http://taskandpurpose.com/army-trying-kill-life-saving-weapons-system/
>On March 21, Gen. Robert Abrams, commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command, stated FORSCOM’s position is that the Army should “immediately stop the fielding of CROWS-LP [Common Remote Operating Weapon Station – Low-Profile] systems to Forces Command Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABVT),” in a memorandum directed at the vice chief of staff for the Army, which was obtained by Task & Purpose.
>In the memo, Abrams also instructed to Army to “devote the remaining CROWS program funding to removing CROWS-II from the Army’s M1A2SEPV2 and M1A1SA tanks and replace with the Flex Mount System.”
>>29677382
Thank the Lord TC's finally get their situational awareness back.
>>29677382
I remember seeing Vic's with those robotic automated turret guns on Army vehicles in Iraq.
I was in the muhreens tho. Couldn't afford robots so I was the turret gunner instead.
>>29677382
CROWS does kinda limit your field of view, but it's got infrared and NV, and you don't have to worry about a round to the skull. But I'm sure Gen. Abrams has got a good reason, and isn't getting money from Shit-mount.
Seems like every war they need to relearn all the old lessons, such as sticking your heads out of the tank is asking to be shot
Do they not do realistic training ?
Why not build an armored turret with bullet proof glass?
>>29677382
Idiots.
>>29677382
Check out the Facebook posting of this story. Tankers are coming out of the woodwork to ass blast this article and express their hate for the Abrams CROWS.
>>29677499
But that's the thing: the lesson here is that situational awareness for the TC is vital for Armored operations, and one of the best ways to gain that is to simply take a peak. Combined with the fact that it raises the profile, I think they are correctly unlearning a bad lesson from recent deployments.
It's great for other platforms, especially strykers, but for Armored operations its a hindrance.
>>29677628
I wouldn't be surprised if they intend to put them on Strykers that do not have a RWS yet.
>>29677657
They better. I was under the impression that they were just going to scrap them.
>If you really want to know the truth. Contact the user representatives at the Tradoc Capabilities Manager - Armored Brigade Combat Team (TCM-ABCT) at Fort Benning. This story is only half truths and it's a horrible misrepresentation of what's really going on. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
The plot thickens.
Interdasting, I was always under the impression that the CROWS system was halfway decent.
Never really thought of how unusable it would become during an engagement.
so. the brass felt that TCs were spending too much time buttoned up in their tank and peeking through the CROWS. which was killing their situational awareness. so instead of retraining and telling the TCs to stick their heads out unless it is really fucking unsafe. They just misappropriate funds to remove the weapons we already paid over a billion dollars for.
>>29677836
You are ignoring that it physically blocks a TC's forward view.
>>29677836
>You can train TCs to use xray vision to look through an automated weapons turret fixed directly at the TCs 12 position and can't be looked over without completely exposing themselves.
>>29677836
>They just misappropriate funds to remove the weapons we already paid over a billion dollars for.
The CROWS are not going to disappear into thin air.
>>29677803
It was really good for Iraq and Afghanistan but in a real war it could get a lot of guys killed.
>>29677803
It is a good platform. Just not on an Abrams. The thing is just too big and obnoxious for the commander to see well, and vision is everything for a tank. I believe the CROWS goes well on almost all other vehicles though. The Flex Mount they want to use instead has a far lower profile.
>>29677836
I wanna say this is what happend, but wouldn't they get rid of the CITV too? Not just the CROW?
>>29677836
So much this.
>>29677836
Samefagging, but as we all know, those in charge worry more about gear than brains.
why didn't they just reposition the CROWS so it is out of the way ?
a remote HMG turret is mandatory feature on 21st century tanks.
>>29678569
CITV is for hunter killer, in that regard the camera on the CROWS is redundant.
>>29678650
>why didn't they just reposition the CROWS so it is out of the way ?
Where would you put it?
>a remote HMG turret is mandatory feature on 21st century tanks.
What if real experience shows they are detrimental to a tanks situational awareness?
Keep in mind a CROWS is effectively an unmanned turret, not just a remote HMG.
>>29678714
Why not get some cameras and give the TC a panoramic view
Rather than pretending sticking your head out the top is somehow optimal or the only way to do it.
Instead of dropping a working piece of equipment in favor of a more expensive new piece of equipment, why don't they just mount the fucking thing in a non-retarded place? Like, I don't know, NOT obstructing crucial equipment?
>>29678714
Slavs put their remote turret towards the back. It would be able to fit there on an Abrams as well.
>situational awareness.
retrain the TC and loader.
Put one on each side of the turret.
>>29678814
Because the back of the turret is where the Abrams stores its goddamn ammo. How are they going to mount a CROWS turret there?
>>29678650
Where else is there to put it? The most logical option would be behind the commander and close to the center line of the turret, like the T-90MS or how the CITV is placed on the Leopard 2. The issue here is that this is where the blowout panels are on the M1.
The turret is designed to be very low profile, and therefor things like the CITV unit and gunner's sight are placed at the lowest practical height, rather than the position that provides the best possible view. For example, look at the CITV placement of the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2; both perched at the highest point of the turret to give an unobstructed panoramic view of the battlefield. (admittedly less so on the Chally, but still). Along with this, both vehicles generally have less cluttered tops than the Abrams, albeit because German and British forces have not seen the type of combat that makes something like TUSK a necessity. Now look at the Abrams (see pic related. Yes, I'm aware it's not a real photograph); Shorter than both, but with all of the shields and whatnot fitted to the top of the vehicle, and by virtue of it's placement, the CITV is stuck in this little pocket at the front of the tank.
The point I'm making here is that the M1 is not very welcoming to moving large parts of it's equipment around like that. There is limited available space on the top of the turret, and all of it is forward of the hatches. There is really no way to put something like CROWS on the top of an Abrams and not either A) block the commander's view, or B) remove one of the blowout panels from the rear and mount it there.
>>29678856
stick on the back of the turret where that cargo shelf is.
>>29678804
But it is the optimal way. And look how fuckhuge the periscopes are on a M1A2 cupola, there is no reason camera's should be needed.
>>29678853
As dumb as it sounds, I kinda like the idea of giving the Abrams remote sponsons with M2s; bring a tear to Patton's eye as he chases Rommel and Monty around Heaven in an M4.
>>29678933
you know...
A few fish eye lenses in different places around the tank. Some software to correct the views for a normal perspective. An eyepiece hud on the commander's helmet. You could have spherical vision around the tank. Like what is produced by those Google Maps Cars' camera ball.
Commander, Loader, and Driver can just use the eyepiece vision to look anywhere with out being outside the tank.
>>29678915
Yes, because I'm sure the commander will love his point of view switching from the front left of the turret to the back right every time he wants to shoot something with it.
>>29678980
You do know that the Google Street View system doesn't do that all in real time, right?
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ICqTRo6.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>29679022
My Nissan LEAF does it in real time.
That synthetic overhead view is fucking amazing for parking and driving through tight spaces.
>>29678829
Slav's don't have ammunition blowout panels on the back of their turrets.
>>29678980
BAE is working on something like that.
http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/battleview-360--see-through--armored-vehicle-system-makes-u-s--debut
>>29678855
Off to the side, not over the blast doors.
Fuck.
>>29679052
because the ammo inst in the turret idiot...
>>29679022
It absolutely does. Watch a 360 degree stream
>>29679097
The hull ammo storage on an Abrams has blowout panels as well.
>>29679050
Ok, now instead of having it on a little low resolution screen, set it up so it can be viewed through a transparent eyepiece.
Now make it so instead of turning a camera to move the view, the view follows the movement of the commander's head. Now, the second part shouldn't be too hard, since we have it with pic related.
Now make it so the resolution is enough that you can hit a man-sized target at range.
Now go put that helmet on and operate as the commander of an Abrams for a few hours and tell me how much easier your life got.
>>29679155
situation awareness only.
commander and gunner will still use their existing dedicated sights and cameras to shoot.
>>29679211
Alright then; situational awareness only. So I repeat: go put that helmet on and operate as the commander of an Abrams for a few hours and tell me how much easier your life got.
This is what you're proposing as the replacement for CROWS. This is fucking stupid.
![1200027235[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8sIPU6R.jpg "1200027235[1].jpg")
>>29679155
vr is here already
http://video.tu.no/kjorer-stridsvogn-med-facebook-briller
same guys that are making crows are developing a system like that, I have tried it and its fucking awesome,
>>29679227
not replacing CROWS, supplementing.
yeah, heavy helmets for long time periods suck. I have a titanium plate and 4 titanium screws in my neck, thanks to a year in Iraq wearing a PASGT with PVS 7 on it.
>>29677382
Right becuse THIS is what is eating up our budget. NOT the out dated convoy live fire systems and call for fire simulators that us 1990's video game tech, break down frequently and that require muliple civ contractors making 100k+ a year each to maintain. Nope that is WAAAAY more cost effective than using live ammo.
>>29679155
Got just the webm for this.
>>29679271
Blame Clinton. He gutted the military of federal civilians and solder technicians. To "cut government spending".
>>29679290
The Cheyenne helicopter prototype had an early version of that. The gunner's seat and console rotate with the gun. The pilot had a eyepiece.
>>29679271
>Right becuse THIS is what is eating up our budget.
You didn't actually read the article did you?
>>29679338
No.
But I do see sooo much waste
>>29677700
>they were just going to scrap them.
>30000 CROWS are sold as surplus to Local and County Police Dept, complete with MRAP mounting system
They better just fuckin destroy them....
Put them on M-ATVs lol
They will all be sold to the Marine Corps for pennies
>>29679410
Why the fuck do people think they are going to be destroyed when the army has a gorillion other vehicles that they can be mounted on and be incredibly more useful?
>>29679410
see below
>>29679539
>this.
Also we can put CROWS on just about fucking anything. It is literally an agnostic system. Hang it upside down from a fucking CH-47, it cares not. Strap it to a submarine. it wont work then. probably? Fuck I don't know, maybe you can kill Jacques Cousteau with the damn things.
Oh, finally, place them on SEPs or Towers. done and done. They got lots of use.
>>29679155
dunno how it is with the Army HMD's, but the JHMCS costs about $250,000 and has to be mapped for each individual cockpit's magnetic field BS.
so yeah...
OKAY
HERE'S WHAT WE DO
WE MAKE A ROBOT MADE OF CROWS
I CALL IT THE CROWBOT
>>29678814
Because what else are they gonna blow Their budget on?
>>29679022
I think he's referring to something similar to the F-35's all-around vision
>>29677382
>ITT: burgers can't into remote weapon stations
>>29679243
Fuck VR it has pitiful resolution ATM (something like equivalent of 2/20-5/20 vision). Just give crew enough screen space.
>>29677803
They should mount them as fold out crane arm side sponson macine guns and we can get all WW1 on Isis with rolling gun fortress tanks.
>>29677996
Sentry guns for base gates?
>>29678814
We M3 Lee now.
>>29682332
And give him a buddy named tom servo?
>>29683424
Or warhammer 40k...pretty soon an abrams will have "wings" to mount expenadble m2's and rocket pods.
Basically create an Apache with treads.
>>29682497
It's pretty amazing how US armor development manages to consecutively progress backwards. I anticipate even less automation, more turrets and 19K negros as twilight genius of american tank engineering continues to pace into the future.
>>29678856
>albeit because German and British forces have not seen the type of combat that makes something like TUSK a necessity.
you know britain fought in both iraq and afghanistan don't you
it's more likely that they have no fucking money because their politicians hate them
>>29677446
nice being a target i giss
Soon we will have unmanned tanks...
>>29683776
This. I can't wait for unshielded nuclear powered tanks and bombers piloted by drone troopers.
>>29677636
>return of wedding cake turrets when?
>>29678989
Gamers today manage with some wacky shit, and still stay competitive.
Why not give him two displays for each feed, net stereoscopic vision and improved depth perception with it too.
>>29677382
Talking just as a total nub regarding armoured vehicles.
Why don't we design new tanks with the lessons learned in recent wars and with the current new technologies rather than trying to put bandaids on current designs?
Don't we have the money for it?
>>29679155
Just use the fucking F-35 helmets and mount cameras all around the tank's exterior.
problem solved
>>29684508
>Don't we have the money for it?
We do, but there's a bunch of shit coming down the pipe that is going to require all new platforms anyway and everything we've got is good enough. There's a crazy amount of resources in the Abrams and it's not that hard to upgrade.
Next generation ADS will be what drives the creation of the next generation tank.
>>29678520
>The thing is just too big and obnoxious for the commander to see well
This makes me wonder how good the Armata-concept is since nobody can pop out from the highest point of the turret.
Who's right?
>>29683765
Never said it was a good thing. Just a reality.
>sips some whiskey
Hell, I am reality. MACHINE breaks down WE ALL break down! I won't allow it. Not from any of ya.
>>29684535
>30-by-40-degree wide-field-of-view
>solves the problem
>>29679052
what are those sand colored panels on the turret?
>>29682497
Do you even Raytheon's BattleGuard® ?
>>29677382
this sound moronic, the dam thing probably has image magnification and thermal right is a step up most defiantly plus, why not install additional cameras for situational awareness then, I understnad hten eed to pop your head out hte turret ocne in awhile but good god to kill a weapon system that works is striking me as very dumb especially with the M1A3 upgrade around the corner you could help ot remedy the situational awareness issue now with multiple camera feed and screens
>>29684820
There isn't a real need to pop one's head with current technology. We could get one of those drones ffs give the commander a God's eye view of the place.
>>29683633
>implying that a fully manual tank won't be better when your Slav tanks are breaking down thanks to a small object in a sensitive piece of equipment
>>29684840
Holy shit, each Abrams gets it's own little quad-copter launcher with a Thermal/Optical camara. Shit would be amazing for SA/target marking.
>>29684566
>>29684820
>cameras for situational awareness
Fuuuck no. Just extra shit to not work and soak up money we could be using for other parts. Great if it works, but in person is always better for near target acquisition, maneuverability, and general sight.
Glad the CROWS is going away. My platoon has one working CROWS and it doesn't even have all the parts. During our last gunnery, my TC literally had to sit on top of of the turret, disable the azimuth/elevation locks, and manually fire it at the targets. While badass (as fuck), imagine doing that in a combat situation. Now his entire body is exposed, as opposed to just half the torso plus arms and head (even less if they have the TUSK shields installed).
As for an extra camera, that is literally the point of the CITV. Also, the high profile makes it impossible to hide unless you have a big-ass berm. And if your CROWS is broke as fuck, meaning you need to go up higher to see over the crest with the CITV and now you're silhouetting with a big-ass, blocky CROWS.
Can't believe that no one's mentioned that the user interface for the damn thing is fucking huge, and with all of the shit that they're already shoving into AFV's- the Blue Force Tracker etc- there really isn't space for another joystick.
It's a good system, the tank just doesn't need that much money and weight and volume spent on what's a tertiary weapon system at best.
>>29684799
Looks slick. Why was this CROWS abomination selected again?
>>29684853
Then you need to add an automated mortar for engaging infantry out of LOS
>>29684887
Lobbyism ?
So... my Burgerfriends
why did you folks smashed your remote turret station INFRONT of the TC position and not behind it?
>>29685081
Blowout panels. If you have a shit-ton of weight on them they won't work properly in case the ammunition detonates
>>29682497
>picture of a tank no one bought
>>29685086
and what if you folks would go further back with it?
>pic related (red circle)
>>29684799
^ this is a good stock tip if you're paying attention go-er, guys
>>29685100
Probably because of the machinegun position.
>>29677382
So they're removing cutting edge technology and bringing the Abrams TC fighting ability on par with a T-55 with a DShKM mounted on a pintle?
I must be a fucking idiot to miss the point. Someone lay this out to me.
>>29685108
We put shit there. Sponson boxes hardly have any room in them since they're an elongated triangle rather than an actual box.
In M1A2s, there is no room in the integrated bustle rack. There's 2.5 or so feet in the middle between the thermal imaging system in the pic, and another box thing (the system isn't installed and I have no idea what it actually does), and that space will be used for equipment. Even with the extension, a lot of that is personal gear. Four people are carrying enough supplies to last a month in the field. And if the TC hatch is open, it obstructs the forward FOV of the CROWS.
Shooting over the heads of your crew is also bad form.
>>29684856
so what the hell is ordnance doing redesign CROWS with a 2 stage servos so you can lower the profile to be near the same height a the ICS unit or better yet redesign the thing with off the shelf components, I mean personally they should have a manual override to operate the m2a1 and have a easy to attach splinter shield in the stowage rack then to attach, granted you make plenty good arguments but at this point we might as well put the m60 machine gun turret back into service
>>29685152
*thermal management, not thermal imaging.
>>29683827
>robots
>working around high radiactivity
>>29684851
Except even ancient Soviet autoloaders have no reliability issues. Soviet technology is peasant proof. If you can operate a scythe, you can operate the tank.
>>29685153
>so what the hell is ordnance doing redesign CROWS with a 2 stage servos so you can lower the profile to be near the same height a the ICS unit or better yet redesign the thing with off the shelf components,
The CROWS has a high profile regardless. If you stand next to it, it goes up to your abdomen. 10" isn't that much of a difference when it's still a foot taller than the CITV.
>I mean personally they should have a manual override to operate the m2a1 and have a easy to attach splinter shield in the stowage rack then to attach,
You can manually operate the M2 if you 1) have two Jesus pins, and 2) disengage the locks. But instead of a CROWS, maybe just a few simple controls with a camera/laser that just remotely manipulates the existing pintle.
And the TUSK has transparent shields for the TC. I personally haven't crewed a TUSK'd up Abrams, but I don't think it's collapsible/detachable like you're suggsting
>granted you make plenty good arguments but at this point we might as well put the m60 machine gun turret back into service
Not a horrible idea. The TUSK copula is the same thing in concept, it just is made of bullet-resistant glass instead of steel, so we pretty much already have it.
>>29678520
>crow mounted on the tip of the barrel
>adjustable profile height, no visibility loss for commander, ability to shoot around corners
I still don't understand what's wrong with something like this.
>>29685182
>t14 on parade, snowflake tank given to only best units as per usual
>one randomly combusts
>other breaks down and had to be towed away
>on a parade, driving on flat tarmac really really slowly
>vatnik in another thread claimed it's because they were given to conscripts and highly trained russian honour conscripts are too dumb to operate machinery designed to be operated by dumb uneducated peasants.
>>29684851
>>29685230
>rapid loading of main gun
>still lower ROF than trained manual loader crew
>provides better survivability
>unlimited # of t72's who have been separated from their turret from ammo rack explosion
You can have the final one.
>>29685230
>no source
>says a 3-man crew is good
>says ammo stored IN THE FUCKING HULL is good
hey m8 how did you get around the captcha?
>>29685216
jesus christ it's just retarded enough that it may have gone through to the other side and become a good idea.
>>29685241
>>29685263
Niggers, please.
How many T-72s have been fielded around the world?
Tens of thousands. It is THE MOST reliable and widely fielded tank autoloader in the world.
Not even up for debate.
>>29685299
Except even with autoloaders it gets BTFO everywhere by western tank designs.
>>29685146
>I must be a fucking idiot to miss the point. Someone lay this out to me.
Experience shows it actually harms a crews performance according to the tankers posting in the articles comments.
You are making the mistake of automatically assuming it is good because it is high tech.
>>29685299
It is also the bottom of the barrel tank that you have if you don't have money/connections to get anything better.
>>29685323
Baitin' a little hard there...
>>29678814
That's what the Armata does. I think if they place the ammobox in a suspended position off the turret, it might work.
>>29685152
>>29685154
The second box with the pole is for DUKE/CREW.
>>29685344
lol I use it to store turboshaft
>>29685219
Technically nothing, it doesn't increase the profile anymore than an RWS. But the Remote Weapon System adds capabilities to the tank that are otherwise not present on a manual turret. To include night vision, and range finding capabilities. The CROWS II has a lot of capabilities, I had 24 hours of training in operation of the system.
>>29685152
>another box thing
The DUKE radio frequency IED jammer. The system is never installed. I used the space for stolen shit cause no one checks there.
>>29685153
On the note of "fixing the crows" topic, GDLS(?) designed a low profile crows, its about the size of pic related, its mostly the same equipment as the CROWS II but the servos and imaging equipment was moved to the sides making the gun about as high as pic related. Its independent of the cupola. I seen a picture of it mounted but its either so new or obscure its not commonly on the internet yet.
>>29684887
Mounting it to the CITV is retarded. Also either system can go down and you still have situational awareness with either.
>>29684876
The .50 cal is the secondary weapon system, and arguably more important than the 120mm. In OIF how many times has the cannon been in need more than the .50? Answer: rarely. The battlefield only has a need for the 120mm for obstacle reducing and that's about it. The M2 can handle everything from BRDM2 tier vehicles and down, which comprise the majority of targets you would engage.
>>29684840
>There isn't a real need to pop one's head with current technology.
I see this re-posted pretty frequently. I can go on for several paragraphs on how this is wrong, but I will keep it simple and nice. The human eye is a tool, and fills a niche no series of camera's and high dpi/resolution camera's can fit. You can argue against it, but that I am not wrong. Weather if it's guiding the driver around obstacles he can't see, or holding the tanks in formation, or scanning for threats, camera's are limited in ways the human eye isn't.
>>29683776
>soon
try 50 years, minimum. There's huge obstacles that need to be overcame.
>>29685182
>autoloaders have no reliability issues
They still have issues manual loaders don't, including slower rates of fire.
>>29685428
Formation driving would be better served by a real time map displaying nearby tank locations & orientations, also include topographical maps/satellite pictures/no go terrain
Most of this talk about "muh situational awareness" comes from a lack of external cameras, displays.
The only reason the US doesn't have such things now is because their vehicle replacement programs were killed.
>>29685582
>e better served by a real time map
We already have that. However you're adding extra steps to the process, and turning a simple task into a harder one.
>lack of external cameras, displays.
But that's not a thing either. There's 2 360 degree cameras, and the TC has multiple displays already. You use the word situational awareness, but I don't you know how it actually works. Good situational awareness is taking in all the information around you, but you want to limit it and make everyone visually handicapped.
>vehicle replacement programs were killed
Are you going to say that everything we have is outdated next? Please, go into further detail on this, I want to hear all about it. Even though vehicle replacement programs cost exuberant amounts of money and usually only incur marginal increases in performance compared to the contemporary predecessors. But I guess some anon on /k/ figured something out that a multi trillion dollar development industry couldn't. I want to know more.
>>29685208
true true but I am suggesting they build a different remotely operated turret with 2 stage servo like a scorpions tail to raise and lower the gun,
your second idea seems alot better (put controls using the pintle mount
third I the Tusk Idea sound's great only concern would have is for top down attack possibility that would shred the commander
>>29685379
>GDLS
looks great only problem I can see is with the ICS getting in the way
>>29685640
true true but I am suggesting they build a different remotely operated turret with 2 stage servo like a scorpions tail to raise and lower the gun,
Very complicated to maintain. The CROWS just goes up/down and right/left and still doesn't work (although, admittedly, most of it is software issues). I see your point, but it just relies on things working. The more moving parts, the more chances for things to go wrong.
>your second idea seems alot better (put controls using the pintle mount
Really, it would be this >>29685379 which is giving me a fucking erection right now.
>third I the Tusk Idea sound's great only concern would have is for top down attack possibility that would shred the commander
True, but if you have a top-down angle the tank is dead anyway since even an RPG-7 will penetrate the top of the turret. Russia found this out the hard way in Chechnya: cities are not a tank game.
>>29685428
>>29685428
>They still have issues manual loaders don't, including slower rates of fire.
And a prison nigger loader could come down with the Flu.
>>29685978
And you replace him with another guy from the HQ section.
>>29685625
The M1 is very outdated, yes.
The commander should have a 360 helmet mounted sight which integrates basically thermals and sights, like an advanced aircraft HUD, displaying the boresight, and relaying images from all around the tank into a 360 degree coverage.
It`s all possible but the US has no advanced armour program.
>>29685985
suppose your nigger loaders have all gone on strike for higher pay
>>29677836
Don't worry, our local police departments will be given them to mount to their donated MRAPS
>>29685985
But the guy has acute hemorrhoids and can`t sit in the tank for more than 5 minutes. He becomes ineffective after a few rounds.
Autoloader is always superior. Always.
It`s like you`re arguing in favour of the horse-drawn carriage versus a piston engine, because the horses can be used to plow fields as well.
>>29679052
thats because the entire turret of a slav tank is the blowout panel
>>29686015
>But the guy has acute hemorrhoids and can`t sit in the tank for more than 5 minutes. He becomes ineffective after a few rounds.
...Then you replace him with a guy from the HQ section. You have 4 joes, at least, in HQ. More if there's a SPC gunner or two.
>It`s like you`re arguing in favour of the horse-drawn carriage versus a piston engine, because the horses can be used to plow fields as well.
Or more like arguing in favor of an actual horse vs a mechanical horse. The engine and a horse are two completely different mechanisms. An autoloader is just a mechanical version of a human arm.
>>29685332
I don't know how being objectively inferior to all western designs is baiting.
If t72 was capable of competing, they wouldn't be making t14.
>>29686089
>An autoloader is just a mechanical version of a human arm.
So why wouldn't any sane engineer replace it?
We don't use horses to tow our tanks anymore...
>>29686100
We're talking about the reliability of the autoloader. The AZ system is the most reliable autoloader on the planet.
>>29686118
because it has drawbacks.
It's like saying "revolvers are the most reliable action ever, lets make all guns revolvers!"
>>29685999
>M1 is very outdated
So what does that make the Challenger? A Relic? Its hardly older then other nations tanks, and even new ones like the K2, Arjun, Merkava, T90 and arguably the T14 still don't have shit over it. If you're going to make a claim, back it up, this isn't 4th grade level debate class. The Latest Abrams tanks is literally 35 years newer then the original production model, and would butt fuck an XM1 all day, everyday. "outdated" is an extremely unsubstantiated buzzword I am waiting for anyone on /k/ to prove.
>The commander should have a 360 helmet mounted sight which integrates basically thermals and sights, like an advanced aircraft HUD, displaying the boresight, and relaying images from all around the tank into a 360 degree coverage.
That sounds really fucking cool, but serves little purpose. Particularly the occult image relaying tech you want that will have its own issues. a TC isn't a fighter pilot, your analogue is poor. A TC doesn't have to make split seconds decisions on the same scale.
>US has no advanced armour program
There's no need for one when the current tank design can go toe to toe with any tank on the planet already. I wouldn't go as far to say its a generation ahead, but its the leading MBT in its class. And before someone hypes up the Armata, its literally the same class.
>>29686003
>government job
>strike
pick one
>>29686015
The army doesn't keep people that can't fight.
>>29686131
except its competing with a system that has no reliability issues and is faster.
>>29678946
It actually doesn't sound bad at all. It's about the only place you can put it without it getting in the way. Crazy is putting it at the end of the barrel.
>>29686145
>And before someone hypes up the Armata, its literally the same class.
It's literally different generation. And it's not a tank, it's a chassis platform. I remember the time when tripwhores had at least semblance of competence on the subject.
>>29685625
>There's 2 360 degree cameras, and the TC has multiple displays already.
None of them provides instant wide angle view and resolution of cameras and displays is lacking.
>>29685379
>the Remote Weapon System adds capabilities to the tank that are otherwise not present on a manual turret. To include night vision, and range finding capabilities
you could add those to a manual turret though.
>>29686155
Except tank designers after the Cold War basically disagree with your opinion and every modern tank designed from the ground up now has an auto-loader.
Leos and Abrams are legacy designs from the 70s.
It's a good thing you're opinions don't count for shit, eh?
>>29686208
>there isn't a version of the Armata that is a tank
>playing dumb because you don't have an argument
Oh I am sorry, the T14 to be specific. Sorry you're hurt by vaguity. It is actually, the same generation. It doesn't incorporate anything that hasn't been done already. The unmanned turret idea has been tried and tested multiple times, that's not a basis for trying to overstate its "advanced" status. Fun fact of the day, that also has issues with it. But staying centric to the post, you're fucking retarded and know little about tanks.
>>29686144
>because it has drawbacks.
That's a meaningless statement. You could say that about anything.
You have relativistic brain-rot, therefore, you can't reason.
>>29686145
>And before someone hypes up the Armata, its literally the same class.
Armata has complete overmatch in firepower and protection, especially against guided weapons.
>>29686118
You're also missing the point. An engine is an entirely different mechanical process from the horse. It is not a horse 2.0. A horse 2.0 would be a literal robotic horse.
The autoloader is an arm 2.0. An engine to a horse would be a magazine-fed breach to a human loader. A magazine-fed rifle to a Martini-Henry. An engine completely circumvents the problems and advantages of a horse and introduces a different set of rules.
If you want to spend millions developing an autoloader that doesn't suck and doesn't reduce crew safety by storing rounds inside the fucking hull, might as well go full retard. A magzine-fed breach, now that I think about it. Sure, why not. The maintenance and cost drawbacks, even ignoring the apparently heretical notion that something can break, are not worth the marginal difference in reload time until an actually revolutionary innovation comes around.
Seriously. My loader had to slap the breach after every other round to get it to close. I'm going to make a safe guess and say that when he gets replaced by an autoloader, my TC or gunner aren't going to stick their hand inside the mechanism to smack it.
Oh, and autoloaders can't help with maintenance. So now it's down to me and my gunner to fix my broke-ass tank (because your tank WILL be broke-ass) instead of three guys.
>>29686251
>instant
Why did you use this word? What does that mean in your context? Don't fill your counterargument with bloat-words to make you sound smarter.
>wide angle
unless you have a 4k monitor you're running into issues where again, the human eye is better in the first place. And you're sacrificing image quality where camera's actually do matter, finding distant targets the human eye can't see. But I am sure you got some anecdotal focal length meme-tier indistinction that proves me wrong.
>>29686314
>The autoloader is an arm 2.0.
isn't*
>>29686314
So are we pretending that tanks with autoloaders don't exist?
>>29686314
Did you ever notice how we use the term horsepower to describe the motive force of an engine?
The piston engine achieves what the draft horses have in the past.
Do you have learning disabilities or where on the autism spectrum do you fall?
Can I see your ID? I want to see how old you are to make sure I' m not wasting my team with some teenage or early 20s delinquent.
>>29685216
>>29685272
Guys, what if... Guys... Hey guys... Guys liste.... Guys listen... Guys... What if we.... Guys... What if we put the... Guys, listen... Guys.... What if we out the turret... UNDER the tank?
>>29686351
>Did you ever notice how we use the term horsepower to describe the motive force of an engine?
Because it's a measure of power, not a description of mechanical process.
>The piston engine achieves what the draft horses have in the past.
Through completely different means. Horses do not have gears. Likewise, internal combustion engines do not have limbs.
>Do you have learning disabilities or where on the autism spectrum do you fall?
"this guy doesnt agree with me so he's autistic"
You know in my next line I was going to just call you a fag but I don't want to insult homosexuals by comparing them to you
>Can I see your ID? I want to see how old you are to make sure I' m not wasting my team with some teenage or early 20s delinquent.
I'm a tanker, smart guy
>>29686348
No, we're pretending they're objectively better than human loaders.
>>29684853
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tvEKZ0cMH8
>>29685905
Fair point and I assume it works off that ada granted my understanding of coding is limited, also a hydraulic system might be better, a new light weight 12.6 heavy MG might help make this situation lighter
>>29686604
but why would you fire it out the cannon?????
Hey Look I fixed it!
>>29686773
What's happened here is they've solved the problem of it being too invasive into the TC's line of sight but decided to say fuck it and get rid of it anyway.
>>29686773
>>29686783
>>29686813
From what i hear the system is great, until you fire the main gun or get on the move. The camrea cant handle it.
>>29686999
>human loaders
>need to be trained but load faster and have no malfunctions
>autoloaders
>don't need to be trained but load slower, have malfunctions(although are reliable) and were used to propel sputnik to terminal velocity
>>29686908
What are you implying, exactly?
>>29686999
There is a Stab button on the base of the control handle that mitigates those issues.
>>29686783
>>29686773
thank you, what I was looking for here >>29685379
>>29686999
Its self stabilizing, and the camera operates on an independent set of servos separate from the gun and mount.
>>29687158
You're welcome. Faggot.
>>29678855
>How are they going to mount a CROWS turret there?
The thing just bolts on, it's not like a battleship turret where it extends ten decks below or whatever. You could literally bolt it to a piece of ammunition.
>>29687142
>Stab button
this is why we need tank cannon bayonets
>>29677499
More like in anything but urban warfare anything that heightens you silhouette is going to get you ATGM'd
>>29686321
>What does that mean in your context?
That you don't need to rotate it like CITV.
>unless you have a 4k monitor you're running into issues where again
What is the problem? It is fucking shame when abrams tank is like stone axe comparing to tablet.
>>29687318
Actually the Abrams has a touch screen interface for the TC. You're clueless, and your arguments are still weak. You're not worth my time.
That's the reason you gonna go with something like the FLW 200 and not something oversized like the CROWS if you want a remote controlled machine gun.
>>29687413
>>29687280
America isn't a bunch of sandshit fighters begging to get hit. In any field.
Iraqi Check Point:
>speed down MSR
>10 people deep
>roll up on ECP
>no one is actively on gaurd
>defenders get curb stomped
>assault force takes no casualties
American Check Point
>>speed down MSR
>10 people deep
>roll up on ECP
>Before exiting the vehicle they are under fire
>supressed and can't assume firing positions
>assault force 100% btfo in a minute
Same shit. In offensive operations, including armored warfare. A tank platoon is constantly scanning for threats, and in the time it takes to setup an ATGM engagement, that's ample time to fire at them before they can squeeze a shot off. And even if they do, you can see an ATGM fly at you, and they have hangtime, long enough to avoid the shot, particularly if you are already mobile anyway.
Not that it really matters, I don't think there is a single ATGM out there that can penetrate the front slope of a modern tank nowadays anyway. But case in point don't use some failarmy against a military that actually has an extremely effective warfighting doctrine.
>>29686100
>If t72 was capable of competing, they wouldn't be making t14.
it's a nice bait, but it's not nice enough.
>>29687381
>Actually the Abrams has a touch screen interface for the TC
I am not talking about touch capability but about lack of resolution. BTW touchscreens are POS.
The only good thing about the Armata is that other nations can use it to get some fresh greenlighted for own tanks.
Do people really believe that a nation that sucks at metallurgy and material science can somehow pull out something that is way ahead of everything else?
>>29687517
They have 40 years of technology development over tanks from 70s.
>>29687517
don't forget that they can't make some decent electronics too
>>29687533
and that armata series is the result of these "40 years of technology development over tanks from 70s"???
pathetic
>>29687533
and?
Are you gonna try to say that fucking poor Russia is somehow ahead of Germany and USA for examples two of the world leaders in material science?
Which also work together as part of multi-national deals?
>>29687517
Anyone who is not RT, Russian or self-hating burgerclap, no.
>>29687533
In other words the Armata is the first tank to pass the M60A3.
>>29687540
And the optics are imported from france.
>>29687550
Russia is ahead of 40 years old tanks and cannons.
>>29687587
A 39 year old tank, is also ahead of a 40 year old tank. What is your point Mr. Bad Syntax?
>>29687587
Yeah,the country that just had a revolution where they discovered socks and still field 40 year old AK
>>29687607
>still field 40 year old AK
Mad AR faggot detected.
>my country pisses away money they don't have on new rifles every 5 years because they're jam-o-matics
>the other guy's guns are shit
Japan is market leader in many of the advanced materials.
And somehow they couldn't develope an armor design which is even close to Russian's new magic armor?
>>29686256
>every modern tank designed from the ground up now has an auto-loader.
Altay says no, and notice how many of those are from countries that never actually use them.
>>29687622
Not him, AK isn't that good. You're literally the same person you're trying to fail at describing.
>country has no money to surpass other countries technology
>I better insult them on the internet. If I can't be the part, I'll just act.
>>29687626
Daily reminder Kontac-5 was one of the most feared technologies in the East. We found out after the Gulf war it wasn't actually a big deal as it was weaker then what they said it was.
>see PAK FA
>see AK12
>see T14
>see anything the russians have ever produced.
The Su37 looks ok on paper though.
>>29687641
Jew harder shill.
>country has no money to surpass other countries technology
Yeah, tell that to the goat herders in Afghanistan that raped the US and the Russians. "Mission Accomplished" my ass, but hey the opium fields are safe!!!
>>29687622
>ar15 - insanely modular rifle that can take loads of shit on their optics and can be swapped to different configurations shooting different calibers in sub 30 seconds.
>has fantastic ergonomics
>most western rifles follow suit in modularity, ergos and adaptability
>russia still fields a rifle virtually unchanged from 40 years ago save plastics
>still has awkward charging handle on the right side
>needs to have bolt on rails to accept fantastic sights produced in the west world, and many soldiers do that
>can't swap out bits to change configuration
>russia finally amended it with AK12, which according to vatniks is "best rifle ever" which has a lot of changes to make it more like the "jam-o-matic"
>just like every other shitty replacement propaganda program russia comes up with every other month, small production, so most soldiers are still stuck with ak47's and 74's
>vatniks defend this by going off the handle about the charging handle being perfection and other stupid knee jerk reactions to an obsolete, inferior design.
>>29687607
>and still field 40 year old AK
Ak-74 - 1973.
Ar-15 - 1959.
Burgers - mad.
>>29687666
Nato's budget is 10-20 times that of Russia's. Techniquely, Russia has been forced to Judaism.
>
>>29687669
Autism tier shitposting.
Let me know how many times soldiers in the field change calibers and have 'shit loads' of optics. The fuck nigger, yeah, every US soldier has a little baggie with 5 different scopes for different applications
>>29687691
M4 Carbine - 1990+
Ak47 - 1947
Russia hasnt made a new rifle in over half a century, fucking poor as cucks lolololol
>>29687705
aint much else to go once you've reached a perfection
>>29687696
No it doesn't, it issues one optic per soldier. Its discretion of the commander what they buy or sign over. Its still 30 times better than a rifle that has none, is imported from the US anyway (why does spetsnaz use USA gear anyway lololol) and was developed half a century ago
>>29685216
I can actually see something like this being a good idea, I shit you not.
Some kind of specialized urban warfare vehicle with an HMG unmanned turret on the end of a large extendable and retractable rod. It would be able to look around buildings and provide fire support without exposing the vehicle itself.
I mean, it's ridiculous, but not entirely without merit.
>>29687705
>M4 Carbine
>lets cut 5 inches of the barrel it will make rifle better
>american engineering after 1990
>>29687716
You mean like the Ar15 right? That countries with a small income can afford? The entire world is required to pull rusty ass used guns from the bottom of the barrel to meet overhead costs.
>>29687696
>ar-15 can take the majority of existing optics without problems
>yeah well who walks around with 5 scopes in their field kit lol rekt
You're being really salty about your ak not being able to take nice 1st produced optics
The company which is supposed to build the engine for the Armata announced that they would fire 6100 of their 7500 employee.
That screams engineering superiorty!
>>29687720
>smaller rifles are not better
Autism the post
>muh muh velocity!
They made new ammo that burns the powder faster, getting the same velocity anyway
staymad vatnick
>>29687716
Like the ak-12 which is pak-fa tier propaganda piece.
I remember all the slavboos going "AR15 finally btfo slavs superior rassia rassia xaxa" when ak12 was announced
>>29687732
whoa what?! Source!?
>>29687720
>still perfectly accurate, light, short, wield and ergonomic for the conditions assault rifles find themselves in most of the time
>>29687747
http://dostup1.ru/central/Bolee-9-tys-chelovek-planiruetsya-sokratit-na-Yuzhnom-Urale-do-aprelya-2015-goda_72369.html
>>29687759
Holy shit, they must have cut T-14 orders.
>>29687717
>Its still 30 times better than a rifle that has none,
Soviet squad in 1970 had 2 optical sights. On the most important squad weapons: SVD and RPG-7. US squad had zero. Only 30 years after burgers decided to go away from muh irons and passed Soviet-Russian military small arms here. I give you that (though lel US Army sabotaged process introducing red dots instead of optical sights).
>>29687759
>.ru
nice bait
>>29687778
You're retarded, the Russian's are behind the US in almost everything. We had non telescopic optics as soon as the 40s.
>more vatnicks getting BTFO for not knowing the argument
>>29685241
>>still lower ROF than trained manual loader crew
This will be highly uncertain when the human loader will have to load the gun while the tank will move on a bumpy road.
The time of the fire control procedure is more important than the rate of fire, just look at the STRV-103 ; rate of fire of 15 RPM, this doesn't mean that this Swedish tank was able to destroy 15 targets within one minute.
>>unlimited # of t72's who have been separated from their turret from ammo rack explosion
Apart from the STRV-103, main battle tanks designed in the 1960s lacked of separate ammunition compartments.
>>29685263
>>no source
Declassified CIA documents
>>says a 3-man crew is good
Yes it is, ask to Frenchfag, a Leclerc tank /k/ommander.
>>says ammo stored IN THE FUCKING HULL is good
At that time, it was safer than most of the Western main battle tanks designed in the 1960s.
>>29685379
>Mounting it to the CITV is retarded. Also either system can go down and you still have situational awareness with either.
Still less retarded than adding a big RWS where there is still some room on the roof of the tank.
This solution prevents to add another tall and bulky object on the turret roof.
Pic-related : cheap compact RWS slaved to the commander's panoramic sight.
>>29687798
Why would a russian site post bad news, if it was false?
>>29687808
>Still less retarded than adding a big RWS where there is still some room on the roof of the tank.
>less retarded
>mounting it to the CITV
No, lol, its defenitley not if you have any idea how the CITV works.
the fuck is the Flex Mount System ? a fancy name for the old .50 + gunshield ?
>>29687696
>vatnik gets btfo
>his only response is: a-a-autsim!!!
pathetic, just like your aids ridden shithole nation and his whiney little manlet leader
>>29687808
Your pic related. Nice non-manually fireable solution.
>>29686446
>Because it's a measure of power, not a description of mechanical process
I'm sorry, what kind of fucking idiot are you, exactly?
A piston engine using reciprocating parts and chemical energy to effect the same process as the limbs and muscles and chemical energy a horse metabolizes from food.
I can't believe I'm wasting time on such a worthless shit.
Crawl back to your trailer park and go read a fucking book.
>>29687635
>Altay
He said modern tanks.
Altay is basically 30 years behind, it's the Turks trying to make a Leopard 2A4 with their domestic industry.
>>29687848
It's an alternative name for a pintle mount.
>>29686256
>everyone uses them
>aside from a whole bunch of people
Autoloaders are a meme, an extra person or two is a better idea, good luck fixing a track in a combat zone with only three crewmembers fuckwad.
>>29687088
Robotics+large amounts of radiation=broken robot.
Christ kid, never heard of Chernobyl?
>>29687922
or rotating between 2 people on radio garud at night, vs rotating with 3 people.
>>29687914
If the Altay is not modern then the K2 it is based on is not modern.
>>29687808
>This will be highly uncertain when the human loader will have to load the gun while the tank will move on a bumpy road.
that's not a problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIqN2PSZP0A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EISdt3qyiY4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqkyPPx5MtM
there is only one single reason for an autoloader: your loader can't lift the shells because they are too heavy
shell weight is an obvious problem for the russian dwarf crew, therefore that autoloader. but it's not a problem for actual human beings
>>29687922
>Horses are better than piston engines
>Because you can use 5 horses and you have extra horses for when your engine goes down
According to your trailer park, hick ass logic, they should use horses to propel the space shuttle.
They warned me /k/ was pretty dim and blue-collar. I didn't realize it was like this.. How did I let my life slip so far?
>>29687954
Altay is conceptually a 1980s tank. It has none of the new generation features.
And an autoloader is considered a new gen feature, just like stealth defines a 5th gen fighter.
The Altay is not modern by default. It's like an Su-35, new take on some legacy Cold War technology.
>>29687939
Exactly, autolader supporters never seem to get it through their thick fucking skulls that having more crew is more of a benefit than a drawback.
>>29687968
False equivalency.
A human loader can do more than load, and can often load faster than an autoloader.
Until autoloaders get to the point that they can consistently outperform human loaders and fit in a smaller space, having an extra body on board for miscellaneous tasks will remain on the US mtoe.
>>29687968
>They warned me
well, then get back to your that shithole from where you came from and proceed with your idiotic "muh autuludaaa is da best!" circlejerk you retard
>>29687968
>according to your logic
>horse to petrol engine is like human to autoloader
First up, I'm not who you were talking to, I merely jumped in because you're talking bollocks.
Secondly your analogy makes absolutely no sense. Of course an ICE is beter than horses. But that has absolutely no bearing on autoloaders vs human loaders.
An extra pair of hands and eyes in a tanks is absolutely essential. With a human loader, if something goes wrong you've got people in the turret who can have a go at fixing it.
With an autoloader its debatable whether or not you could even get into the turret to fix any hiccups.
That isn't even mentioning the disadvantages of having less crewmembers, as I mentioned earlier, good luck fixing a track with only three crewmen and as someone esle mentioned good luck rotation guard/radio duty with just three people.
>>29688005
And until they can do everything that an extra crewmember can do they're still a bad idea.
>>29687955
They like making up issues that don't exist.
>Ft Irwin
>National Training Center
>CALFEX Event
I dumped the entire rack of ammo, and "weight" wasn't a problem. Also my fastest load time was 2.08 seconds, and that was with the heavier HEAT round.
>>29687968
Are you retarded? Can a piston engine send a shuttle to space either? Fucking kill yourself.
>complains about /k/
Don't get buttmad at the community when you have the articulation skills of a special needs kid.
>>29688019
Weight increase is worth it for the advantage of having an extra crewmember.
>>29687968
Haven't you got some krokodil to cook up tovarish?
>>29688019
only on paper, that's the reason why they build the leopard how it is today and not with a small 2 man turret and an autolaoder
these ideas are typical for the russian nature: build what looks good on paper, don't give a shit if it will perform good on the battlefield
>>29688019
>significant
*marginal
>smaller
how is this relevant to anything
> two-man
a 4 person crew is fathoms better than a 3 person crew.
>lighter
weight isn't an issue and never was when we have powerful engines
>given protection level.
Like to stop KE rounds and chemical energy penetrators? That's not a problem either anon.
>>29687955
Autoloaders also have the significant benefit to allow the use of smaller two-man turrets which are lighter for a given protection level.
>>29688005
Explain to me why Cold War concepts such as the ones intended to replace the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 such as the CATTB, TTB, KWS III were all using autoloaders and three-man crews ?
>>29688071
because they wanted to use a 140mm gun in it and see here>>29687955
these shells would have been too heavy to lift therefore that autolaoder
>>29688071
>Explain to me why Cold War concepts such as the ones intended to replace the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 such as the CATTB, TTB, KWS III were all using autoloaders and three-man crews
Because according to the trailer park hicks, you're a Vladnik (sp?) and horse-powered revolvers are better than Glocks.
/k/ - where idiots with limited education speculate about topics which require technical expertise and engineering knowledge
>>29688071
>concepts
Explain to me why the professionals who make and acquire this shit are wrong, and you are somehow right. None of the shit you listed is in use.
>>29688018
>human loader being advantageous as he can aid in maintenance
Arguable. Taking out the fourth dude means you can slap him into a dedicated mechanics platoon or headquarters. Never mind that you're never going to rely on JUST the crew to pull out a tank if it throws tracks or something.
>loader can be an extra set of eyes
I'll give you that, but what's the point if you intend on using the main gun?
Autoloaders, automated turrets, and other tank technology is just going to outpace traditional human elements like a manned turret and loader. We're moving to the fully automated tanks and there's just absolutely no way around that.
>>29688082
>these shells would have been too heavy to lift
So can't you feed your modern, 5th gen prison nigger loader some steroids to overcome this?
Are you implying that an autoloader can be advantageous? Back to fucking Russia comrade.
>>29688098
Then you have to pay him even more when he gets out because the steroids shrunk his balls.
>>29688088
>can't quit being an idiot
here is a video for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
>>29688096
You're wasting your time.
You're dealing mostly with defective people who spend 80% of their 4chan time between masturbation sessions and hypno-sissy threads you see all over /gif/.
The also wank to /tg/-inspired concepts like human loaders, because it's analogous to the technology of the Warhammer 41k universe of using overwhelming numbers and labour to make up for technological mistrust.
>>29688098
>feeding your niggers steroids
you're just making an unpredictable piece of equipment even more dangerous
man has dreamt of replacing niggers with technology since the 1800s
>>29688096
>Taking out the fourth dude means you can slap him into a dedicated mechanics platoon or headquarters
Means that he isn't in tank to help on the spot.
>you're never going to rely on JUST the crew to pull out a tank if it throws a track or something
Except that you might have to just use the crew.
>what's the point if you intend on using the main gun?
What? What part of having an extra pair of eyes isn't obvious to you? Increased situational awareness is always a good thing. Not to mention that, for example, having extra crew makes it easier to rotate watches whilst the tank is camped up [for example].
>we're moving to fully automated tanks and there's just absolutely no way around that
No we're not, humans are going to be better than machines for the forseeable future.
>>29688130
You're trying far too hard Vlad.
>>29688149
>man has dreamt of replacing niggers with technology since the 1800s
And the Vladniks pulled it off in the 1970s with cast iron and hydraulics.
![4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pBK4sPJ.jpg "4[1].jpg")
