What is the ugliest tank?
My vote goes to this one. Gunner FCS looks like shit.
>>28617125
Armata is pretty fucking ugly, tbqh fampai.
WWII Shermans, brit tanks.
Russian KV-2
Where calendar for Armata?
>>28617125
>>28617263
The Russian T-35 is also a competitor
Armata
Every Brit design prior to the Centurion
Bob Semple
Stug III
>>28617273
Bump of this. Calendar?
>>28617263
This.
>>28617406
T-35 is at least somewhat dakka -ish.
this piece of shit
a tank without a turret
wtf
People saying Brit tanks are ugly are people who don't understand what they are looking at when it comes to tracks and suspension.
Ugliest tank of WW2 for me is the M3 Grant / Lee
America has never designed a good looking tank.
>>28617953
Actually in retrospect i'll give the burgers the M103.
Everything else is average to ugly. with a fair few WTF moments -(starship)
>>28617953
>America has never designed a good looking tank.
What is M24? What is M41? What is the whole Pershing line (M26, M46, M47, M48, M60)?
And cannot possible tell me that MBT-70 is ugly.
>inb4 it's not American
>>28618000
*possibly
God, I can't type today.
>>28617953
>thinking that bongistani tanks are ugly because of the suspension and tracks and not the entire look of the vehicle
fag detected
>>28618000
I said "never designed a good looking tank" - that doesn't mean that i think everything they make is ugly.
they all suffer from looking too fat for their tracks and many (MBT-70 most of all) have stupid ammounts of stuff just attached to the outside because there wasn't room in the already ample chassis.
Look at that fucking gun mantlet on this thing. I'm glad its dead.
>>28618051
>I said "never designed a good looking tank" - that doesn't mean that i think everything they make is ugly.
What the fuck m8? It means exactly that. USA never outsourced tank designs and "not good looking" equals "ugly" to me and everyone I've met.
>they all suffer from looking too fat for their tracks and many (MBT-70 most of all) have stupid ammounts of stuff just attached to the outside because there wasn't room in the already ample chassis.
You know, sacrificing effectiveness for the looks is just plain stupid. And t︂b︂︂h that never bothered me. Maybe you're just a fag that doesn't like strong looking American tanks?
>Look at that fucking gun mantlet on this thing. I'm glad its dead.
Yeah, you're just a fag.
>>28618098
>"not good looking" equals "ugly" to me and everyone I've met.
You must suffer from some serious social issues
Huur if you're not first you're last
>>28618105
You're on 4chan, lad, everyone here suffers from social issues.
>>28618098
>Maybe you're just a fag that doesn't like strong looking American tanks?
Please, strong american tanks like the M60 ? kek
This is how you build a good looking tank.
>>28617953
>boxes on boxes look good to me!
kek
>>28618149
>weird cast turret with a rat nose
>smokes a lot
I mean, it's as pretty as the British women. If that's what you like then more power to you, I guess.
>>28618165
Some of the time they look excellent.
Comet looks like a much smaller version of Tiger desu
you can see both in >>28617953
>>28618211
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO3MttgvHUY
>>28618194
Or you could have a cast turret with a huge jew nose of a face plate that then needs to have a hole cut in it. And even then with your huge redundant mantlet you require canvas to keep the rain out.
Then to keep the jew nosed tank happy they give it a big outdated cupola to remind it of new york, they even fill it with lots of glass so he can peer out at all the anti Semites.
They were also kind enough to let him strap all his trinkets to the outside of the tank so he can try and sell his wares as he goes through towns.
Oh and with that 105mm cuck gun this jew probably has a really nasally, high pitched voice voice.
So tell me again what's wrong with Chieftain ?
>>28618286
>So tell me again what's wrong with Chieftain ?
It's British :^)
Oh, and you sound awfully anti-Semitic. I'm afraid I'll have to report you to the local authorities. There's literally nothing wrong with Jews.
>>28618286
>So tell me again what's wrong with Chieftain ?
Never got a decent engine during its entire service life.
>>28617406
I..Is that a BOLO?
>>28618347
Well, at least it took a while for the Warhammer shitters to show up.
>>28618286
The Chieftain? It barely worked.
![M60A2-drives-off-LARC-60-198510513-2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/sa1vWVY.jpg "M60A2-drives-off-LARC-60-198510513-2[1].jpg")
Literally an ameritumor
>>28618386
You are trying to hard.
>>28618564
So you're not the ones trying to hard to shit up the thread with your unfunny bullshit?
>>28618545
it looks like a micro penis
All tanks are beautiful.
>>28618051
>>28618286
You, or you two, need to fuck off and die in a ditch.
The M60 and MBT-70 are both cool as fuck. The Chieftain is ugly as shit like all other bong tanks. I say that as a native bong myself.
design is functional. it's a piece of equipment, not a fashion queen
>>28621544
It still looks like fucking garbage.
And it's most likely shit, too, so it doesn't even have "but it works!!!" going for it.
>>28621563
thank you for this comprehensive analysis, your contribution is invaluable to us
>>28620842
shut up tankblr
I'm feeling nauseous just looking at Chrysler TV-8
I've always found the Centurion sexy as fuck, dunno about worst though. Maybe the Porsche Tiger.
Any other tanks turret takes an RPG from the front and keeps fighting. T-14 takes a hit in the turret and is now combat ineffective and has to go back to the factory. They couldn't even put on a little bit of composite, just this thin covering over the gun housing.
>Turret is a small gun
Lol!
>>28622004
It could travel across oceans though, right?
How's that for an amphibious assault?
>you don fukd up
>be there in 6 months in my nuclear tank
>>28626686
Would like whole calendar please
>>28617255
this is a lot of poor taste
>>28618386
>Bolo
>Warhammer
Dude
Polish autism at it's finest
>>28627024
this looks like the cover of some alternative rock band album.
>>28627606
dat low RCS
S T E A L T H
. .A
. .N
. .K
>>28627675
>>28627696
You're operating and you suddenly see this turd in front of you, what do?
>>28627722
?
see what??
>>28627606
There can be a polish stealth tank outside your youre RIGHT NOW and you wouldnt even know
>>28617125
>this one
No doubt on that. it's real fucking ugly.
Matlida I
>>28621544
The T-14 Armata is the only russian main battle tank which is able to perform a neutral steer.
>>28621544
Can you call it functional if it's never been battle tested before?
>>28627024
>225mb
>yandicks limits you to 64kbs download
LOL
It's in vkontakte.
Leopard 2 with that add-on V shaped turret armor
But that Leopard 2 Revolution looks so a, just like every other Leo2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PoshnVa7SE
>>28629423
*looks so awesome
>>28621602
the thread is literally about how a vehicle looks
the armata's hull looks great, but that turret is all kinds of fucked
>>28629423
Leopard look like an over weigh Panzer
>>28627696
So Stealthy the T in Tank is hidden from view.
>>28629276
By that metric there isn't a single functional MBT in existence.
Schwacking monkey models over thermal doesn't count.
>>28617768
Fuck you it's top level sexy
>>28630602
>>28630606
>>28630547
>tanks that do have extensive combat records against other armored vehicles
>hand-wave them away as "schwacking monkey models over thermal"
>implying having thermal sights and advanced FCS aren't integral parts of an effective MBT, and having them be battle-tested is meaningful
>implying you get to draw the line of what counts as "battle tested" at "used against other equal-quality amazing technology MBTs"
fuck off. you're an idiot.
By your logic, no military hardware has been "battle tested" since WWII.
>>28630606
that skirt have killed more tanker than anything in the world
why not just make a light ank
why not just use snorkel
>>28626002
At least double the LOS thickness of the T-90 as it would have the entire length of the turret to protect the air behind it. The gun would be exactly as vulnerable as in any other MBT as you can see by the comparison with the T-90. The gun is almost identically set in the turret as the T-90 meaning that the gun would be at least as well protected as in the T-90.
>>28630693
>By your logic, no military hardware has been "battle tested" since WWII.
Your opinion transcends stupidity - A different poster
>>28626002
The tank's turret is as large as the T90's and is unmanned. of course it has more then sufficient protection. You can see the top attack protection on the roof and the sides/front are similarly or better protected because it would make no sense to protect the roof and leave the sides wide open. Making composite turret armor makes no sense from utility standpoint as T14 is a modular design.
Deep inside some of you are just butthurt Russia is a premiere tank country again because this design is decades ahead compared to anything on the market today. Much better mobility, APS, weapon and armor alongside the unmanned turret which further increases crew safety and foreshadows fully automated MBTs.
First you say "but it stopped at the parade muh", then you are like "but its has no armor", and now it finally comes down to threads specifically dedicated to "omg look it's so ugly!". Just kinda laughable and miserable to behold, that's all.
>>28626002
because the remove the crew in the turret
the only weakness is the gun mantlet and gun sight
same weakness as every MBT today
>>28630693
Are you a great fighter if you beat up an malnourished autist kid or if you beat up an equal?
Poping something even soviet satellites considered junk at ranges where they literally had no chance is not a battle, it's a turkey shoot.
Then only "battle tested" are those involved in blue-on-blue engagements, only they stood up against equal tech generation.
>no military hardware has been "battle tested" since WWII
Jew vs sandnigger wars...almost always at least the same generation of tech, nicely proved it's about the operators.
>>28618051
MBT-70 is dope as fuck bro
>>28631056
>any fight is better than never having fought before
>shooting turkeys still better than never shooting anything
>jew vs sandnigger wars
>same generation tech
>1948 war was using WWII tanks
>Suez Crisis in 1956 arabs still using same WWII tanks like T-34 and IS-3, Israel still using WWII tanks as well as the AMX-13
>6 Day War, arabs still using WWII tanks with some shit-tier T-54/55's and early model M48's, Israel using later model M48's with upgraded engines, armor, and the 105mm L7 gun from the centurion. Way superior tanks on Israel's side
>Yom Kippur War, arabs still using the same lineup from the 6 Day War, WWII tanks + T-54/55's, a small handful of shitty T-62's. Israel using M60's and Centurions.
sorry bro, the arab-israeli wars were only using same-gen tech early on when both sides were using WWII tanks. By the time of the 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War, the Israelis were using much better tanks.
So like I said, by that logic, no tanks since WWII have been "battle tested" if it means being pitted against technologically-equal opponents.
>>28626686
It's a recovery vehicle, not a tank.
>>28629276
functional design assures that each modular part of a device has only one responsibility and performs that responsibility with the minimum of side effects on other parts. assuming you need battle experience against rival mbt's to deem tank functional means that leo2 and leclerc are dysfunctional scrap
>>28627722
All I see is some trees, I guess i could chop them down.
>>28630782
That's a thin steel covering outside of that red zone. And inside is just a lightly armoured box containing the gun. Meaning if it gets hit by anything that could disable an IFV's turret it'll be knocked out
>>28631211
Israeli M60s vs Lebanese T-72s, M60s win.
USMC M60s vs Iraqi T-72s, M60s win.
