>tank actually carries ammo
One question: why?
Do you want to lose your tank the second it gets spotted by an RPG team? Store the ammo somewhere else you dumbshits.
So it can shoot things.
>>28340186
or instead of being an idiot slav you can buy non-volatile ammunition that isn't a quarter century old.
>>28340186
holy shit you're retarded
>Store the ammo somewhere else
Where else? Munitions are about the safest place they can possibly be when protected by inches of composite and steel. Besides, RPGs haven't been a threat to modern MBTs since the 70s. Its stuff like Metis you have to worry about, and if something like that penetrates, your tank is out of action empty or no, so who cares?
But this is an obvious b8 thread so really I'm the fuckwit here.
>>28340344
>all the abrams getting blown up by rpg
>rpg not a threat
lol
>>28340344
so how do you kill a tank with infantry these days?
>>28340387
JAVULEN KILLS EM HAVENT YOU PLAYEDCOD?
>>28340387
He just said it, ATGM's.
>>28340415
they're too gay and expensive, though
why can't you stick those explosives on a regular old rocket and shoot it from your shoulder?
>>28340186
>this thread again
>>28340361
you mean none ?
none at all ?
fucking single rpg penetration i can even remember was prg-29 to the side of m1a2 that did no damage or caused no injuries
![FGM-148_Javelin_-_ID_DM-SD-04-07567[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xuzycpB.jpg "FGM-148_Javelin_-_ID_DM-SD-04-07567[1].jpg")
>>28340495
>>28340542
>hasn't seen the videos
wew lad
>>28340544
> $40,000 per missile
miss me wit dat gay shit, nigga
is there no cheaper way to BTFO a tank?
>>28340586
please go ahead and show me all those rpg kills
>>28340495
Fucking retard
>>28340603
>spunfeed me pls XD
Guess you can wait till a webm thread comes around or something.
>>28340592
How much does a tank,its ammo and its crew cost?
>>28340612
show me your solution for disposing of tanks in a cost effective manner, then, you faggot.
>>28340619
this was your claim, ready to provide some evidence or hide behind dank /b/ memes ?
>>28340586
I bet you've seen tanks being destroyed by ATGM's since you don't know what they are.
>>28340623
~$10m
however, if you were to have a citizen revolt, how would you combat tanks on a bare bones budget?
>>28340637
I'll keep you in the dark tho, I find it preferable to lord this over you lol.
>>28340640
Nope, RPGs
>>28340647
Attack the gas.
>>28340592
No m8. That why so few M1a1s were lost in Iraq, and those that were, weren't lost from enemy fire.
The reason you're seeing so much footage from Syria/Iraq is because the local tank crews know as much about tank combat as I do about speaking Sanskrit and because the insurgents are equipped with Kornet systems captured from Iraqis.
>>28340628
It's called an ATGM. How many more times do you want to be told.
>>28340675
> atgms
> cost effective
go back to school, retard
>>28340649
>>28340661
could you elaborate?
i'm not sure i understand.
>>28340703
>muh memes
God it feels good.
>>28340704
Tanks weakness lies in the logistics. A "citizen revolt" would basically be an instant victory because someone soft needs to provide fuel, and soft targets can be destroyed / taken / etc.
>>28340685
>$50,000 missile destroying $4M tank
>Not cost effective
Want me to call you retarded again?
>>28340685
Compared to another tank, or an air strike, these are pretty damn cost effective.
Hell, even if you have another tank, you'll probably still use an ATGM to take out the tank.
>>28340685
>Caring about the cost of gear you capture from the ISF
Okay kid
>>28340649
>Nope, RPGs
And you're going to whine about "not spoonfeeding people" because you know it's the only way to continue to argue a point you can't prove.
>>28340732
Oops, you beat me to it lol!
l>>28340741
>>28340727
oh yeah, i get it now
>>28340649
Fuck off if you want to evade every question. Post proof or go and shit up a different thread.
>>28340628
>>28340592
>>28340495
The base cost of the average MBT is going to be a minimum 1million USD
40k for a ATGM is nearly nothing
Consider also the number of munitions fired vs tanks destroyed. If you fire under 25 javelins per garbage 1million USD tank destroyed, you are ahead of the cost of the enemy's equipment--plus you can engage reliably outside 100 meters (something that gets very shaky with unguided AT).
ITT: literal retards.
>>28340790
coming from you that's really saying something
>>28340746
Wat? It was rpgs, why are you incapable of looking it up lol? Why would I spoonfeed you on 2+2?
>>28340783
>wah wah mommy wont give me applesaaauce
Relax kiddo, you'll be okay.
>>28340832
>And you're going to whine about "not spoonfeeding people" because you know it's the only way to continue to argue a point you can't prove.
And here we go.
>>28340842
>mah arms dont work
Is this you?
Hey, I've yet to see you prove all the tanks getting btfo by rpgs is false, spoonfeed me about it pls, back up your claim.
>>28340842
>and you're going to continue having a learning disability.
And here we go.
>>28340862
Also I eat cocks lol.
>>28340858
The burden of proof is on you lad.
>>28340858
You made the claim about RPGs destroying tanks. The anon is correct, you need to proof that this actually happened.
Are you literally 12 years old?
>>28340888
Nope, you've made a claim too, spoonfeed me babe =)
>>28340904
Cite it baby!
>>28340858
>And you're going to whine about "not spoonfeeding people" because you know it's the only way to continue to argue a point you can't prove.
I wonder how many times you can redress the same tired excuse
>>28340832
He's right. The burden of proof is on you faggot.
And that's some real good shit you're on. Modern mbt's being destroyed by sand nigger rpgs. Sure.
>>28340910
>>28340941
Prove to me they haven't, still waiting on some sources lads.
>>28340951
Top notch troll. Good job kid. You got me. I'm gonna go fap now.
>>28340966
Ave a good one!
>>28340951
Almost all the abrams destroyed were because of IEDs, Mines, ATGMs, and other MBTs
>>28341008
Source?
>Almost all the abrams
Thanks for admitting I'm right though, 10/10
>>28340186
is this bait
>>28341008
>gets asked for sources
>spouts more unproven bullshit
Troll thread.
>>28341045
prove me wrong, should I just spoonfeed you? lmao
the rest were disabled tanks that were blown up by airstrikes/explosives by US to avoid giving the enemy the equipment
>>28341101
That's what I thought, no sources, tut tut, I accept your defeat.
>>28341112
en.wikipedia.org
czechmate
>>28341135
*laughs as you dig your hole deeper*
so sad.
>>28341112
http://saberdefenseusa.com/images/SABER_RPG_Report2.pdf
>There were no catastrophic
losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons
What on earth is going on in this thread?
Tanks require ammunition stowed on board in order to function as an offensive instrument. The presence of a gun on a sealed compartment that characterises a tank should be rather obvious in illustrating this.
Certainly, having ammunition inside the tank would be far more convenient than having to source ammunition from external depots, and it's more or less a necessity if you look at the nature and role of a tank, being a key part of dynamic, offensive, mobile land warfare, which is different to less mobile platforms such as artillery, which do make use of depots.
I suppose what I'm trying to convey is, having ammunition carried on board tanks, whether they are ready rounds or spare rounds, is as integral to its deigned role as say, a carrier with strike aircraft or infantryman with spare magazines.
The perceived volatility of said rounds is less of a factor these days. While in WWII, there was a general awareness of combusting rounds being an enormous safety concern, many MBTs today have separated compartments and redundancies in place - for instance, the Abrams has highly effective blowout panels, and the Challenger 2 has two individual parts reducing the likelihood of a detonation.
As for how tanks get destroyed, other anons in this thread have nicely explained how ATGMs pose a danger to tanks today.
I do hope this isn't entirely a bait thread, however.
>>28341112
>>28341275
btfo faggot now an hero
>>28341277
>Tanks require ammunition stowed on board in order to function as an offensive instrument.
total
bullshit
>>28341277
>I do hope this isn't entirely a bait thread, however.
I think your in denial. Don't waste your time on blatant b8.
>>28341297
>Tanks require any ammunition they carry to be fireable
Whats bullshit about that, cakeboy?
>>28341275
>some no name Netherlands business
>legit source
*yawn*
Still waiting.
>>28341293
Wew someone is rather upset!
>>28341331
>>28341277
your move, faggot
>>28341414
What does this prove?
>>28341450
>he doesn't know about UDES
literally how
is this your first day on the internet?
>>28341615
How is it relevant? Anon stipulated that any ammo carried needs to be usable, so you posted an articulated tank destroyer that went on to become an IFV. Whats your point nigger.
>>28341663
>How is it relevant?
are you serious
>articulated tank destroyer that went on to become an IFV
nevermind, you appear to simply be retarded.
>>28340387
>>28341450
That OP is a massive fag
hes just trolling this is like the 15th thread hes made
Jesus Christ on a stick.
/k/ is so easy to troll. Why are you even responding to this guy? Is it your first day on the fucking internet?
>>28343002
Because we have nothing better to do
>>28343002
4chan programs anons to automatically correct anything they find, or think is wrong.
>>28340586
You're probably thinking of the Iraqi M1s. Idiot.
>this thread
>>28343112
>muh monkey models
No such thing.
>>28343112
Still abrams.
>>28340313
Or at least store it so that if it goes off it doesn't take out everything inside.
>>28340623
What tank are we talking here? A T-55 likely only ran someone $55k or so, all things included.
>>28340544
>He looks so fucking happy
Why are these threads still going on? This is another example of the thread being over in the first 4 or 5 comments.
>>28340186
Bump
>>28343986
Fuck you
>>28343994
Why? I'm doing /k/ a favour.
>>28340628
Same way the Iraqi insurgents "disposed" of US Abrams
>acquire 9,000-30,000 pounds of explosives. This costs them only 17 Iraqi children to dig UXO out of fields, or about the equivalent of $3USD
>bury it under a road/pack it in the back of a cement truck
>wait for a tank to drive over it/by it
>detonate it
The Abrams is a good fucking tank, but literally nothing on this planet can survive 15 fucking tons of Comp-B going off directly under it.
>>28340647
>citizen revolt
Lure the tanks into urban area with 3+ story buildings, then use $50 worth of ANFO/ANAL to drop a 3-story building on it
>>28343994
Fuck you
>>28340727
This. I don't know about modern tanks fuel efficiency and storage, but older tanks only had a range of like 200-300 miles at best. Don't engage the tank, engage the supply line.
That said, I seriously doubt you're ever going to see tanks deployed against a citizen revolt, there's no great targets for them compared to using cheaper and faster vehicles with a more specialized loadout.
>>28340186
This bait thread was shitty when you made an identical one yesterday.
>>28340186
fuck off fag
>>28340495
Kill your faggot self
