine got the name T-72BA and BA1. In addition to the tracks and the ERA, the car looks from the normal modification "B" features a well-marked on the tower of a wind sensor, installation of which will improve the sighting equipment tank.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-72
>>27810853
Well shieeet.
What kind of T-72B's do you think the russians are giving the Syrians? Oldest one in storage or a mix of newer and older models?
>>27810869
probably old tank
thing like the B3 is not something they would giving away for free
>>27810895
>thing like the B3 is not something they would giving away for free
Well they did it in Ukraine.
But then again, how much of a game changer would a T-72B in the SAA be? I dont think it would be a significant game changer unless they improve their doctrine and tactics.
>>27810691
The early Hispano certainly not.
And even the Mk V was still a fairly heavy gun
>>27810917
Russian give T-64BV, T-72B1 and T-72B 1989 for free to Ukraine Rebel
that T-72B3 and T-90A we have seen were from regular Russian force
>But then again, how much of a game changer would a T-72B in the SAA be?
SAA have lose haft of their tanks since the war start. so SAA really need new AFV, especially new tank
but they aren't game changer cause SAA have virtually no airforce, no CAS whatsoever
and reliance on Russian for CAS isn't that good. Yesterday they was fucked in Morek without any CAS
>>27808467
Stupid question I'm sure but...
His do tanks slow down, what type of mechanism do they use for breaks?
Do they have an upscaled disc brake on the 'drive wheel'(or whatever the name is for a tank) or does it really on engine braking
>>27811421
Hydraulic actuating brakes with external braking pads, usually.
>>27811421
Tonk is stronk
Tonk no need breaks
Tonk breaks whatevers in tonks path
Tonk is stronk
>>27811008
Dont exactly help that the SAA is completely shit with armor as well
So I have a an idea for a project, I have an old 250cc Honda motor from an ATV and I am drawing up plans for a tracked single person vehicle. This is a shits-n-giggles project I'm still in the feasibility stage.
Do you gentlemen have any good resource of tread/track design specifically?
Is there any performance difference between front drive and rear driven tracks?
My current idea is to connect the engine to a converter and then just have 2 separate electric motors, one for each track. I am leaning towards this design layout for simplicity, no insanely complex transmissions just a semi complex wiring harness.
If this isn't /k/ enough please tell me to fuck off.
Guys, what tanks influenced the Leopard 1 design?
And did the Leopard 2 sort of start of as an uparmored Leopard 1 with 120mm L44 Rheinmetall gun?
>>27811855
>Guys, what tanks influenced the Leopard 1 design?
T-54
>And did the Leopard 2 sort of start of as an uparmored Leopard 1 with 120mm L44 Rheinmetall gun?
nope, the Kampfpanzer 70
>>27811885
>Guys, what tanks influenced the Leopard 1 design?
By design, most likely the American Patton tanks
Suspension is really similar, and I heard the transmission is really similar
>>27811932
meant to quote
>>27811855
>>27808609
Wait a second, there's a line I completely missed the first time around that actually has huge implications.
>19Ds have been manning the STRYKER ATGM... That will move to battalion level as well.
If y'all don't understand this, it's huge. Before, there was only a single company of ATGM vehicles in the entire brigade, and that single company was a brigade level asset. Now they're moving the ATGM vehicles down to a battalion level asset. This is big. I can only assume it'd be a platoon per battalion, so the numbers of the force wouldn't change, but this is a big step towards properly integrating antitank power into the Stryker Infantry Battalion.
>>27812243
Read the line for yourself. It's almost certainly referring to the M1134 TOW vehicle, not the Javelin RWS.
>>27812038
>>27812296
I wonder if it means the AT company is being changed to a rifle company and the MGS Strykers are being distributed along with the TOW Strykers.
>>27812379
I have no clue what you are saying. The AT company is attached directly to the brigade at the highest level. If you switch it over to infantry, you're just having an infantry company attached to the brigade. It doesn't make any sense.
The Stryker MGS is already distributed. There's a platoon of three of them at the company level. That means that there's 9 of them in a given battalion. 27 in a brigade.
What he's saying is that these assets will go down to battalion level, or at least that there will be M1134s at battalion level. I can only assume that it's a platoon of 3 vehicles in a given battalion, with 9 in the entire brigade.
>>27812428
My mistake, I was under the impression that MGS were in the same company as TOW.
>>27809605
Try to find one that doesn't blow up also
If the Army resurrects this puppy, what new armament will they give it?
>>27811696
What will you arm it with?
>>27812567
Probably 120mm L/44
>>27812567
They might give it a 120, they might keep it with a 105.
>>27812523
Nah, and that's the beauty of it. There's three of them in every single infantry company. That is part of what makes the SBCT such a capable combatant- it's got combined arms all the way at the company level. You've got heavy direct fire from the MGS platoon, indirect fire from the mortar section (who could be firing 120mm mortars), the precision fires of a sniper section, as well as a full infantry company, with a very capable AT weapon in the form of the Javelin in every squad. This doesn't mention the massive supporting fires given through the ICVs themselves. Even today, the SBCT is very capable, to say nothing of when they get the 30mms.
>>27812661
Oh, that's one more thing. When talking about any weapon system, you have to talk about organization. What is the context of its use?
>>27812661
>Even today, the SBCT is very capable
except when it comes to love
So a friend showed me that tank gril animu. So I made this.
http://www.youdubber.com/index.php?video=wOAQyuiYQ8k&video_start=33&audio=8fvhZxYJopk&audio_start=0
>>27810431
fucking kek
>>27810789
used by kids at youth camps as a sort of children's sport. Apparently they'd mock battle drills and shit. Naturally, the actual purpose was to train future tankers
don't ask me for more references of details; this is all I know
>>27811696
>>27812590
Arm with 9mm
>>27813095
Alright, who is the /k/ommando who built this?
>>27811855
>And did the Leopard 2 sort of start of as an uparmored Leopard 1 with 120mm L44 Rheinmetall gun?
It started with a conventional steel hull with a better ballistic shape, a 105 mm smoothbore gun, a V12 version of the Leopard 1's V10 and what would become the Leopard 1A3 welded turret (spaced armor).
>>27812590
at first unarmed to test feasibility, after first sucessful test drives who knows what I'll mount on there
>>27812683
If we are talking MFP, air transportable and capable of operating away from supply lines for 24 hours and a gun big enough to take out bunkers and fortified positions (things a IBCT would have to call in an airstrike for).
>>27808479
>ukrainian btrs
https://militarytechcooperations.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/iraq-refused-to-accept-the-rejected-ukrainian-btr-4/
>>27813369
Given that Iraq had BTR-4's for ISIS to capture, your link is punk journalism.
>>27813315
Civil Protection Servicesinc. PAV badger. They wanted to sell them to swat teams a few years ago before all the milsurp flooded the market.
>>27813351
I would hesitate in saying able to take out bunkers, most modern bunker fortifications are pretty comprehensively sturdy.
>>27810822
>that collection
I need it
>>27809458
The Tiger I by Porsche was also designed around individual electric drives. This would remove the need for a gearbox and theoretically an electric engine is a lot more reliable than a diesel or gasoline one.
However the engine were not mature enough yet and did not provide enough power.
>>27812567
Keep in mind with band tracks and a new motor (since the one it has is long out of production), the open some options to tweak the design.
>>27810103
But you still cannot shot on the move...
>>27814123
Pretty sure there are many tanks employing hydro suspension that shoot on the move. Case in point: Type 10 and K2.
>Comparing U.S. Army Systems with Foreign Counterparts
>http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR716/RAND_RR716.pdf
There are so many technical errors it feels like reading something from Blacktail, and yet its from RAND.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOldG_ztdq4
>>27814624
It's not technically original RAND research either, but a general aggregate of a very diverse range of sources, including the ever dependable IHS Jane's, various news and journal articles, official US unclassified documents and somewhat disturbingly, information gleaned from speculator sites and blogs, including a Chinese defence speculator site IIRC.
I decided at some point to include it in the Dropbox when it came out, but do take it with a pouch of salt.
>>27813351
>>27813857
>Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) lack the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) capability necessary to defeat enemy prepared positions, destroy enemy armored vehicles, close with the enemy through fire and maneuver, and ensure freedom of maneuver and action in close contact with the enemy. IBCTs require protected, long range, precision direct fire capability to defeat enemy prepared positions, bunkers and armor threats in order to ensure freedom of movement and action during offensive operations or defeat attacking enemy during defensive operations. Without MPF, IBCTs that confront defending enemies in restrictive or urban terrain often have no option but to transition to defense and apply overwhelming indirect fire or air support.
>>27812567
>>27812590
Cockerill 3000 series unmanned turret, the question being which gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WcJBY6_FA8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_vL88K0dU0
>>27814855
To be fair, the idea of unsupported IBCTs even with MPF assets assaulting enemy positions is a potentially dangerous one. With the level of communication and inteoperability between units the US has calling in indirect fire and air support is pretty okay for the most part, although I can definitely see where they're coming from.
>>27815237
Speaking of Cockerill, apparently they make their Falarick GLATGM in a 90mm compatible form as well as 105/120mm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz5Ecpcajc
>>27815494
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTGM1n8CYyQ
T-72 autoloader in action.
>>27812958
Damn, thats cool af. if only the actual boy scouts could have been as cool as this.
>>27815910
that tank isn't going to pass inspection
~__~
>>27816068
Anan plz
>does it shoot?
'da!'
>GOOD TO GO
>>27814687
Having finished reading it, I more or less agree with their assessments.
Just don't quote it on specific numbers without double checking.
>>27811932
>>27811885
I thought the conception of the leopard 1 was to counter the T-62
>>27814624
>Democracy painted on to the barrel of the gun
oh the ironing
>>27815910
That looks like so much fun
Maybe one day I could own a T-72
Thailand's Oplot-M tanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9MDrrdoTJo
>>27812538
Kek I'm sure Putin won't kill an expat :^)
>>27809685
I'll get those, I'm thinking of taking a good camera with me, since I'm sure my phone isn't good enough.
>>27816457
If you are buying it with the intention of it being your primary MBT for 20 or so years, and being in service for up to 40 years
Is the Oplot-M a good buy?
>>27816569
Depends on what you are fighting
>>27816569
Good, bit uncertain quality control if the rumours about the cracked armour in Thai ones are true.
>>27815910
This is the most slavic vid I've seen this week, and that guy looks more Central Asian than slav anyway.
>>27816569
nope, buy something Russian instead
>>27815237
>unmanned turret
Lol
>>27814640
This is the most perfect armament presentation I've ever seen. It's like sitting in a theater.
Damn those Krauts, why do they have to be so well organized.
Earlier this week, the Paras that were stationed with us were replaced by Golani, and they brought their Namers with them.
>>27817327
>>27817327
They let you crawl around in them? How spacious is the passenger compartment? Do you like it?
>>27817364
I tried to find an open one to get into, but they were all closed. I'm sure they let me check one out if I'll ask nicely.
>>27816457
T-84 of Thailand is no patch for PT-91M of Malaysia. T-84 was evaluated by Malaysian Armed Forces in the 90s but rejected.
>>27817327
Merkava 4 is a piece of shit that no one other than Pissrael uses
>>27817384
Thanks! I find little facts about crew comfort to be very interesting.
>>27817493
>>27817506
here is your reply
>>27817506
No need to be so salty, buddy. Here is another pic of your favorite tank.
>>27817541
>not on fire
impressive
>>27817541
I gotta ask, what's the doctrine with your M113s? You keep them out of harms way at all costs, or do you use them to provide supporting fire when required. Tanks leading?
>>27817493
implying Malaysia have ever fought a war
implying there will be a land battle in SEA in the next 100 years
>>27817573
They barely see any frontline action anymore, and are used more as a utility vehicles.
>>27817562
Hello OP, strange, you don't sound nearly as likeable, intelligent or well formatted as /thg/ guy.
>>27817652
Aren't they still used as ambulances in potentially dangerous situations? At least until Namers start being more common.
Hey Merkgunner, if you had one complaint about the Merk, or at least one feature you want added, what would that be?
>>27817384
How are relations between the branches and different arms in Israel?
>>27813444
Not him, but there's alternate reliable sources.
The Iraqis already accepted a batch, but the next batch had quality control issues. The Thais experienced the same problems with their BTR-3s.
>>27818162
You can't exactly fault the Ukranians for lacking QC. They're hardly in the optimum situation to provide it, and they want to pump them out much faster.
>>27808718
If you look at the specs on IS-3 you will understand. The long 88 is barely adequate at 800 meters.
>>27810729
When I read how the kotak1 system werk, I inmediately wondered, do all ATGMs work the same? With a flare on the back?
>>27811696
> tread design
there are engineering books for heavy machine engineering classes that you can use
> front vs rear drive
it only matters in terms of internal layout. no performance diff whatsoever
> electric final drive
very good idea
look into cannibalizing something like picrelated for the automotive components
to my mind, you should either do a TD-like design with a big recoilless gun with no traverse, or an IFV design with a RWS (probably your best bet)
google cardboard, el cheapo webcams plus some software will give you a glass cockpit
outfit the RWS with an old DSLR as a "gun scope" of course of course. remember to rip off the IR filter...
>>27818166
It's interesting how the semi official strategy was to meep exporting high end stuff like the Oplot and retrofit the technology while also keeping older, cheaper tanks in action.
>>27818365
Use what you know, I guess.
>>27818185
I would say that all ATGMs have a flare or something in the back end of the missile so the operator can keep track of where it is.
Even older Manual Command Line of Sight missiles had it. If someone knows of an example that doesn't use this I would love to know too.
>>27817980
Barely. Most CasEvacs during Protective Edge were carried out by Namers and Achzarits.
>>27817987
Don't really have any complaints. I guess having a BV like on the CR2 would be nice.
>>27818146
Depends. Usually the relations between us tankies and grunts are pretty good. They love having us around. Artillery for example hate our guts for some reason.
China's experimental tanks.
1226F2. Based on western designs but hull still looks like T-54
122-4
wz-131 prototype
Online chinese saying "Scary when afar, 5 road wheels when near"
>>27818602
>Artillery for example hate our guts for some reason.
Probably annoyed that tankers get to keep their eardrums intact.
>>27818620
Starting to see where the whole frontal wedge appliques came from.
>>27808852
I want one.
>>27818845
the 122 series were 80's prototypes.
I like to believe the Leo2A5 inspired the shape on the Type 99/96A
>>27814503
I think what he means is they can't adjust the suspension to lower the gun and move at the same time at reasonable speed.
Maybe they can, I don't know.
>>27814503
>>27819348
The Type 90 gun elevation ranges to -12° to 15° without relying on the suspensions, which is sufficient to shoot on the move while driving on a bumpy terrain.
The turret is so flat on this /k/oncept art
>>27809224
that the main armament couldn't even be pointed downwards, which makes firing on the move impossible.
>>27820033
To clarify I'm >>27819348 and >>27810076
I was saying that the tan/k/ had no gun depression and that other anon pointed out that because of this it can't shoot on the move.
What I was calling into question is whether or not the Type 90 or any tank with adjustable suspension could move and fire with the suspension adjusted to allow greater gun depression.
>>27815237
>>27815583
So Cockerill could make a Bakhcka U equivalent by pairing a 30x173mm autocannon with their low pressure 90mm gun.
>>27820682
Has anyone actually bought those T-64 and T-80 modernization kits from Ukraine?
>>27822423
Has Ukraine even offered them for export?
>>27822500
Well they are on the products page of the KMDB website.
>>27821348
How clean are the images coming out of those optics in the BMP-3 compared to say the Bradley? I feel an important aspect like sight quality is overlooked in discussions.
>>27823288
Speaking of which, the upcoming third gen IFLIR sights for Abrams and Bradley.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/digitalasset/rtn_158818.pdf
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/flir/
which rare tank would you ride?
MBT70 for me. Looks like a sports car desu
>>27820033
It was mentioned in the tan/k/ dessgin thread that the turret could be as low as possible because hydropneumatic suspension allows the tank do depress the gun whichever way
>>27823735
IS-3, it's a piece of shit, but it's a badass looking piece of shit.
>>27823735
The Starship
The world just wasn't pure enough
>>27824143
M103 for pretty much the same reasons.
>>27824384
For me, the T30 for the same reasons.
>>27823503
Holy shit, I haven't laughed this hard in ages
>>27825709
What was it? Mods seem to have deleted it.
>>27826138
Some video with slavs bouncing around in a car but edited in between a T-90 sliding off ramps
>>27814855
>>27826414
>putting a 25mm chaingun on a vehicle that can already mount a 30mm rarden
>>27826463
I see a vehicle with a 76mm gun and a 30mm RWS.
>>27826871
>>27823735
IS-7. Call me a WoT shill or not, but I fucking love the pike-nose aesthetic that the Soviets had going early-Cold War, despite them being as unreliable as the German cat tanks.
If only the IS-7 was proven to be good and we would have seen heavier Soviet MBTs to match the Abrams, Leopard, etc.
>>27826912
>6 machine guns
Being immune to 128mm frontally and sexy af is nice though. Must imagine the designers having a good time planning it.
>>27826912
Might have made the Bongs actually go forward with this thing.
>>27823735
>which rare tank would you ride?
pic related
>>27823735
It is the most cute tank.
>>27812567
>>27812590
A 105mm light recoil howitzer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y042UlZRxEo
he said it CAN not it IS. fucking hell you're retarded
>>27827356
>183mm
Did they really
Are there v-videos?
>>27809777
https://www.volks.co.jp/page_ex.jsp?CONTROLID=SC0040&BUSINESSID=InitDisp&jancd=4518992224350&version=en
Would this be a suitable replacement?
The Panzer Front kits are long out of production. You could always scratch build one..
>>27827727
Yes, yes the bongs did.
>>27827452
Oscillating turrets are dope
>>27827366
This is a cutaway of the Stingray light tank.
>>27828145
>Well, old chap, I happened to own a gun turret from a heavy cruiser that our queen do not need anymore. How do you recon I should use it?
>My friend, I can assure you - there's no better way than put it on this tank chassis of mine.
>What a splendid idea, old chap!
>>27828172
What is that? Looks like an amx-13 with wedge add-on armor?
bamp with tonk
>>27818547
Some SARCLOS missiles use beam-riding, making them practically impervious to jamming.
anyone has more battle scarred tanks?
>>27829188
>140 mm ETC
Muh dick
Australia is apparently going to buy some more Abrams to fill out their three Armored Cavalry Regiments.
>>27817252
Those tanks are in Polish service
>>27831257
The autoloader depicted there is Meggitt's compact autoloader for the current 120mm gun.
https://youtu.be/Xr7TsajOSng?t=3m30s
>>27831209
I thought the initial idea was for Australian tankers to practice operation, maintenance and maneuvers with the tank then hop into US ones in a coalition theater.
After all, a land war in Australia is a pretty remote possibility and it's doubtful that Australia would be willing to lug their MBTs along for an expeditionary force.
>>27831331
We are only talking about an additional dozen or so tanks, apparently Australia doesn't quite have enough to fill out its unit structure.
Australia also has two ships whose purpose is doing things like hauling tanks around.
>>27831384
I know about the Canberra, it can carry 200 tanks or close to that.
>>27831657
It can also carry a metric fuckton of supplies too
>>27833128
Why are the bushes following the jeep?
mig hull is strong
>>27823735
Not actually a tank, but Marder 2. And speaking of not tanks, what kind of penetration do autocannons with APFSDS have? A lot of IFVs for example have no stated armor amounts but say they can resist armor piercing shells from autocannons.
>>27833734
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Ammunition_Data
This is about the best unclassified guesses you will get. Just to note, armoring against 30mm usually means against the 2A42 gun. I don't recall the specific ammunition.
Just a note, modern ammunition makes a huge difference. I estimate that brand spanking new 30mm APFSDS from the 30mm Bushmaster has penetration of 150mm RHAe at 1500 meters at least.
>>27833734
>what kind of penetration do autocannons with APFSDS have?
Good enough to rek anything less than a tank.
>>27833795
>BBC
On slow days you need to make the news yourself.
>>27833823
Sometimes enough to take out older tanks like vanilla T-72s and T-55s.
>>27834583
>yo dawg, I heard you like tanks....
>>27833826
If I see a BBC reporter named Ivan Alekseyev in a helicopter this will be the only thing I think of.
>>27833671
Holy crap. Reverse image is being screwy for me, context?
>>27835457
he's ramping off of it.
>>27809777
>dat infrared
muncheberg
>>27835571
>>27835457
Saddam tried to hide some MiG-25's by burying them during Desert Storm.
>>27811696
If youre using a generator you should have the engine under or next to the driver. Electric motors to a final drive is good because you can just add resistance/ kill power for braking and steering. You can also reverse polarity for reverse. Try and butcher a MTL loader Like a CAT 247 As a chassis to start on. Remove the engine and pumps, loader frame and cab ect..
>>27835757
Surprised he didn't try to use them, MiG-25s can hit hard and fast if used right. Maybe a lack of competent pilots or intact airfields?
>>27835946
IIRC one of the few A2A kills they got was from a MiG-25 shooting down an F-18.
>>27833128
Can't believe the ROKA still use them, even if they're only used as trainers.
>>27836322
Last I heard they were attached to front line mechanized infantry formations and will not be phased out until the K2 finished replacing the K1 in the armored units. Korea uses a ton of armor.
It is still good enough for infantry support and its opposition is mostly old T-55 and T-62 variants.
>>27836442
I mean, it's got enough armor and enough gun for the job.
>>27836489
Bit of a chance against the Pokpungho or those late T-72 rippoffs though, they're not as trash as the T-62 and T-55 copies.
>>27837242
Even against the T-62 copies I'd be feeling nervous myself. Honestly, everything would make me nervous, but that's besides the point.
But it should have the gun to do the deed, and against the 100mms it might have the armor to protect itself. Against anything smaller (ie, most of what they'd be facing), they're practically invulnerable.
>>27836442
Dem AAVs tho.
>>27837523
The smokes reminds me of Junji Ito somehow
>>27836322
Taiwan uses them as their main battle tank, granted they've swapped out the 90 for a 105 l/7 copy
>>27837583
Based modern M48.
Taiwan basically uses legacy US kit (M60, M48, F-5 etc) as a giant middle finger to the PRC.
>>27837667
>>27837693
Fight fight fight
>>27837766
50cents here. They never will because: China won't bleed blood and money and the Type 99s are all defending Beijing(political throne) and the Northen border(never trust Ruskies).
Honestly the army is the biggest service branch of the PLA but the least budgeted. As it should be because the PLAAF and PLAN are still using Cold War era tech.
Having said that, Type 99s will rekt kitbashed pattons. Taiwanese has been pirating US brands since the 70's.
>>27837667
>Taiwan basically uses legacy US kit (M60, M48, F-5 etc) as a giant middle finger to the PRC.
No, they're just a tiny island nation who don't have enough money to buy anything better.
>>27838834
Taiwan are above Norway, the UAE, Denmark, Israel, Greece, and Finland in terms of nominal GDP. All of those nations operate modern MBTs in significant quantities; Leopard 2 variants for the Nordics and Greeks, Merkava for the Israelis, and Leclercs for the UAE.
Taiwan could afford to modernize their MBT fleet without too much trouble, they just don't bother because they're an island nation and elected to purchase AH-64Es, AH-1Ws, and a shit ton of AGM-114s instead.
>>27808718
The 128 was going to be needed to beat the IS-3, which was designed to be impervious to the long 8.8.
Plus the 12.8 could kill M4s through houses.
>>27839388
>Taiwan are above Norway, the UAE, Denmark, Israel, Greece
>Greece
>>27840185
That doesn't make his point any less valid though.
>>27840377
Nobody said that?
>>27840436
It seemed like he was criticizing the inclusion of Greece, who despite the financial fuckery operates on a similar array of modern M60s and stuff to make a comparison.
>>27840446
>M60
>modern
>>27840489
