If you think about it russia beats USA
>armata is alot better than abrams tank
Simulator shows that 1 armata can take out 6 abrams
>KA 50 blackshark is faster, more advanced tech, better armored and can carry more weapons than Apache
>Russian navy is actually better and more advanced than US navy
>>28452142
>If you think about it russia beats USA
Oh boy here we go
>armata is alot better than abrams tank
>Simulator shows that 1 armata can take out 6 abrams
I'll admit that it's newer, however it's complete unproven and thus no real judgements can be made until more than a handful are made and a few get shot at.
>KA 50 blackshark is faster, more advanced tech, better armored and can carry more weapons than Apache
Depends on which version of the Apache
>Russian navy is actually better and more advanced than US navy
Now that is just right out false.
>>28452142
>330 replies, 97 images
>>28452180
wrong
>>28452142
Here's your .50
>>28452255
Okay.
i'm what you call nationalistic russian and your thread is flagrantly uninventive bait
>>28452142
You might be right on this actually
Russia is just getting stronger and stronger, while USA is getting poorer and poorer
Russian tech is probably the most advanced per date.. just wait 10 years and its the world dominant power after china
>>28452142
i dont know shit about the ka50 outside of dcs, seems comparable to an apache, I don't know shit about the armata because they havent been used yet, but I do know that ruski carriers and most of their surface fleet don't compare to the usn. I really don't know jack shit about their subs either. The best things Russia has imo are AA, the SU-27, and artillery that they have shown to use very effectively in tandem with drones as seen in Ukraine.
>>28452142
>Simulator shows that 1 armata can take out 6 abrams
you better show me a fucking source right the fuck now
no seriously i am both interested and also youre making a bold claim
also of note the balck shark is not equivalent to the apache, it is a command helicopter designed to support dedicated attack gunships
>>28452392
Armored Warfare
>>28452142
Going for the top shelf booze?
>>28452265
that's Chinese shitposting
>>28452407
Yeah, Russia doesn't have the money to go around handing out 50 cents (2,000,000 rubles)
I think they get 1 penny of LoL cash and entered into a raffle for the most rare and precious of Slav items, a chair.
>Simulator shows that 1 armata can take out 6 abrams
Da tovarish, VatnikSys combat simulator show that Armata fire incredible SIX SHOT at cardboard target "Abrams" before mechanical breakdown.
SIX shot PENETRATE CARDBOARD, count as kill of capitalist enemy tank.
>>28452567
grow up
>>28452598
In a Russia thread? Really?
>>28452676
fag
russia tank so stronk it break down in glorious victory day parade on purpose!
>>28452683
>>28452142
you're right the tiger tank is vastly superior to the T-34, so germany is going to win the eastern front........oh wait.
How much money have people wasted on these fucking hovercraft amphibious vehicles
And the US wants to build new ones, bigger ones, rather than actually building real amphibious capability, which involves actually putting armor on the beach asap, then supplying it.
>>28452404
so it's a game? cause i can take out 6 tigers with a sherman easy-8 in wot if the other players are retarded enough or i get lucky. i certainly had 6 kills more than once with that rustbucket.
>>28452142
Russians cannot be stopped.
>>28452862
unless they accidentally the economy
>>28452900
grow up
>>28452920
>>28452862
>from shitposting
>>28452404
Armored Warfare is a lot of things, but a simulator it is not.
>>28452142
proofs? is there some video evidence perhaps?
>>28452142
>armata is alot better than abrams tank
>Simulator shows that 1 armata can take out 6 abrams
what simulator you Vatnik? Show some links or something but dont pull stuff out of your ass. Also the Armata is a shit tank. Biggest disappointment of the last year. Big chunky piece of shit.
>>28452142
>armata is alot better than an abrams
good thing we have alot more than 6 abrams per armata if they even have a battalion size element of fully capable vehicles yet - air superiority and recon assets exist
>russia
>navy
it's like 1 carrier
i'll give it to you on attack helicopters. theyve had that spot for a while IMO.
>>28452142
Just to say, nice one, /k/ is ridiculously easy to troll these days.
>>28453172
grow up retard
>>28453172
grow up
>>28452142
>>28452180
>>28452204
>>28452209
>>28452220
>>28452255
>>28452265
>>28452272
>>28452290
>>28452291
>>28452365
>>28452392
>>28452404
>>28452405
>>28452407
>>28452448
>>28452567
>>28452598
>>28452653
>>28452676
>>28452683
>>28452740
>>28452749
>>28452753
>>28452773
>>28452853
>>28452862
>>28452900
>>28452920
>>28452934
>>28452948
>>28452962
>>28452990
>>28453007
>>28453172
>>28453204
>>28453257
>>28453270
grow up
>>28452142
>>28453320
>>28453354
grow up
>>28452142
>armata
The only thing we've seen is prototype's and one of them broke down at the parade.
And to give you an example of what makes a tank good or not isn't the tech but the crew.
My coworker was training the Taiwanese on the M60A3's. His crew was put against a Challenger 2 at the target range. The M60A3 raped the Challenger 2 because its crew was better trained and more motivated, and that wasn't just in accuracy but in rate of fire.
The fire control system on the M60A3 had a max range of 4000 meters, but at Master Gunner school, he was hitting targets at 5200 because he knew what his tank could do. That is something the M1A1 he was given later could not do despite all its tech upgrades. Think about it. An older less capable tank can out shoot a modern computer assisted tank if it has someone in it that knows what they are doing. THey might not be able to do it on the move like a new tank. But if you know where the guys are coming from you can rain hell on them from nearly three miles away with an old as fuck tank when they are trying to take the ground.
So, I'd have to say, until they can prove that this new tank can actually do something other than look like a bird flew over the welds and break down at parades. Russia's best tank is still shit.
>>28453389
>and one of them had an unfamiliar driver push the wrong button
fixed for you
>>28453389
And what stops the abrams from firing 5200 meters?
>>28453389
grow up fag
>>28453172
>i'll give it to you on attack helicopters. theyve had that spot for a while IMO.
I'm torn on this one. The Russians have a strong history with CAS, having basically invented the dedicated CAS aircraft and built doctrine around them for a long time. They also seem to have some pretty effective helicopters.
The problem is that they never seem to be able to build enough of them to make much of an impact, and who knows what kind of bugs are still left to be worked out in them.
>>28452404
How can you be this stupid? Do you train yourself to be this retarded?
>>28452142
>>28453537
While Russians are good at mounting dakka on their helis, the US has them beat in the Avionics department. Russia doesn't really have a good counterpart to the Apache Guardian or even the Longbow.
>>28453627
Even the dakka is underwhelming. Mi-28 can't match Apache's cannon capacity even with two 23mm gunpods.
>>28452853
The T-14 isn't even in AW yet.
>>28452142
fuck you dude. you give russian shills a bad name.
>>28452567
>>28453007
What are the gray things supposed to be?
What do you do when your entire economy is extraction based or military exports, and the price of your extracted resources drops and the value of your currency the resources are priced in skyrockets compared to your own currency and no one wants to buy your slavshit military exports anymore...
>>28454143
Jeeeesus. It's not stopping, is it?
>>28452142
>Simulator shows that 1 armata can take out 6 abrams
Yeah, if the Abrams is driven by trained monkeys and the Armata doesn't break down on therapy there, which is pretty likely going by how they did at that parade.
>>28454237
not til their currency actually collapses
>>28454237
Nope.
And the one ironic thing about the Armata being able to 'beat' Abrams 1:6 is that 1 is all they'll be able to afford to buy. If we only had 7 Abrams total, we win...
>>28454284
Since their currency is oil dependent...
>>28452142
There are more than 500 abrams per armata, and it's yet to be shown 1 armata is better than 1 abrams.
>>28454143
>What do you do when your entire economy is extraction based or military exports, and the price of your extracted resources drops and the value of your currency the resources are priced in skyrockets compared to your own currency and no one wants to buy your slavshit military exports anymore...
um, i don't think you know how currencies work...
>>28454306
>Since their currency is oil dependent...
ironically this is the best thing to happen to them in a long while- nothing staves off an addiction like going cold turkey.
>>28454128
>What are the gray things supposed to be?
rhose things are Vatnils. Just google Vatnik nigger
>>28452142
itt
what are logistics
>>28453428
It lacks the actual readouts on azimuth and elevation of the gun and the computer won't allow it. At least that is on the M1A1's, not certain on the M1A2's. Guy was only trained on the A1's before he retired.
>>28454320
Number of Armata built: 20+
Number of Abrams built: 10,000+
Even better.
Abrams is not a particularly good tank by NATO standards, It's about average, it's an adequate design but it is easily surpassed by some of its peers however, it's by far the most common tank in terms of numbers within the armies of NATO powers.
In that regard, the Abrams plays a similar role within NATO as the t72 and t90 do within the Russian armed forces and in that regard, it is clearly superior than any Russian tank with the exception of the Armata.
Armata is a huge step up for Russia in terms of heavy armor and a clear shift in their armored warfare doctrine towards a more westernized doctrine of tank warfare than their previous model that they inherited from the soviet union.
In terms of Capacity as a tank, it's hard to know exactly what the Armata is capable of however it's my personal opinion that the tank itself is likely a fairly even match for an A2 Abrams in terms of firepower and protection while the Armata will have an advantage in mobility and speed due to its lower weight and also in endurance due to its more traditional power plant and fuel design choices compared to Abrams.
I can't see the Armata at 48 tons being quite a match for the best tanks within NATO, I'd imagine it's outclassed by both the challenger II and Leopard II for example.
I'd expect to see plans for an A3 upgrade for the Abrams in the next few years in order to sure up confidence in the tank itself, but I highly doubt that we're going to be seeing massed waves of Armata tanks advancing through fields of wrecked M1a2s like some people would have you believe.
>>28457314
>sure up
It's "shore up."
>>28452142
>>Russian navy is actually better and more advanced than US navy
>>28452142
OUR AIR SUPERIORITY WILL BLOCK OUT THE SUN. Literally Ivan you would stand no chance our navy has a better airforce then your airforce.
>>28457588
Our Navy's Army has a better airforce than the Russian airforce.
>>28457314
>I'd imagine it's outclassed by both the challenger II and Leopard II for example.
If its outclassed by two tanks that are grossly inferior to the Abrams how is it a match for the Abrams?
>>28457314
I mean, the only other NATO tank in it's class is Leopard 2. Challenger 2 has a bad gun and slow, Ariete and Leclerc are relatively thinner skinned.
>>28457588
>>28457670
Two biggest air forces in the world are...
>the US Airforce
>the US Navy
>>28457791
Aren't the marines going to buy more F-35's than the navy?
>>28457726
If you think the Abrams is better than either of those two, there's no point in discussing it with you because you're literally a retard.
>>28457790
What exactly is wrong with the L30 55 caliber gun? If anything it's a superior to the m256a1 44caliber on the Abrams.
>>28457811
It's arguably better than Challenger 2 by a decent margin because CHARM 3 is slav-tier ammunition and Abrams is much faster and trades turret armor for glacis armor.
Leopard 2 is less clear cut. ATM the L55 and 829A3 have comparable effect on performance. Gadget-wise M1A2 and 2A6 are equal. The 2A6 turret might be a bit tougher and the engine less thirsty, but M1A2 has side turret composites, better glacis armor, and safer ammo storage.
>>28457842
L30 suffers the same problem as the old slav autoloader guns. Two piece ammo and rifling on top of it all.
That means sabots coming out of the L30 are considerably less effective than ones coming out of M256 or L/55.
There's a reason the brits tried to replace the L30 with L/55 a while back, besides common logistics.
>>28457845
Doesn't current Leo 2 have LWR?
>>28457811
The Abrams has been proven to have better crew protection than the Chally when faced with current generation tandem warhead antiarmor rockets.
And the Abrams has the best optics and C3 suite in an operational tank, by far.
>>28457876
Common logistics was the key reason cited if i remember correctly.
In terms of saboted rounds being less effective, you're right on that point however the british system of using ballbearings to prevent imparting the full spin is fairly effective, so I'd still argue that it's comparable to a Sabot round fired from a lower caliber gun like the L/44.
The rifling does give the challenger other advantages over the Abrams, particularly in terms of range and accuracy with non-sabot rounds and having HESH as an available ammunition type certainly isn't a bad thing either.
>>28457933
Abrams, with its older generation armor is has been proven better protected than challenger II? Go on then, lets see some evidence for that.
>>28457943
Can the HESH meme die? 1950's anti-tank warheads aren't particularly valuable for what a tank does.
>>28457943
>I'd still argue that it's comparable to a Sabot round fired from a lower caliber gun like the L/44.
MOD disagrees with you, they rate their own penetrators below equivilant construction older American penetrators, despite a modest improvement in velocity granted by a slightly longer barrel.
I don't even give a shit that this is b8.
Former US sailor faggot here and I've seen Russian vessles and sailors. You could give a 17 year old goth kid amphetamines, a butterknife, and a bathtub and you would have something that is not only more competent, but also more effective than the Russian navy.
>>28457950
Abrams doesn't use "old" Chobham, the use a similar-to-chobham proprietary armor, that incorporates materials that the MOD couldn't get Parliment to pay for the implimentation of on the Challenger II itself.
And the Chally has been pened in the glacis with crew injury by RPG 29 fire, something that has never happened in the Abrams, despite far more Abrams tanks being exposed to far more fire than the Chally.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html
>>28457953
HESH is particularly valuable for removing bunkers, as a general purpose demolition round and as an anti-tank round that can kill older generation tanks and lighter armored vehicles easily while still being an effective anti-infantry round.
It's a fantastic "one in the chamber" option and a good general purpose round.
The fact that Abrams is deficient in its lack of a HESH option does not make HESH a meme and it has plenty of value for what a tank does, particularly seeing as tanks are rarely deployed against enemy tanks of similar capability.
Or are you still expecting ww2 style massed tank battles to be the norm?
>>28457943
Not even close, and Brit ammo is a big part of that problem.
Charm 3 is something like 4.5 kg penetrator, while M829A3 is 7 kg+ and considerably longer. The two piece ammo means you can not get the round as long, and length of a KE penetrator is one of the most important factors.
>>28457314
>Abrams is not a particularly good tank by NATO standards
Come back to me when your tank has depleted uranium armor faggot
>>28458022
Hesh is worthless to use versus armor when you have dual-purpose HEAT rounds that perform better.
it's ONLY advantage is in firing upon structures and creating holes due to the nature of the charge. It's literally a shit meme round designed to kill 1940's era steel armor via spalling.
Not to mention with smoothbore you can fire missiles and advanced rounds, such as canister shot.
>>28452142
the KA-50 statement is the only plausible one in the OP
the simulator thing is so easily bullshit, it's not funny. A simulator proves it's great? I guess the T-34s in War Thunder doing great means they were the best tank in World War II
>>28458009
>amphetamines
Not the ability to make them himself? Or more to the point, Krokodil?
>>28458056
Why do you think the styker MGS doesn't use a smoothbore and carries HESH/HEP rounds if the round itself is useless in a modern military context?
I will grant you that the ability to fire guided AT and AA missiles using a smoothbore main gun is a major advantage however.
>>28458056
You can probably still fire canister with a rifled barrel. The projectiles would need a shot cup and there would probably still be problems with homogenous dispersion, but it's possible.
>>28458102
Because the stryker MGS literally _IS_ for shooting structures?
>>28458103
You can, I know there's canister shot for the L7 105mm rifled cannon, I don't see why that wouldn't scale up for the 120mm L30a1.
>>28458120
and that capability is very useful in a modern armored vehicle, because shockingly most of the things tanks shoot at aren't other tanks.
>>28458102
It's worthless for anti-tank usage, hence the use of HESH for fire-support roles against soft targets. That's exactly why it makes sense for a Stryker to have it, but not a Tank.
Hesh is literally designed to engage 1950's era armor and is worthless against enemy MBT and questionably effective even against enemy T-62 type vehicles with armor modifications. HEAT Dual purpose ammo as well as ammo that does exist already for the smoothbore does everything better that a tank should be Doing. Brits even wanted smoothbores but were too cheap to do so in the modern era.
>>28458103
and you can probably design a HESH round that fires from a smoothbore, but it's a pointless endeavor since it's an outclassed ammo.
>>28458102
The MGS uses HEP because it can't fire two mode HEAT.
The MGS uses the L7 because it was an inexpensive choice we already had ammunition in inventory for that would be acceptably effective without being too heavy or powerful for the mount, or two expensive for a program that was supposed to be cheap to impliment.
>>28458170
Thats why you have HEAT Dual-purpose ammo, since it is much more effective versus the typical threat encountered and has MUCH greater penetration of armor or materials.
>>28458170
Two mode HEAT is also good against structures, and doesn't require the use of a rifled barrel.
>mfw posting in a Vatnik thread
>>28452142
>>KA 50 blackshark
They stop buying this thing forever ago.
>>28458025
This, two piece ammo is shit tier stuff only suitable for artillery.
>>28458187
M152/3 HEAT.
There's also a scaled down version of the 830a1 HEAT-MP round used in the Abrams for the L7/m68.
>>28458102
The turret is one that was already designed and tested during the Armored Gun System competition, it was a quick and cheap choice to get a big gun mounted on an organic vehicle for Stryker BCTs.
>>28458190
>>28458187
The Stryker MGS is perfectly capable of firing any 105mm round in use by the US military, including M900.
HEP is preferred in the fire support/SPG role because HEAT-MP is terrible at demolition.
Also the M68 is not a copy of the L7, unless you want to argue using the same fume extractor makes the gun the same.
>>28458206
>Two mode HEAT is also good against structures
No, it is not. The utility comes from added fragmentation.
>>28457811
The literal only advantage the current model Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 has over the current model Abrams is a more fuel efficient engine.
>>28458449
To add, 105mm M456A2 and 120mm M830 are both 'dual purpose' HEAT rounds just like 120mm M830A1 is.
The quirk of M830A1 (aka MPAT) is being a saboted subcaliber round for higher velocity and an RF proximity fuze.
Orbital ATK has a 105mm version of MPAT on their website.
>>28452142
>Russian Navy
Russian Navy has the distinction of being over 300 years old and never having a major vicotry in any of those 300 years of existance. It's a fucking shame too because they're the only branch of the RM that isn't loaded out with outdated shit that can't do anything.
>>28453389
Thus again proving that the M60 is and always will be the most average tank around: it can be defeated by T-34s, yet it can defeat cutting-edge machinery, depending on the crew.
>>28458622
Considering the sore state of much of the Russian Navy, that's really sad if true.
>>28452142
>Simulator shows that 1 armata can take out 6 abrams
and simulator battles of F-22 and F-35 shown that they could take out dozens of enemy A2A fighters each. With inertial guided missiles such as what amraams are.
>>28452142
>>28452142
If you think about it none of this wanking matters, because these tanks are never going to fight each other in a meaningful sense.
Sure they might go up against each other crewed by third world buttfuckers in 40 years when they're both obsolete and being exported for free to the latest and greatest shithole in the name of continuing the eternal proxy war fuck fuck games, but at the end of the day neither of these vehicles are going to fight each other in a meaningful sense - when they're actually employed by and driven by their country's military and going up against the same.
Superpowers aren't going to duke it out because MAD is still very much a thing and even if you can launch and magically shoot down all the incoming death spikes you're still fucking everything royally for a very, very long time.
The only place you'll ever see at scale warfare is in Africa, the Middle East and other places that don't have a dick to throw around in the nuclear "I won't if you don't" game, so those are the only places you're going to see these things actually used.
>>28458803
A full on conventional naval war between USA and China is within the realm of possibility
>>28452142
Anyone wish someone turned one of those hovercraft into a giant amphibious land tank? With a battery of artillery cannons mounted on it or a ton of atgms.
Or even a bigger one with a jury rigged battleship cannon to act as a mobile firebase?
>>28458834
Yes, but OP is wanking about Russian equipment and war between the US and China would be economic suicide for all parties involved.
China may or may not have much of a dick to wave in the nuke market yet but I don't think it's gonna be that way for long.
>>28452142
You do know that main battle tanks in 2016 are of the same status as battleships right before WWII, in that they are obsolete and no one will be building new ones in ten years.
>Why are they obsolete
Because Appache Longbows, A10 Warthogs, AT Drones, AC-130s, and Javilin AT Weapons.
>>28452142
>>28461318
i'm pretty sure that active defense / hardkill systems will put them right back in track. and it's possible that if better more effective ciws are developed we gonna be right back to battleships except they will be more like battlecruisers in that they will sport little armor and maybe even intercontinental ballistic missile launch capability aside from a fuckton of missiles and a couple of railguns.
the new cruiser designs barking on the 30 thousand tonnes clearly point to this direction.
>>28458036
Come back at me when your tank survives an outing in the field
>>28461368
Active defense is a limited use system so sustained fire from an AC-130 for example would destroy the Armata in less than five minutes. 40mm fire would set off the active defenses and a couple of 105mm shells raining down would make that pos a burning wreck.
>>28461423
i don't think that model has du armor tho...
>>28461434
>MUH MONKEY MODELS!!!!
Vatniks and Fatniks truly are no different
These RIDF vs USIDF threads are the cancer that is killing /k/
>>28452142
ITT: butthurt murkans
>>28461423
NOT
A
SINGLE
ONE
LOST
>>28461448
no seriously they don't export them to my knowledge. and that was the anons point you replied to. so looks to me you are just making an ass out of yourself.
>>28453320
>>28453367
>>28452598
>>28452920
>>28453257
>>28453270
>Start troll thread without even knowing
>People start criticizing false information
>grow up
How fucking new are you?
>Abrams is the only modern MBT to see extensive combat. Doing as well as you can expect any tank to do in urban warfare, and slaughtering its way through what was thought to be one of the best armored armies in the world.
ABRAMS A SHIT! PIG-DOG CAPITALIST TANK NO MATCH FOR GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA.
>>28452142
I know this is bait but I'm bored.
1) armata isn't in service yet. Abrams has been around for decades, received many upgrades, has proven service record. Armata is essentially a paper tank.
2) blackshark is awesome, but again, only about a dozen were ever made, never bothered to make more. It's not more advanced technology than a modern Apache.
3) russian navy consists of a bunch of subs and destroyers. US matches it there, except the US also has over a dozen CVs with awesome amounts of airpower.
>>28461697
grow up
>>28458834
and would last a week with the results being total destruction of China's entire navy at the cost of maybe a destroyer or two for the US.
>>28461318
attack helicopters, anti-tank planes, ATGMs, and gunships have been around for decades. Like 50-60 years. Tanks aren't going anywhere. They've been saying that kind of crap for decades.
>>28461433
am ac130 wouldn't be able to go anywhere near a tank normally let alone fly around it. also the ac130 has about the same effective range as the tanks main gun and a low altitude flight. so not the best example.
>>28461872
Do modern tanks have radars to spot & engage attack helicopters?
Increase the elevation of guns and they could fire at low firing aircraft, might be useful.
>>28452142
Russian psyops plz go.
>>28461709
>facts and figures are not as expected
"grow up"
>>28458069
>I guess the T-34s in War Thunder doing great means they were the best tank in World War II
That's because War Thunder is literally shit pleb game and not a simulator.
>>28464576
>>28453537
>The Russians have a strong history with CAS, having basically invented the dedicated CAS aircraft
What is a stuka?
>>28453367
Story behind those pictures?
