They're so evenly matched that it comes down to who sees the other first.
>>28321329
An original Abrams from 80's versus the newest British tank? Honestly? A draw. British armor is much better but their APSDS rounds are shit
Don't reply without a sage
Challenger but it'd be close. Abrams is really meant to be part of a big combined arms unit.
Thank you for this quality thread OP
>>28321350
i mean the modern abrams m1 that was used in the war against "le terror"
is there a new model i don't know about?
>>28321365
yw dr faggot
>>28321368
The M1, M1A1, and M1A2, along with SEPV1 and SEPV2 upgrade packages.
>>28321368
Well sort of. There's the M1A1 that is still in use with the marines and nations it was exported to and then there's the M1A2 which is basically a new tank in use with the Army. I'd post a pic showing the difference but I don't have one so fuck you.
>>28321406
love you too m8
>>28321350
There is no accurate open source material on the composition and effectiveness of either tank's armor
>>28321329
Whoever sees who first, like in all modern tank battles, so probably the Abrams since it has better support
>>28321329
You posted a picture of a M1A1 when that is more akin to the Challenger 1 (they did serve together in Gulf war 1)
A more apt comparison would be the M1A2, and in that case I'd give the edge to the Abrams due to better APFSDST performance.
But REALLY it could really go either way and really depends on Crew training and the exact circumstance.
>>28321329
That depends on the mission. The Challanger 2 has a built in-toilet as well as improved communications electronics, putting it at a neglible advantage against the Abrums in the logistical department, while it has somewhat thicker frontial armour.
No word on whether it's gun would be able to penetrate the abrams' (or its own) front, though. They'd need to get pretty close to each other to actually put holes into themselves.
>>28321670
/thread
Girls und Panzer episode
>>28321711
I never actually thought about it, but how do you piss in an Abrams? it's not like there are side hatches or rear hatches to stick your dick out like with LAVS, AAVs, M3s, etc
You can piss out of the crew hatches on an LAV while it's moving, speaking from experience, hehe
>>28321329
You realize that the details of both vehicles are classified, right?
>>28321756
piss/shit in helmet, fling out hatch. I'd imagine you don't care much about that when combat keeps you occupied though.
>>28321777
>Shit in something you keep on your head
>>28321329
>>28321329
7 smaller wheels == abrams is smoother ride == faster
>>28321818
>wheels
>having anything to do with speed
Anon pls, RED ONES GO FASTAH
>>28321329
I love me an Abrams but Ive gotten bored of its looks. The UK has got a pretty tank
>>28322138
put 900 wheels on your civic and see what happens to its speed.
>>28322148
>tfw Burger
>tfw acknowledge that Britbong armour design has blown us the fuck out for half a century
>tfw no based Chieften tankfu
>>28321756
MRE's come in bags that are waterproof. If you rip open the top, you have a bag that can hold an MRE shit. A wet wipe later and you are good to go.
This is the circle of the MRE, a perfect, unbroken ring, as they then reseal the bag and label it EGG OMELET.
>>28322164
I drive a Chevy (t͏͏b͏͏h f͏͏a͏͏m)
>>28322171
>implying
The M60 was leagues ahead of the Chieftain m8, to say nothing of the superiority of the vanilla M1 to the Challenger 1
>>28322174
I will never enlist, but I will remember this lesson well /k/ommando-kun
>>28322183
M60 was based as fuck and basically a design miracle.
But can you provide some proofs that the vanilla m1 was superior to the challenger 1? Word on the street is that the vanilla m1 had a shit engine and an underpowered cannon, (though subsequent modifications have made it goat
>>28321784
Gives a whole new meaning to the term, eh?
>>28322199
>M60 was based as fuck and basically a design miracle.
(Desire to know more intensifies)
>>28321329
>Rifled barrel
vs
>Smoothbore barrel
>Piston
vs
>Turbine
The Abrams has a marginally greater edge in almost every factor and a massive edge in range and penetration over the challenger. The only serious advantage the Chally has over the M1 is fuel consumption.
The only way the challenger would win is if it managed to outrun the abrams for long enough that the abrams would deplete in fuel, then the challenger might win. I don't see a crew ever running an abrams down to empty though. They'd sooner park up, bunker down and wait for the chally to eventually return. Excepting a totally unseen ambush, the M1 would be able to outrange the chally and the benefits of a hull down position would give the abrams even more of an advantage.
>>28322307
>a massive edge in range and penetration over the challenger
What are the stats for those?
>>28321350
>A draw. British armor is much better but their APSDS rounds are shit
The armor is superior against HEAT threats but inferior against KE attacks which are the main tank killing weapons of tanks.
Also most of the Challenger II need replacement armor as it's oxidized and not longer as strong. In fact most of it is useless.
The idea was that the armor would need to be replaced, but that would make jobs for the UK so it was fine. However the budget for replacements was diverted away so now most of the armor on the Challenger IIs is combat ineffective.
>>28321756
Same way you piss an any serious tank, into a bottle.
>>28322199
The Challenger 2 was a reaction to the C1 being the worst tank in NATO after being last place in the Canada Cup. It's a shame tank.
>>28322344
Thanks fàm. You put the /fa/ back in PAK fa
>>28322335
That sounds like a lot of completely unsourced conjecture
>>28322335
>The idea was that the armor would need to be replaced, but that would make jobs for the UK so it was fine.
fucking keynesians
Leo 2a7 tbqh family
arguing about tank vs tank stuff is like theology: nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about, but that doesn't stop them from coming up with the most incredible bullshit about whatever position they've chosen to believe.
anyway, we all know pic related would win, so why argue?
>>28322472
t͏͏b͏͏h f͏͏a͏͏m
Both their armors are kinda classified, but the challenger shoots grapefruits so id say the abrams wins.
I bet the challenger would win if it was hull down on a linear battlefield
So why don't the USA and the UK collaborate anf make a tank together?
>>28322783
Because defense contracts are huge pork projects that make a bunch of money for whoever brings them home, and because the somewhat reasonable logic that it's good to not be dependent on anyone else to build spare parts and replacements for your tank.
The UK is still wealth enough (just) that they can afford to domestically develop most equipment and keep even more money home.
>>28322783
Tanks are obsolete tbf
F35 is a collaborative US/UK project. We also share shitloads of knowledge on Nukes & Subs.
There was also a lot of US consultation with the design of the UK's new aircraft carriers.
>>28322798
>There was also a lot of US consultation with the design of the UK's new aircraft carriers.
Since when?
>>28321329
Whichever one shoots first.
>>28322798
>Tanks are obsolete tbf
Oh boy.
Mighty arjun solos both
>>28322823
Designated Truth
>>28322802
They'll operate the F35B and the don't seem to be total trash like the Invincible class were.
>>28322816
Prove me wrong. If NATO have F&F anti armour missiles like Brimstone that can fuck an entire armoured column from 20-30 miles away, you'd best believe China, Russia have them too - and you'd best believe that multiple ones could be fitted MIRV style as supersonic cruise missile warheads to provide that capability even without total air superiority.
>>28322344
Congratulations, you know nothing about the history of the vehicles at all.
>>28322837
>They'll operate the F35B and the don't seem to be total trash like the Invincible class were.
So why would they have input on the design. The UK has been operating STOVL carriers for decades.
>>28322837
>Tanks can be destroyed
>This means tanks are obsolete
>Aircraft can be destroyed
>This means aircraft are obsolete
>Infantry can be shot
>This means infantry are obsolete
>Ships can be sunk
>This means navies are obsolete
By the "if there's something capable of destroying it then it's obsolete" logic everything on the planet is obsolete besides matter itself.
>>28322840
and we operated catapult carriers before that, royal navy invented them even. UK hasn't designed a carrier in 40 years though - and those were deisgned to be ASW helicopter carriers. The public just had a shitfit and demanded we needed fixed wing A2A and strike capability so we ended up with the clusterfuck that was the invincible class.
The QE class doesn't appear to be complete trash, it even looks like it'll be breddy gud for the money spent, so there's no way they designed it without consultancy from experienced US naval architects. They might have just been contractors, who knows, but they'll have been there.
>>28322852
You've just made up that the US had input on the design haven't you.
>>28322842
For what they actually bring to the battlefield they are obsolete, light tanks might have a role as scouts but MBTs are not cost effective on the modern battlefield.
Aircraft are needed to bring air superiority, ships are needed to protect and launch the aircraft under certain circumstances.
The aircraft then dismantle the enemy war machine.
Ground forces basically just act as glorified spotters and clean up/occupation.
Tanks have no place in modern doctrine, their firepower is met or exceeded by air support or missiles, their armour isn't thick enough to protect from modern missiles, so you might as well just have an APC with another squad of infantry instead.
Tanks are the battleships of the 21st century. Sure, the Iowa still has a use, but she costs so much to run for what she actually gives back that it's simply not worth it.
>>28322853
Yeah...
>>28322880
>Tanks being used by everyone that has tanks
>Tanks being upgraded by advanced nations
>New tanks being developed
>New technologies being developed for tanks
Yeah buddy you're the one person who's figured out what every military on the planet hasn't.
>>28322895
and 70% of Americans believe in a sky wizard that controls their fate, what's your point?
>>28322837
>If NATO have F&F anti armour missiles like Brimstone that can fuck an entire armoured column from 20-30 miles away, you'd best believe China, Russia have them too
Sounds like a lot of unsourced bullshit to me.
There is not a single missile in the world that does the same sort of thing Brimstone does at this moment in Russia or China. Hell even the US one is still in development and to my knowledge even it doesn't have the swarm attack mode and has a shorter range.
>>28322922
And in this post you just outright admit you've lost the arguement.
>>28322922
What an irrelevant leap to an ad populum fallacy strawman.
>>28322922
>Tanks in use by everyone with more tanks being made
>Yeah well people are religious too!
I don't know what tree you're barking up but it's what you think vs the way the world is working. You ain't gonna win this.
>>28322922
>If something is popular then it MUST be wrong
>>28322922
>le tippe
>>28322171
>limeyboo bonglover
Disgraceful
nobody wins in war
>>28322922
the point is that you are the only stupid faggot saying tanks are obsolete.
>replace with an APC and troops
plz no not HMG fire senpai! ungggggg
40mm?!?!?!?! BUT I POOP FROM THERE!
hard target 2.7km away? better drive over there and unload some dudes!
>hurr durr tarded shit
yeah sure buddy
>muh stupid braindead opinion
wut.jpg
>so much smarter than everyone else I bet nobody ever thought of this
someone else has already thought of literally everything. if you're the "first" it just means nobody else mentioned it BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A RETARDED IDEA.
>missiles
APS now fuck off.
Tanks will exist as long as:
They can attempt to protect against current threats
they can mount a weapon capable of enough destruction to be worth protecting.
a 1/4 protection ratio means that the enemy needs to fire twice to ensure a kill. hell, a 1/10 protection ratio means the same thing.
When they get sick of shooting twice, they will spend money and time building a better weapon to defeat your protection. Then, you beef up the suspension a little bit and add another APS or some slat armor, and you've countered the money and time they spent by ensuring that there is NOT a 100% chance of a one shot kill, which again makes them fire twice to get the kill.
And no, nobody is gonna wait to see if the first hit did the job before firing again, that would just be stupid.
>enemy vehicle survives with it's 20% chance
>returns fire
>80% chance you dead nao
because tanks can use missiles too faggot.
And, the ultimate argument against your stupid shit:
The universe is eventually gonna cease to exist, so life is obsolete. go kill yourself.
>>28322852
How can people type this crap and feel that they aren't shitposting?
>>28322997
u sound a little purturbed in ur posterior m8
>>28323166
Not him but quality rebuttal.
>>28321756
Gatorade bottle
>>28323415
I can't believe you don't want to fuck animals more.
>>28322316
the ones where the Challenger doesn't fire the M829A3, and its FCS is dated by half a decade.
>>28322837
>Prove me wrong. If NATO have F&F anti armour missiles like Brimstone that can fuck an entire armoured column from 20-30 miles away, you'd best believe China, Russia have them too - and you'd best believe that multiple ones could be fitted MIRV style as supersonic cruise missile warheads to provide that capability even without total air superiority.
Russia has the Hermes missile system which is basically wireless Spike-LRs on steroids. The missiles of the same form factor as the Pantsir rounds so they are fast as fuck and maintain supersonic speed throughout most of its trajectory- so its perfect for things like a steel penetrator 1.5 m long to pen tanks with, if the really huge multistage warhead somehow doesn't pull it off(like seriously the Russians got to be holding off on triple charged warheads until now- they made ones for tank shells and thats vastly more difficult to do than with an atgm)
>>28322925
>There is not a single missile in the world that does the same sort of thing Brimstone does at this moment in Russia or China. Hell even the US one is still in development and to my knowledge even it doesn't have the swarm attack mode and has a shorter range.
Thats because missiles like the Brimstone are hella expensive. putting sophisticated electronics like the guidance and computer on every missile tends to that. onboard radars limited by size and power contraints of a missile are also not the best form of guidance against modern vehicles employing multispectral cammo suites and even APS.
>>28321777
Pajeet pls leave.
>>28323869
>Russia has the Hermes missile system
You mean that thing that still hasn't gotten out of design phase?
The better tank will win.
>>28321329
LITERALLY whoever gets off the first hit. It's dependent on crew training and whatnot.
Otherwise, I'd hand it off to the Challenger 2. Abrams would get btfo'd by the Challenger 2 and americycks would start complaining about "MUH MONKEY MODEL"
>>28323930
>You mean that thing that still hasn't gotten out of design phase?
being based on an already existing missile i think its out of design phase for quite some time now. they could be working on integrating it into the many platforms it would operate on, the Hermes is actually 3 variants for land, sea, and air launch.
>>28324029
>doesn't even realize that the whole MUH MONKEY MODEL thing came from making fun of slavs who constantly used it as a reason why russian armor always did piss poor everywhere it's fielded and then tried to troll whenever any us made equipment got destroyed
>>28324041
>i think its out of design phase for quite some time now
Then you should have no problems proving it, right?
>>28324057
Americans still use the MUH MONKEY MODEL bullshit as an actual excuse.
>>28322472
I would LOVE a miniature tank like that for my 6- and 9-year nephews.
Mattel needs to get on this.
Lets all cut the stupid shit, we're talking about a heads up one VS one.
Yet NO one wants to argue the single most important factor. TARGET ACQUISITION Which tank has better tank detection? greater FOV's Clearer optics and shit like that.
>>28324057
>>28324106
It's almost like no one in the Middle East knows how to fight or something
>>28322895
You forgot
>canada sold all their tanks, went to Afghanistan with five rentals, and is now fucking scrambling to get more tanks because they were the most useful thing around and the handful they had were overworked
>>28324057
>Then you should have no problems proving it, right?
at least for the Hermes-A:
>Test version of the complex aircraft "Hermes-A" in the armed attack helicopter Ka-52 completed in summer 2003. The complex "Hermes-A" is prepared for serial production.
>http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/hermes/hermes.shtml
>>28324106
Nah, monkey model is still only valid when talking about Iraqi T-72's which were on par with the bulk of the Soviet Unions tank force.
>>28324351
And yet a decade later is has not entered production?
>>28324351
There are precious few pictures of actual trucks with the system in place or on helicopters. Even the GLSDB missiles that Boeing and SAAB is developing is further ahead in production and given the crude oil prices and economic sanctions against russia, i'd bet money on that the hermes will be added to the ever growing mountain of fun abandoned weapon prototypeS russia have.
>>28324351
>the latest source is from 2003
>2003
HAH
>>28324392
>Nah, monkey model is still only valid when talking about Iraqi T-72's which were on par with the bulk of the Soviet Unions tank force.
Iraqi T-72s were nowhere near on par with Warsaw Pact T-72s let alone Soviet T-72s. Also, the vast majority of Soviet operated T-72s are T-72B models- the ones with frontal armor comparable to T-80s(actually in terms of thickness the T-72B beats the T-80 variants) and capable of launching GLATGMs.
>>28322895
>Tanks being upgraded by advanced nations
>New tanks being developed
>New technologies being developed for tanks
To be fair, we are seeing a consolidation on tank design. France and Germany are going to end their separate tank lines of Le Clerc and Leopard and form a new joint one. This will be the Eurotank.
Meanwhile UK has pretty much given up on the Challenger 3. Their next tank will be an Abram M1A3.
>>28324410
>And yet a decade later is has not entered production?
no point in putting the cart before the horse as they say- there isn't much Ka-52s operational back then, and only now were the numbers picking up. Then there is the massive Vikhr stocks...
>>28324413
>There are precious few pictures of actual trucks with the system in place or on helicopters. Even the GLSDB missiles that Boeing and SAAB is developing is further ahead in production and given the crude oil prices and economic sanctions against russia, i'd bet money on that the hermes will be added to the ever growing mountain of fun abandoned weapon prototypeS russia have.
oh please, they have prepared the budget in anticipation for low oil prices(in case of reserve funds drainage they would cut social spending which is mostly rather generous pensions and such rather than military spending) and economic sanctions don't matter when every component is domestic made.
>>28324506
Maybe, maybe not. Challenger 2 is supposed to stay in service until 2050 with a few life upgrades between that those times. But a lot can change between then and now.
Who knows, maybe there may be a Challenger 3. Or maybe a completely new MBT made by BAE.
>>28324439
T-72M1 is almost identical to a T-72A.
Both were utter shit and both didn't have thermals.
The soviets didn't even think it was a good idea to give tanks passive thermals until mid 1989.
Slavshit, not even ONCE
>>28324274
Russian tanks and airplanes haven't done well even when the Russians use them.
>>28324555
It's until 2035, not 2050.
>>28321329
Depends does the chally in this have no applique on it's lower plate. If it doesn't then just about anything could beat it with that retarded 400m rha entire lower plate.
>>28324506
>Meanwhile UK has pretty much given up on the Challenger 3. Their next tank will be an Abram M1A3.
If that.
There's chance that the UK could forgo buying tanks at all.
They could reform and retrain their heavy cav to reroll with CV90s or a modified form of it with added TOWs or something. Might be for the best since they can get a great platform in meaningful numbers.
>>28324533
>everything is domestic made devaluation does nothing to economy tovarish!
>>28324612
A lot can happen in 20 years. If Westminister gets their heads out their arses and actually pays attention to what is going on with the military.
>>28324574
>T-72M1 is almost identical to a T-72A.
>Both were utter shit and both didn't have thermals.
lookie what i found, a retard who cant read for shit. T-72As being comparable to T-72M1 doesn't matter when they are relegated to third echelons or worse- in backwater districts far away from Europe.
>The soviets didn't even think it was a good idea to give tanks passive thermals until mid 1989.
passive thermals of the day weren't that much better than active ones with searchlights. one is new technology while other is matured after all.
>>28324623
>I dont know what im talking about so ill just spout BS and a picture: the post
>>28324644
>relegated to third echelons
You mean the exact opposite of throughout the 80s and 90s? Nice goalpost moving.
>passive thermals of the day weren't that much better than active ones with searchlights
Spotted the retard. Maybe Slavshit thermals were trash but western thermals have been great since the mid 70s
>>28322174
hokly kek saved
the veg omelet isn't that bad if heated and you mash the crackers and mix them in with the salsa
so basically never because ain't nobody got time for that
>>28324574
The t-72a formed the reserves, the standard frontline tank was the much improved t-72b
>>28324659
So if what you say is true, how come the Russian economy tanked throughout the 90s when they had massive currency devaluation as well?
They should have been just fine according to you
>>28324661
>You mean the exact opposite of throughout the 80s and 90s? Nice goalpost moving.
proofs?
>Spotted the retard. Maybe Slavshit thermals were trash but western thermals have been great since the mid 70s
outright bullshit spewer spotted.
>>28324692
You should be providing proofs as you made the claim that T-72Bs made up the bulk of Soviet units.
>>28324680
>So if what you say is true, how come the Russian economy tanked throughout the 90s when they had massive currency devaluation as well?
>They should have been just fine according to you
vastly different situation. Russia of today pretty much has rebuilt its domestic industries so they can produce just about everything they need and unemployment is at lowest levels. in constrast 20 years ago industries of all sectors are pretty much fucked and there is unemployment everywhere.
>>28324692
>proofs?
Are you saying you deny the fact that the T-72B was issued in far fewer numbers than the A to front line units? And you made the first claim that they were all 'reserve units'.
>outright bullshit spewer spotted.
M60TTS - AN/VSG-2 to say nothing of the thermals on the Leopard 2 at the time.
>>28324730
But Russia of the 90s was far more dependent on domestic industires than modern russia.
So tell me how having less that's domestic now is somehow in a better state during a currency devaluation :3
>>28324730
>so they can produce just about everything they need
Oh, so why did they need France to build their new ships?
>>28324746
forgot pic
>>28324746
The units fielding the A model would've been supporting those fielding the B, I was wrong calling them reserves. I meant that they wouldn't be the tip of the spear but would rather follow behind to assigned to less important jobs. I feel it worth noting that the A could easily be retrofitted with the same levels of protection on the turret.
>>28324727
>You should be providing proofs as you made the claim that T-72Bs made up the bulk of Soviet units.
>>28324746
>Are you saying you deny the fact that the T-72B was issued in far fewer numbers than the A to front line units? And you made the first claim that they were all 'reserve units'.
do you guys know how to read? or are your brains hardwired to twist words?
>>>28324746
>M60TTS - AN/VSG-2 to say nothing of the thermals on the Leopard 2 at the time.
and they are better substantially than the ones on frontline Soviet tanks how?
>>28324762
>But Russia of the 90s was far more dependent on domestic industires than modern russia.
lookup the word dependent and come back to me. fuck they were even importing grain back then.
>>28324771
>Oh, so why did they need France to build their new ships?
its a nod to Sarkozy, plus some good old kickbacks on both sides.
>>28321436
>Abrams since it has better support
>better support
>1v1 battle
>>28324827
>and they are better substantially than the ones on frontline Soviet tanks how?
They're passive and don't give away your position to everyone ever and they can actually see through smoke unlike IR searchlights.
Is this a serious question or are you retarded?
>>28324827
>and they are better substantially than the ones on frontline Soviet tanks how?
How about how very few even had thermals until the T-90A entered service, or that French made ones comprise the bulk?
>>28324827
>do you guys know how to read? or are your brains hardwired to twist words?
>>28324644
>T-72As being comparable to T-72M1 doesn't matter when they are relegated to third echelons or worse
>>28324673
>The t-72a formed the reserves, the standard frontline tank was the much improved t-72b
lay off the potato juice, it's killed far too many of your poor braincells
>>28324827
>lookup the word dependent and come back to me. fuck they were even importing grain back then.
>he thinks russia is self sufficient in any way, let alone in food production!
>>28321329
more importantly, which one has a cuter butt?
>>28324868
The B model had a new fire control system, more armor on the turret and included modern composite layers in its armor but focused on the front of the hull and turret. I don't know about you but that seems like a nice upgrade to me.
>>28324905
Nobody said it's not an upgrade. Stop moving the goalpost faggot.
>>28321329
Whichever one sees the other first and fires first.
>>28324928
I assumed so because the point of its numbers was already brought up, and I was going off mid 80s dates seing as no others were provided
>>28324859
>They're passive and don't give away your position to everyone ever and they can actually see through smoke unlike IR searchlights.
afaik IR searchlights still work through smoke, they just lose some intensity along the way. of course if the obscurant cloud is big enough like say in a sandstorm it wont work. Also the searchlight beams aren't very wide at all when looking at distant targets.
>>28324865
>How about how very few even had thermals until the T-90A entered service, or that French made ones comprise the bulk?
another strawman.
>>28324868
>lay off the potato juice, it's killed far too many of your poor braincells
whats that Thatcher quote about retards spewing ad hominems?
>>28324878
>he thinks russia is self sufficient in any way, let alone in food production!
>moron doesn't know whats he's talking about, news at 11.
btw if you are going to only post bait post some pics too. what kind of third world shithole you live in when you ration data?
>>28324993
I think it's safe to say that we're all waiting on you to actually answer some of the things that were asked instead of dancing around everything and crying, vatnik.
The one that isn't being operated by tea-drinking crumpet-munching pansies.
>>28324533
>in case of reserve funds drainage they would cut social spending which is mostly rather generous pensions and such rather than military spending
>generous
>russia
Not even the most deluded vatnik believes that.
Also a hearty kek at you if you seriously believe russia have reserves enough to fund a weapon project of that magnitude over several years in advance, not to mention how retarded that would be from an economic standpoint. That's "not even in Russia" levels of retardation.
Remember that this is "smaller economy than italy" russia we're talking about.
Also, sanctions and oil prices bend russia over a barrel and fuck them in the ass, unless all workers in Russia, this weapon project included is happy with being paid in potatoes and every single product in Russia is domestically made.
>>28322199
Always been a fan of the israeli upgrades to the m60.
Kikewagons in general look pretty based.
>>28322842
The /k/ version of dies to removal.
>>28322183
>The M60 was leagues ahead of the Chieftain m8, to say nothing of the superiority of the vanilla M1 to the Challenger 1
Your an idiot. In direct battles between the two the M60 got rekted so hard by the Chieftan that US had to go back to the drawing board.
>>28325037
Or muslims
>>28325094
>Chieftain
Don't you mean Centurion? I think both of you are confused between the two.
>>28325094
>M60 got rekt by Chieftains
>posts picture of a battle where T-54/T-55s fought M47/M48 Pattons and Shermans
>>28322250
His name is Pierre.
>yet another thread where vatniks get BTFO
>>28322783
They've tried that with the Germans in the past, called it MBT-70 (KPz 70)... After spending 5x what they were suposed to, the Germans got fed up, left the program and built the Leo2, Burgerland built the M1.
Generally every country places different values to certain aspects of the tank, so collaborative development almost never works.
>>28322442
>>28322479
>>28322403
>>28322176
Grow up, manchild.
Since they have the same gun, the edge goes to whichever tank has better optics.
I do not know which tank has better optics.
>>28322472
story on that pic?
>>28321329
M1A2 with tusk and depleted uranium armor would be too much for it.
>>28322973
except, you know...the winners
>>28324224
well the abrams has had most of its kinks worked out and has had in field testing
>>28322472
war_thunder_russiantankers.jpg
>>28327584
You're forgetting that the Krauts then signed up with the UK for the MBT-80 project..
>>28321756
I'd imagine that you act like a fucking adult in the tank while in situations that require you to be actively operating the tank, such as movement or combat. During downtime I assume you tell the tank commander that you need to take a shit, pop out of the tank and shit by it while the rest of the crew utilizes the weaponry of the tank to protect you in the event of an enemy attack.
The Brits during WW2 would literally take tea breaks while pushing into Germany. I am sure a modern tank crew can spare a crewman for three minutes to shit outside the fucking tank unlike some of these idiots saying people shit into bags and keep that IN THE TANK.
>>28324506
Hell no. Those limeys invented the tank, and they best invent NEW tanks until their nation becomes bankrupt. Have they no pride?
>>28325094
>shitskins
