How can burger compete?
>>29852111
By having an economy that's 6 times higher than Russia's?
>>29852111
Objectively, I think it's a bit too early for all those automated systems. within a generation or two it'll be interesting. I think this is kind of Russia's MBT-70, that is to say, a complicated pile of nuts and bolts with conflicting design goals.
>>29852111
Russia is first in the turret throwing Olympics.
>>29852111
By nuking every city and military installation in Russia.
There is no conventional war between nuclear powers.
>>29852252
I don't think its early at all, I think russia will have a hard time with it though
>>29852111
Eyeballs and Anti-Tank weaponry
>>29852252
It was too early in the late 70s and 80s, when they began to work on such projects. Now it is about the time.
>>29852111
>Russia legitimately wants to make the armata unmanned
>America still loads ammunition manually
It's literally two directly opposing philosophies towards design, it's kind of interesting to watch.
>>29852146
Best post
>>29852332
Thinking about it though, the americans have an extra man who is much quicker at adapting, though can be prone to error at which ammo needs to be in the tube. Something our commie friends lack.
>>29852318
That turret looks so much better than the T-14 turret. Soviets confirmed for better designers and visionaries than drunk modern day Russian.
>>29852111
You can make the best fighting platform ever, but if you can't get enough of them out into service, their effect on the battlefield will be meaningless.
I'd rather have 6000~ M1 Abrams (current US military inventory) over 200 T-14 armatas any day.
>>29852383
The americans also have a lolxboxhueg turret that has to fit a superfluous human being instead of a smaller, faster, lighter machine.
>inb4 it breaks
They work fine you nerds.
>>29852386
Agreed. The T-14 hull looks good, but holy shit the turret is a travesty.
Imagine if they used the T-80 Black Eagle or T-95 turret.
>>29852417
If the autoloader breaks for example or malfunctions, the tank is done. If the loader get injured or killed, someone can do his job. That's what he means, and yes autoloaders can break and malfunction plenty.
>>29852416
this, slavboo estimates were 20,000 Armatas by 2020 before they even unveiled the tank, lets see how close they get to that.
>>29852386
Unnecessarily huge.
>>29852419
You realise it basically is T-95 turret, right?
>>29852448
While I agree that there's benefits to having a crew member as loader as opposed to a mechanized system, I'm not sure that's one of them.
Wouldn't and hit that took out the loader also likely take out the rest of the crew in the turret? OR is there some tank that has isolated crew positions?
>>29852448
>If the autoloader breaks
That's a really huge "if" you got there. I'd rather believe a meatbag getting concussion before the autoloader breaking simply out of nowhere.
>>29852448
And yet you have an extra tank because you saved a man who would otherwise be manually loading the cannon, plus its a modern design so needs far less maintenance.
>>29852111
For just paragraphs a day you too can help support these poor Russians, who with the destruction of their countries economy have been forced to take up work making internet posts for the government for a pay of only .05 a ruble per post. Your valuable contributions will go towards providing them with the basic necessities: Jaguar energy drinks, counterfiet Addias shoes, and new keyboards to replace ones destroyed in fits of rage after they loose CS:GO/DOTA matches.
So please. Support the Hiwi Internet Fund today. It's not hard, Russians get more butthurt than the Chinese and even referring to the Caspian Sea Monster will provoke accusations of racism over the "monster" part.
>>29852536
What the actual fuck are you on about?
>>29852490
Those meatbags are by and large faster than an auto loader and precludes the ammunition basket that would otherwise risk a cook off in the crew compartment.
>>29852111
By actually being in compact
>>29852601
>are by and large faster than an auto loader
maybe 50 years ago, assuming a non-moving tank
>>29852611
Combat*
>>29852616
You mean to this day, right? It must be, otherwise you would have cited a source of an auto loader doing more than 15 rounds per minute.
And it still doesn't help the cook off issue
>>29852332
Russkies have always been about this robot thing, nothing new there.
For example, their Buran space shuttle flew unmanned back in the 90s, but they mothballed it afterwards because space shuttles are fucking stupid.
USA caught up 2 decades later with the X37B, after blowing up a couple of manned space shuttles.
>>29852383
And an extra hand helping out with everything else, pretty useful meinfam
Considering how Russia can't make a tank that can compete with other nations heavy hitters, who gives a fuck what Russia has. The T90 was 10-15 years behind the technology curve, the T14 is still 5-10 years behind the curve. The cool part is the T90 was at least economical. Russia doesn't have the money to make the T14 work. And even if they did they don't have the money to produce them in respectable numbers. Fuck these low quality bait threads.
>>29852675
>caught up
You say that like it was a design goal of NASA or something. Shuttles were manned because there wasn't much you can do with an unmanned one
>>29852642
>15 rounds per minute
[citation needed]
>Meatbag working faster than a machine
For exactly how long? 5 minutes? 10 minutes before the meatbag cooks off?
>>29852746
>T14 is still 5-10 years behind the curve.
What's with this American meme of "Russia is decades behind in everything" stupid nonsense.
T-14 Armata is 10 years AHEAD the Abrams M1A2. Just like Russian ICBMs and anti-air systems.
>>29852746
>Fatnik on heavy hitters
>Fatnik "tanks" had 105mm "guns" pretty much until the end of the Cold War
>>29852675
It's shit though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-37jQwgHaLA
>>29852756
The space shuttle was a disaster in all regards, theres zero reason why it shouldn't have been capable of unmanned flight, other than NASA administrators being willfully negligent
>>29852111
Armata would be better with 4 treads. Missed opportunity I think
>>29852756
yeah sure, manned shuttles were useful... for wasting money and killing astronauts.
>>29852785
>nonsense
I guess Russia losing the cold-war and having the R&D investment of potato is nonsense too. Inversley you're trying g to compare to nations that have exuberant amounts of experience, time, and money invested into known systems that actually work. Claiming the T14 is more advanced is hardly a fact, and a meme in itself. The latest versions of the Abrams and Leopard just came out this year, and they have technology Russia can only dream of having. Including superior ammo and guns, as well as armor that doesn't resemble a patch job of composite materials to attempt to counter the hardest hitting penetrators ever built. I still find it funny vatnick thinks ERA is somehow a solution to inferior armor protection. An M1A1's standard armor is better than a T90 with era. Likewise it's the same today. At least the Abrams armor doesn't fall off after use.
>>29852858
Do the Abrams or Leopard have an unmanned turret?
>>29852877
Did you know unmanned turrets hurt the mission capability of a tank? Your post is one of the most retarded ones in this entire thread.
>>29852858
>An M1A1's standard armor is better than a T90 with era
Standard armour of M1A1 is worse than T-72 1989.
>>29852822
>The space shuttle was a disaster in all regards
What? A total of five Orbiters flew over 130 missions over three decades and in that time only two were lost- on both occasions numerous lessons being learned. Just how was the STS program a failure?
>>29852896
Why the fuck would having an unmanned turret be a bad thing? It's the logical next step in tank design. It just so happens that Russia did it first.
>>29852900
[ ] wrong
[X] very wrong
We are comparing 2nd gen DU M1A1 you turd gtfo unless you got facts
>>29852785
No its not.
>with this American meme of "Russia is decades behind in everything" stupid nonsense.
>>Yury Solomonov, chief designer of the Topol-M and Bulava ICBMs, has said that Russia is 10–15 years ahead of its rivals in the development of strategic nuclear weapons, but 30 years behind in the development of conventional arms
That guy. Russia only advantage is missiles, if you think this tanks is 10 years ahead your willfully ignorant
>>29852900
The gulf war call....as did the Yugoslav wars, both of which saw M1A1s engage and kill T-72 series tanks....including the Serb version, which had way more shit on it than the russian version
>>29852896
>The US uses 50 year old tank designs therefore no improvement is possible
>Unmanned turrents are impractical because human loader is better, and my 100 year old coax machine gun jams all the time
Next we'll be talking about how turbine engines > diesel, and that the fuel consumption of the Abrams is irrelevant?
>>29852759
The reason a loader can conceivably load faster than a machine is because the machine has to do alot more to achieve the same motions a loader does. The newest autoloaders can match the speed of a loader and certain designs allow ammunition to be stored outside of the fighting compartment. These aren't common at all though. Rate of fire beyond 6 rpm is sort of moot, though, because you won't (read: can't) engage targets as quick or quicker than you can reload
>>29852918
situational awareness is diminished, there's no substitute for a guy using binos to observe something
>>29852918
good thing Russia did it first so when the tank fails other countries won't make the same mistake.
>>29852934
It might not be 10 years ahead but it definitely has many innovative features.
>>29852832
Well I wasn't arguing that they were useful. Just that an unmanned one is quite a bit more so
>>29852916
It was absurdly expensive and required extensive rebuilding after every launch.
The shuttle itself was like 100 tons of deadweight which could have been payload with an expendable rocket.
It killed 2 full crews unnecessarily, losing 2/5 vehicles is not something to brag about.
>>29852918
>logical
Can't fix turret issues
Can't fix manually traverse
Can't use manual optics
Can't unfuck stuck shells or bullets
Poorer situational awareness then an M60
No 3rd machine gun
Maintenance nightmare
I got it, I grabbed at a couple straws, but if you seriously think an unmanned turret offers any benefit over a manned you have no idea what the fucknyou are talking about. "But it's smaller" and still the same size as a T90s turret. At least it's not as big as welded Western turrets right?
>>29852948
The commander of an Armata T-14 has access to a multispectral image sight that is installed on the top of the turret and has a 360-degree field of view. The tank's driver has access to traditional periscopes as well as a forward-looking infrared camera and and a number of zooming closed-circuit television cameras that provide an all-round field of view. The gunner has access to his own multispectral sight (with a built-in laser designator) that is attached to the front of that turret that he can use to aim and fire the cannon. There is also a back-up sight capable of night vision that can be used to aim and fire the main cannon if the primary gunsight is destroyed. The tank is even able to feed targeting data from its sensors to supporting artillery.
Situational awareness is not a problem for the T-14. Not at all.
>>29852916
Simple rockets have flown almost an order of magnitude more missions with better failure rates and less casualties.
STS program was also fucking expensive and it p. much killed our space travel and NASA. We've been piggybacking on russkie rockets for too long. Thank God for Elon Musk.
>>29852928
>M1A1: Hull & turret – 600 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT
>T-72B+Kontakt 5 1988 690-800 mm vs APFSDS, 940-1,180 mm vs HEAT
Oh, and M1A1HA was a huge step forward for the US. It finally provided American "tanks" with about the same protection level T-80U enjoyed since 1985.
inb4 he goes full fatnik
>>29852948
>Muh situational awareness
Put multiple 4k displays in there, display a view from drone flying above the tank
Leaving out technology & capabilities because the commander/driver can just get themselves killed by unbuttoning is bad thinking.
>>29852934
>Yury Solomonov, chief designer of the Topol-M and Bulava ICBMs
Implying he is not saying "give me more money, i want to buy mansion west of Moscow please!
Of course he will praise his work and put down the work of others, regardless of nationality, just like Pierre Sprey bashes the F-22.
>>29852938
>50 years old
SEP v3 comes out this year.
>guns don't jam
Sure
>>29852970
The Abrams doesn't even have an unmanned machine gun turret now that the army is removing the CROWS system.
Meanwhile the Armata has a machine system slaved directly to the tank's regular sensors so the commander can shoot the gun himself. You can even replace the .50 caliber machine gun with a 30 mm autocannon. Sorry but the T-14 is simply a more advanced tank. I'm sure the US will catch up soon. Don't take it personally.
>>29853004
>if anyone unbottuons they will most certainly die
Retarded: The Post
>>29852936
>Gulf war
>Yugoslav wars
>T-72B
>Ever
This is about the time you realise Arab operated T-72 monkey models butchering western "tanks" for a whole decade hit American self-appraisal so hard they personally arrive on their new shiny M1A1's to deal with them and then advertise this for more than 25 years.
>>29852964
>>29852980
Expensive, yes. Space travel is expensive regardless of the method. But they drastically cut down on the number of flights that were needed to build the ISS. Good luck sending up modules, and then assembling them together, on a Soyuz. Shuttles allowed bigger payloads, bigger crews, and more tasks to be done. Capsule severely what jobs can be done and that has been the case since Vostok 1.
>>29852977
have you even been in a tank? All of that helps no doubt, that's why many of that stuff comes standard most first world tanks. But there comes a point where no matter how many sensors and sights you cram into the turret, you can only discern so much from a tv screen, even if it is 4k.
>>29853039
You are retarded too. The flex system doesn't require manual fire either. The argument is, it's not a crow. The argument was never, the Abrams doesn't need an unmanned machine gun.
Fucking idiot.
>>29852944
>Rate of fire beyond 6 rpm is sort of moot, though, because you won't (read: can't) engage targets as quick or quicker than you can reload
To this I agree. My point stands though.
>>29853045
like the time the Israelis smoked the combined armies of a few Arab nations?
>Golan Heights tank battles
>>29853047
>Good luck sending up modules, and then assembling them together, on a Soyuz
Are you genuinely this retarded?
>>29853047
Why are you talking soyuz? You know that the Saturn V was cheaper than the shuttle while taking over 120 tons? The shuttle managed like 20-25 tons. The shuttle is the reason NASA has to pay russia to use their launch vehicles to get to the ISS.
The shuttle was a gigantic pile of shit that cost outrageous amounts of money, and its STILL killing NASA because the SLS is a continuation of the shuttle.
The ISS was a makework program designed to give a job to the Shuttle
Combined they were flagrant wastes of money that halted US space development.
Now we are at the point of hundreds of billions of dollars spent for NOTHING, literally NOTHING to show for it
>>29853060
Extending off this no level of digitally produced information is better then the best image processor in the tank, the human brain and a set of eyeballs. The eyes suffer from a magnification and brightness limitation but accell in every other way to include peripheral vision everyone pretends doesn't exist, and ability to instantly focus on anything in a 360 degree sphere of influence. But fuck logic, I guess cramming 3 people in a bathtub that can't see shit and Jack each other offer is somehow a next step in tank design. This is on tier with the dumbass that thinks drone tanks will be real inside 50 years.
>>29853047
>Space travel is expensive regardless of the method.
At least try to understand this much: it is UNNECESSARILY expensive and complicated when you haul 80 tons of shuttle into orbit and back every fucking time.
If NASA had pursued heavier rocket LVs instead of a that retarded spaceplane design, they would've easily gotten 100 tonnes more payload into orbit per launch - for a small fraction of the cost of a shuttle launch.
The STS program crippled our space travel.
>>29852938
The reason you try to focus all engine discussion on fuel consumption is it is the only area where a diesel has an advantage over a turbine.
>>29853068
>the Abrams doesn't need an unmanned machine gun.
It might not need one, but it would be an improvement. Look, I'm not saying that the Abrams is a bad tank. Hell, it is probably the world's third best tank. But right now, the T-14 is a more innovative design. It has an unmanned turret and an unmanned machine gun, which always it to reduce weight while retaining the same level of protection (or better) as previous tank designs. It can also shoot anti-tank missiles out of the gun, which isn't really a new thing but it is still something the Abrams can't do.
>>29853090
I'm glad you brought up Israel.
>The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in the process while suffering only a few losses in exchange
>After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles
>105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s
>According to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire
>>29853045
>This is about the time you realise Arab operated T-72 monkey models butchering western "tanks" for a whole decade
You mean when Israeli's shit on Arab operated T-72's?
>>29853138
>According to Syrian claims, no T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire
Fixed that for you.
>>29852252
>Objectively, I think
>Objectively
>I think
Uhhhhhh.... no?
>it's a bit too early for all those automated systems
I disagree. I think the time is just right for this little paradigm-shift; the unmanned turret and advanced APS and countermeasures allow considerable de-emphasis on armor for defense. This is especially important with the present and possible near-future of man-portable, tandem-charge anti tank weapons capable of penetrating modern MBTs.
I do wonder about it's mine/IED protection, though.
>>29853081
You point doesn't stand at all. You're as clueless as the rest of the imbeciles getting BTFO right now.
>the loader can only load fast for so long
>autoloader is faster in the end
Not only are you never going to shoot 42 rounds that Fucking fast, the loader depletes the ready rack by the time he gets tired. You flip the round as it falls into a U in the Breach. That's not that physically exertive. How would I know this? I've fucking done it before.
>>29853163
>possible near-future proliferation of*
is what I meant.
>>29853138
>Syrian sources
Come on Anon, you can do better. If they really waxed the floor with the Israelis, wouldn't the Golan Heights belong in the hands of the Syrians?
>>29853148
No, I mean when Arab operated T-72 monkey models raped the shit out of every single western "tank" it faced up until 1991.
>>29853159
Why so salty, yid? Did I hit a nerve?
>>29853136
The us explored barrel fired missiles in the 60's with the m551 Sheridan and it's sheleighleigh missile. Calling it an advantage isn't really the case though, as designing a gun that does both requires compromises in the design of either
>>29853184
>Official sources lie, I know better because memes
/k incarnate.
>>29853201
Quoting tank every time you use the word in reference to a Western model serves no purpose other than to betray your bias
>>29853201
No they didn't it's widely know that even when outclassed by Russian armor, Israeli units achieved a favorably kill ratio. Literally open any book, watch any tv show or documentary, either Western, Russian or what have you.
And I don't think you hit >>29853159 's nerve.
>>29853136
>a more innovative design
Things that were experimented with in the 80's by both the West and the Soviet Union is not being innovative in -current year-
>unmanned turret
At the price of situational awareness, and a complete lack of turret armor on an MBT which is a massive what the fuck.
>unmanned machine gun
You mean CROWS, which actually has its own thermal sight?
>anti-tank missiles out of the gun
Which have a 4-5km range, the same distance a Western FCS can calculate lead on a moving target.
>>29853167
So we got a meatbag afraid to lose his job here? Nice.
>Rate of fire beyond 6 rpm is sort of moot
Short-term meatbag rpm advantage goes into the bin.
>>29853227
Of course official sources lie sometimes...sometimes they're very accurate. You have to put it into context: an army which threw 2 divisions against a brigade and lost both of them in 4 days and were unable to achieve their goals for that particular campaign is of course going to pad the stats.
>>29853136
Electric cars are also "innovative" design. No one gives a damn about your artistic left minded insite, the Abrams out guns the T14 at any range, offering the M829A3 super sabot the most powerful APFSDS round on the planet, and has the proven ruggability to actually last on a battlefield. The immense electronics package only boasts it's operational mission capability. Even the Leopard lacks a dedicated C4ISR system as advanced as the Abrams has. I doubt you understand anything I m talking about. The FBCB2/JCR system allow us for things like instant artillery missions and air support strikes. CASEVAC, real world target relay, mission overlay, etc the list goes on. Calling the Abrams anything but first is reserved for people who fanboy, and idiots who read Wikipedia for all theirnsource info. The M1 has received millionaire man hours in advances and technology, the Abrams is the "innovative" design other nationalities and try to copy.
>>29852490
durr, perhaps the same sort of force that would knock a crewman senseless might also have a deleterious effect on machinery??
>>29853278
Don't read my reply that's fine too. Btw nice counter argument.
>>29853201
Clearly your jimmies were rustled when it was pointed out that T-72's have never been particularly noteworthy.
>>29853273
You realize that the Abrams no longer has CROWS right?
>>29853113
I know right, some times these people are delusional....I'll believe it when it sees combat and can do all the things it supposedly does...actually, I'll wait till they pump out more than 250 units for use in active duty units.
>>29853253
It's not bias if the best the west had to offer were M60 and Chieftain.
>>29853254
Yes they did and no amount of fatnik damage control will erase it from history. T-72 slaughtered every western "tank" it faced up until 1991. Deal with it.
>>29853318
Where then did these "slaughters" happen. Let's compare and contrast.
>>29853305
You realize that article provided no proofs and it has not been picked up by any of the big name sources on military news tells you all you need to know.
>>29853305
You do realize it actually does still have crows right?
>Army is removing CROWS =/= the army has already removed crows
There is one on my entire battalions set of tanks you unsourced troglodyte. Gtfo /k/ kid.
You also didn't read the post that the crows is getting replaced with another system.
By raining fire down from the heavens from our orbital platform we installed on the moon. That we got to first. Because we're better than them
>>29853318
Friendly reminder that USMC M60A1's raped the shit out of Iraqi T-72's in Kuwait.
>>29853334
>>29853318
I should also remind you that the burden of proof lies with you....
>>29853353
May I remind you that this is the Interwebs and any link will be shot down as shilling and any chart will be handled as photoshooped and fake
>>29853343
>You also didn't read the post that the crows is getting replaced with another system.
Where did you see this?
>muh proofs
It was only a matter of time before they ran out of material to counter argue with. Why is ivan dumb as fuck.
>>29853347
>Friendly reminder that USMC M60A1's raped the shit out of Iraqi T-72's in Kuwait.
Except it was reveled they used air support the entire battle. USMC inventing stories as usual.
>>29853372
not necessarily, if you site a book or review by a government, those are credible....obviously if you give me an article about how the S-500 is coming out next year and can shoot down f-35s from 300 miles away that leaves something to be desired.
>>29853381
where is the sources?
>>29853402
Or the people who actually use the equipment.
>>29853279
You have to put it into context indeed: there are official sources and there is shitposting on /k. You are doing the latter right now.
>>29853284
Machine having a concussion? Whew, lad.
>>29853298
Seeing how you do nothing but shitty baiting it is evident that you are rather upset by the historical facts you had to face.
>>29853416
that too, anecdotal is also useful...
>>29853421
No one here is shitposting, I'm telling you to cite your sources as to why the Arab tanks rolled over the Israeli ones and you haven't produced a single shred of proof to support you claims.
I like Russkiboos. Instead of just saying they like Russian Tank, they give them special powers and somehow type diarrhea.
>>29852332
There is no philosophy. There is a notion that tractor replaces the horse and obstinate ameritards denying it.
>>29853334
>The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in the process while suffering only a few losses in exchange
>After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles
>105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s
>According to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire
>The Iraqi T-72Ms performed well against opposing Iranian tanks such as Chieftains and Pattons in the Iran–Iraq war.
>In the early stages of the war, an Iraqi battalion of T-72 tanks faced an Iranian battalion of Chieftain tanks. During the battle all Iranian tanks were destroyed, while the Iraqis suffered no losses.
>Iraqi T-72M had great success in the battle for Basra and the last stages of the war. 105mm M68 tank guns and TOW missiles proved ineffective against the frontal armor of Iraqi T-72s.
Here you go.
>>29852111
My My, yes. However shall we proxy war the shit calvary to pieces?
Oh right, dump fuck tons javelins over syriastan
(hooray jihadis!)
>>29853453
>Implying the Armata's advanced countermeasures wouldn't confuse the shit out of the Javelin.
>Implying that the Javelin wouldn't be intercepted easily by APS even if it could somehow get through the electronic countermeasures.
wew lad
>>29853437
Sources to what? This is history.
>>29853451
What. God awful analogy, i feel dumber having read that. You have the potential sounding relevant to this discussion if you accept the reality the t14 has a 5% capability over the Abrams in 2 fields but the Abrams has 30% more ability in areas that matter like ammo, electronics, armor, etc.
Making a similie that the Abrams is a horse invalidated everything you said when it's clearly /not/ the mbt with issues currently.
>>29853381
>T-80B, T-80BV and T-72B have the same turret.
>shows a T-80U turret
This is where it all goes wrong.
>>29853514
What did you expect? It's probably some video game.
>>29853452
1. You literally copy pasted your outsourced claim from before.
2. I don't doubt units of american Iranian units were smoked, it happened...they Iraqis suffered similiar losses too.
3. That's false, both Iraqi and American commaders would talk about how USMC M60s killed T-72s in the liberation of Kuwait.
3. also, what about western tanks destroying Cuban and Angolan tanks in the South African Bush war?
>>29853453
>javelins
Lol.
>>29853557
These javelins seem like mighty fine melee weapons!
>>29852111
easy, just wait for it to break during the parade and drop a bomb on it
>>29853591
Just wait for the abrams to run out of fuel, then bomb the fuel trucks and laugh at the dumb americans
>>29853602
Don't forget anons, machine guns require engine operation to fire. Let's forget the turret can be electrically or manually fired too.
Hello other idiot. What straws do you have for me?
>>29853618
To be able to track a moving target you need electrical power
To hit something at range you need electrical power
>>29853550
No, I added Iran-Iraq war references.
No, they did not, at least not with T-72.
>USMC M60s killed T-72s
With communications and intelligence superior to what Arabs had.
>in the liberation of Kuwait
So like I said, until Americans god so butthurt they had to personally ride in on their new shiny M1A1 to deal with Arab operated T-72 monkey models.
>South African Bush war
Oh, I am sorry, I was under the impression we are talking about T-72 here, not T-54.
>>29853557
>>javelins
>Lol.
O I guess you'd have to live fire a few dozen to understand
72
90
leopard
doesn't fucking matter. literally seconds to cookoff, and the comparmentalization is basicallynon effective. 99% dead one percent mangles skeleton with reflex response nervous system creepyness.
try one some day
>>29852822
>The space shuttle was a disaster in all regards
>>29853602
Abrams have the same cruising range as other western tanks, so your 'tactic' is not unique.
>>29853602
>Abrams runs out of fuel.
>Tank crew pours in a can of red bull and keeps going.
>Implying you'd have an Air anything against mighty US Airforce.
>>29853631
No you don't
>Has never been inside the abrams
>>29853644
Are you high or smth?
>>29853639
Yes, we are not just talking about T-72s, you made the claim western "tanks", so that's what were gonna do. There was no butthurt from Americans, the Abrams units from the 11th ACR swung left and ended up behind the Iraqi forces....as for this part >With communications and intelligence superior to what Arabs had
it doesn't really matter, they still went head to head with each other and the M60s came out the victor.
>>29853631
For starters, the Abrams has an auxiliary hydralic pump, and 12 batteries . It doesn't need fuel.
Secodnly in the event of no electrical power the turret can be manually traversed and fired..... with no electricity.
Enjoy being wrong vatnick.
>>29853649
Don't get me started on the LEM. what a total POS. Not even fucking solid booster HE rockets. (In case the reds tripped their science budget and met us there at the same time kno-wa-i-meen-vern?)
Unequivocal failure.
>>29853692
>>29853639
desu senpai, i'm leaving, you're just shitposting at this point
>>29853692
I didn't make any claims, I outright informed you that specifically Arab operated T-72 monkey model butchered every western "tank" it faced in combat up until 1991.
>There was no butthurt from Americans
Sure, that's why they still advertise it 25 years later while desperately trying to forget how T-72 was humiliating them for years before.
>Superior communications and intelligence don't matter
Nigga, time to stop posting, this is getting pathetic.
>>29853773
>I outright informed you that specifically Arab operated T-72 monkey model butchered every western "tank" it faced in combat up until 1991.
That is called a claim, and one you refuse to evidence.
>>29853688
>Are you high or smth?
well holy shit a t14 can withstand a SINGLE javelin volley.
How many of these aging fucking rockets do we have laying around with a fucking shelf life?
how much laser and milliwave energy can we stick in a fucking ruck sack to basically blind the t14.
US is decades ahead in directed energy (specially condensed photons)
Dismissing the javelin entirely, a two man team in a pickup truck can effectively blind any sensor system on earth
even the brits.... the true monarchs of wavelength utilization
>>29852111
I'm not burger but crewless turrets are retarded.
>>29853829
It's called history. Something that does not depend on your refusal of acknowledgement.
>>29853837
There isn't even proof that the T-14's APS can catch a Javelin in top attack mode, the launchers are fixed in a horizontal plane.
>>29853859
You keep saying that but will not actually specify when.
>>29852383
The main reason for keeping manual loading in some western tanks is that the 4th crewmember makes maintenance less of a chore.
Western MBT's weight 60-70 tonnes, while Armata weights less than 50, so you can imagine that elements like wheels or tracks are also significantly heavier and that's where extra pair of hands is enormously useful.
>>29853871
During Lebanon and Iran-Iraq wars.
>>29852416
>I'd rather have 6000~ M1 Abrams (current US military inventory)
half of them aren't operational because there were only 12600 engines built and they've ran out of spare parts. Why didn't they build more engines is beyond me.
>>29852448
If there's crew in the turret(not in armata) you can load the gun manually in case autoloader breaks
t. T-72 gunner.
>>29853885
They probably just lost the technology, just like with F-1 rocket engines.
>>29853318
You can't make up an illustrious service career for a tank that is known for being lack luster. No reliable source supports your claims that they slaughtered anything ever
>>29853393
And t-72's destroyed all those m60's themselves, and just pretended to be infantry AT teams?
>>29852788
Seeing as modern 105 HEAT rounds penetrate 800 mm RHA steel and the best HEAT rounds for abrams that aren't produced anymore did 800 as well I'd say 105 would be better choice since it can fire HESH.
>>29853920
The thing is no fatnik damage control will alter the history. It is however natural for a fatnik to question history when it contradicts with the memes he likes on the internet.
>>29852858
>Including superior ammo
Oh shit, now you'll tell me that Abrams finally has HE/HE-FRAG round?
>>29853932
>HEAT rounds for abrams that aren't produced anymore did 800
Now hold on, what about MPAT rounds? They are HEAT rounds but with enhanced fragmentation.
>>29853884
T-72's got rekt in Lebanon.
>>29853885
New engines have been made as recently as 2012.
>>29853977
>The T-72s clashed with several companies of M60s, destroying some Israeli companies in the process while suffering only a few losses in exchange
>After the end of the ceasefire, Syrian T-72s continued to be used and destroyed several Israeli tanks and armored vehicles
>105mm guns failed to penetrate the frontal armor of the Syrian T-72s
>According to official figures, no Syrian T-72s were lost due to Israeli tank fire
T-72 rekt western "tanks" in Lebanon. Ftfy.
>>29853963
MPAT have worse penetration, duh, they were accepted to service because Abrams had no ammunition against soft targets(it still doesn't really have one, outside of cartridge shell but... yeah you see where it's going) and to have some kind of anti-air ammunition to take down helicopters with.
It obviously penetrates worse, it has the same mass but added shrapnel, what do you think they've sacrificed to achieve this?
>>29853884
If the evidence varies in extremes from one source to another, you can't really claim it provides any concrete evidence. For instance, you say during the Lebanon wars like its agreed by everyone that t-72's outclassed the m60's they were up against, but if you check other sources only a single m60 was lost to t-72 fire... And in the iran-iraq war, some sources say the m60 outclassed even the t-72 then. Different sources tell different stories, but the one that persists is the high regard with which the users of the m60 hold it.
>>29853947
The Abrams has had an HE round since Afghanistan, DM11's.
Israel was the only 'western' user of the 120mm smoothbore to have an HE in service before then.
>>29854000
It has actually less mass and seem to be pretty similar to the normal HEAT round except how it detonates.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html
>>29852146
There was a saying from WWII that was something along the lines of
>A German Tiger tank was worth 4 American Sherman tanks. But the Americans always had 5 for every Tiger tank.
Also, I would not want to be in a tank on a modern battlefield.
>>29853995
>if I repeat disputed Syrian claims often enough I can hide from reality
>>29854039
>It has actually less mass and seem to be pretty similar to the normal HEAT round except how it detonates.
And it's still worse round when it comes to penetrating tanks than other HEAT rounds, it's common sense. If it's lighter the warhead is smaller(or range). It also uses some of the force explosion generate on secondary "fragmentation" effect.
>>29854037
Didn't knew it, either way, they didn't have one when accepting MPAT.
>>29854070
>they didn't have one when accepting MPAT
Because they didn't need one.
>>29854017
The difference is that the history does not care about your claims.
>>29854045
>If I will keep calling official figures disputed it will alter the history in accordance with the memes I like on the internet
>>29854070
No tank fired HEAT round is good enough for modern MBT armor.
>>29853944
It's not irrefutable history though, like you seem to believe. The actual effect the t-72's had alone isnt agreed upon by any two sources. Holocost deniers claiming it never happened doesn't make it historical fact
>>29854103
>Because they didn't need one.
>tank doesn't need HE/HE-FRAG/HESH or any other proper round against soft targets
>>29854117
>I will only acknowledge one sides official figures
>coincidentally it was the side that lost and needs to save face
>>29854120
And within 10 years we'll be saying the same about cannon fired sabot's
>>29854131
>Believes in the sacred 6 million
>>29854134
>HEAT-MP is not good for soft targets
>>29854117
Wow, fuck, for the third time it's not historical fact if literally not ANY two relevant sources can agree on what actually happened and how. I'm not even making claims except that no claims can be made given the highly inconsistent source material on the subject
>>29854150
How big is its warhead again?
How big is 105mm HE warhead?
It's shit against soft targets. But it's more expensive than any actual anti-soft target round so guess why it's "great against soft targets".
>>29854041
>There was a saying from WWII that was something along the lines of
And it is very wrong.
There is no clear evidence that you need 5 shermans for taking out 1 tiger except that the smallest tank unit you could send out in the american army consist of 5 tanks regardless of mission of said unit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
Also
>Webm
>1 single
>lone
>T-55
>rushing down the street
>proving anything then libyan stupidity and old equipment is old.
Soviet combat tactics strees the importance of combined arms warfare and working together when in the city. You will not see a single tank rushing down the street but 3 of them supporting infantry and engineers.
You may also witness 100mm anti tank guns used in direct fire support and shilkas going wild with their 23mm guns.
>>29854150
Not really if you look at it. But it should work and it probably works.
>>29854142
>coincidentally it was the side that lost and needs to save face
>1982 Lebanon War Result: Israel Strategic Defeat[4] Syrian political advantage[5]
Oh, the irony.
>>29854193
Those are polish T-72 Urals right?
>>29854163
Just because upset Americans and yids don't speak much about it doesn't mean it's somehow erased from history.
>>29854164
>It's shit against soft targets.
>will kill anything from a T-62 on down
>added fragmentation to boot
Full fucking retard.
Leave it to Ivan to shit up every tank thread.
>>29854215
>will kill anything from a T-62 on down
>soft targets
How about firing at spread-out infantry platoon?
Or a truck?
If the fragmentation effect would be good enough they wouldn't adopt HE. Guess what.
>>29854204
I would really like for you to just acknowledge that what you continue to call historical fact is disputed by any relevant source. I don't see how any amount of perceived butt hurt or hish hushness by any one would change the fact that no two sources agree on what happened and despite this you insist that historical fact can be taken from one source alone. This isn't how history is understood. It just doesn't work that way
>>29854193
if the t72s were godlike, how come the golan heights are in the hands of jews then?
>>29854193
Funny, Israel got what it wanted for being 'strategically defeated'.
>>29854282
Because Arabs aren't the most trained and skilled warfighters.
The only F-15 to ever be lost in Air to Air combat was a Saudi F-15 shot down by an Iraqi.
It doesn't matter if you have the best machines in the world if you put untrained idiots in the driver's seat.
Not saying the T-72 is the best ever. Just saying Arabs have demonstrated time and time again they aren't the best at modern warfare.
>>29854309
>Just saying Arabs have demonstrated time and time again they aren't the best at modern warfare.
Nah, it's all israeli ploy and advisors taking bribes from israel and training as wrong so we lose.
Arabs are the real white people on the world but jews try to bring us down.
>>29854197
Polish 1975 production version T-72 most likely. IIRC only the very first original T-72 model was called Ural. It's a rather rare sight nowadays and can be easily defined by the IR illuminator placed on another side.
>>29854309
still if russian tanks were as great as you advertise it should have helped in taking the golan heights.
>>29854332
Oh I see. The Ural got it on the same place as a T-64?
So I suppose anything that got the IR illuminator on the right side and got the coincidence rangefinder is a 1975 production version?
Well except for the ones that got the coincidence rangefinder blocked etc?
>>29854358
if guns were so effective most gang shoot-outs wouldn't end with 600+ rounds fired, and one wounded(collateral damage).
>>29854248
>How about firing at spread-out infantry platoon?
What is fragmentation.
>Or a truck?
What is a HEAT warhead.
>If the fragmentation effect would be good enough they wouldn't adopt HE. Guess what.
What is programmable air burst.
>>29854358
I didn't advertise shit. That was my first post in this thread. All I'm saying is that the performance of Russian or American equipment in the hands of Arabs is meaningless.
>>29854275
I would really like for you to stop arguing historical facts just because they do not fit into your world-view built around internet memes.
>>29852467
Not even a tenth I'd bet.
>>29854369
>What is fragmentation.
They've adopted HE because it was too weak.
>What is a HEAT warhead.
will disable engine and this is the end
HE, HE-FRAG or HESH would turn it into burning wreck.
>What is programmable air burst.
Didn't stop them from adopting HE, it's almost like it was still not enough...
And in fact:
http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2004.ma/2orr04.pdf
[shit formatting because that's how it pastes]
>The 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, experienced the limitations of the MPAT round on multiple occasions during the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit’s
offensive operations in Iraq. The tank gunner
asserts that he engaged a rocket-propelled
grenade (RPG) team at a range of
2,000 meters in a bunker complex near
the city of Al Kut with a MPAT round. He
was surprised to find that immediately after
the impact destroyed the bunker, several
nearby Iraqi troops (within 30 meters)
were able to stand and run from the site.
As the troops fled to the north, passing
other bunkers, additional soldiers joined
in their retrograde. At their consolidation
point, they culminated in a loosely dispersed
group of approximately 30 soldiers.
Again, the gunner engaged with MPAT,
firing directly into the center of the troop
mass, only to be further disappointed with
the outcome. The blast concussion and the
fragmentary effects of the MPAT were too
negligible to produce his desired effect,
which was target destruction
>>29853104
>Calls other person retarded
>Posts Proton
>In an argument against the space shuttle suggesting the shuttle was a failure
363 successful missions
47 failures
That's an 11% failure rate.
>>29854411
>within 30 meters
I don't think you realize how large an area that is, a vanilla 120mm HE round would not have killed them either.
I do like how that article holds up British 120mm HESH when it has no fragmentation and a lower kill radius than 105mm HEAT rounds.
>>29854366
Visually pretty much, yeah. On the inside quite a few devices were added in 1975, like TNP-165A, TNPA-65, TKN-3 and TNPO-160. But overall the tank was constantly evolving during the second half of the 70s finally resulting in T-72A that because default production model in 1979-1985.
>>29854460
The shuttle succeeded in being a giant pointless waste of money
Thats all it was really good for
>>29854486
>I don't think you realize how large an area that is, a vanilla 120mm HE round would not have killed them either.
It would still cause significantly more damage(knocking some of them unconscious and killing other ones) and, at the same time, HE rounds have very interesting quality US military is not interested in - they're simple as bricks and cheap as fuck.
>I do like how that article holds up British 120mm HESH when it has no fragmentation and a lower kill radius than 105mm HEAT rounds.
HESH has other qualities than fragmentation and kill radius, I don't know why does he put it in such high regard either.
My point is that military found MPAT to be shit against soft targets and I don't understand why do you think this shit is any kind of useful.
>>29854486
>several nearby Iraqi troops (within 30 meters) were able to stand and run from the site. As the troops fled to the north, passing other bunkers, additional soldiers joined, in their retrograde
>At their consolidationpoint, they culminated in a loosely dispersed group of approximately 30 soldiers. Again, the gunner engaged with MPAT, firing directly into the center of the troop mass, only to be further disappointed with the outcome.
>center of the troop mass
>30 soldiers
>MPAT
>>29854527
>loosely dispersed group
The article pretends he threw an MPAT in the middle of a huddle when in reality they were all spread out.
>>29854460
No, in an argumentation against that the Space Shuttle somehow "drastically cut down on the number of flights that were needed to build the ISS" and that it was the only platform capable of "sending up modules, and then assembling them together". Both statement are complete bullshit.
>>29854520
>It would still cause significantly more damage(knocking some of them unconscious and killing other ones)
The effective radius of the blast is tiny compared to the effective radius of fragmentation.
>>29854554
If they cared about fragmentation they would still use those flechette rounds.
>>29854515
Also this. Russians, while generally falling for the same giant spaceplane meme, were at least smart enough not to build the entire launch system around it.
>>29854520
>My point is that military found MPAT to be shit against soft targets and I don't understand why do you think this shit is any kind of useful.
No, the military found that airburst rounds are amazing.
>>29854554
It would still be more then a MPAT round would it not?
>>29854559
You mean like M1028 and M1040?
>>29854577
>No, the military found that airburst rounds are amazing.
So why did they need HE?
They have that weirdly-called HEAP round against buildings which they claim to be more effective than 165mm HESH shell.
One of them has to be shit.
>>29854567
They also did all the shit NASA wished they could do like escape pod on the buran, liquid fueled boosters, unmanned launches, etc
Hard to tell where the NASA fuck up starts, and the government mandated fuckups.
>>29854588
No.
>>29854599
Nah, like the ones they've used in Vietnam, which worked in the same manner as HE-FRAG WP tanks had but with higher fragmentation radius because flechettes are fun(inb4 it can't be fired from smoothbore - HE also "couldn't be fired" from smoothbore)
>>29854600
>So why did they need HE?
Do you not know what airburst rounds are?
>They have that weirdly-called HEAP round against buildings which they claim to be more effective than 165mm HESH shell.
M908 is an MPAT (yes, its actually a HEAT round) with the proximity fuze in the nose replaced with a steel plate.
>>29854602
Regardless of how cool it was or could have been, Buran was just a huge money dump, just like any giant spaceplane ever was or will be built.
Energia was the real state of the art. It was even made somewhat modular with Zenit rocket being essentially its booster.
>>29854620
They are the same type of round.
The difference is M1028 and M1040 fire tungsten balls instead of darts so that they can penetrate soft cover and have a longer effective range.
>>29854613
What makes you say that?
>>29852822
The whole point was that it would take on missions that required humans.
Missions that didn't require astronauts went on unmanned rockets.
>>29854746
no the point of the shuttle was of being a reusable vehicle that would bring costs down
Of course they dropped that on the drawing board for a variety of reasons
>>29853557
Err... those last few weren't Javelins.
>>29854309
Umm... source on that? You're not getting the Saudi F-15 shootdown of the 2xF-1s in 1991 mixed up, are you? Or maybe the F-18 lost on the opening night that was originally credited to a SAM, but later revised to a possible Mig-25 kill?
>>29854309
>The only F-15 to ever be lost in Air to Air combat was a Saudi F-15 shot down by an Iraqi.
That says all we need to know about you.
>>29854779
Correct. I think I'm arguing the way it was used, while you're arguing how it was sold back in the '70s. If anything, it was an excuse for winding down spending during that time (hey, we're building this cool new spaceplane!) that wound up being massively expensive in the long run (but, how much of that was because of the large standing army of workers that got paid the same regardless of the number of launches, thanks to congressional pork).
>>29853227
Official sources also say there are unicorns in best korea.
And that when dear leader last edition died that wildlife cried.
>Vatniks finally catching up with pic related
It's adorable
>>29855014
Excuse me?
>>29855014
>Burgers finally catching up with pic related
How Cute
Oh wait their version is shittier.
>>29855146
calm your tits, bleached nigger.
>>29855329
>moving goalposts.
Also nobody is catching up with that pile of shit; You fucking mountain brake
Throw grenades under the tank or when the hatch opens
>>29856026
This is a fantastic way to get yourself riddled with bullets.
>>29856026
stupid fatnik
>>29852111
With a functioning airforce
>>29852111
Been there, done that.
>>29853557
Does the weapon only arm after like 100 metres or something?
>>29858554
And it was shit, just like T-14.
>>29852111
>billion dollar tank
>taken out by a teenager and a couple thousand dollar rocket launcher
>>29858682
>billion dollar tank
that's abrams bro, russians wouldn't be able to pay that much
>>29858700
Abrams isn't a billion dollar tank, neither is the T14. At least the Abrams is real.
>>29858710
T-14 is real too but you have my opinion on it here >>29858644
crewless turret is generally stupid idea.
>>29858726
Its a mock up, they're not close to an operational prototype.
>>29858741
Well, Russians already tried to sell it and Chinese say that they have similar vehicle so... nah, it's probably operational already, it's not like it's some rocket science anyway.
Either way the idea is completely stupid and I don't know how the hell did the biggest arms exporter and tank user in the world managed to fall for it.
>>29852788
>Even the T-80B wasn't enough to protect against M833
>>29858741
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSjDUZDOVto&t=2m20s
>>29852146
>burn cream added to grocery list
>>29858817
>thinks propaganda video is an operational T14
Slav spotted.
>>29858841
I still remember Americans claiming the T-14s in 2015 parade had empty turrets with nothing inside, saying it was just a bunch of welded metal. Then a month later Zvezda channel releases a teaser of T-14 firing it's gun. The silence in /k/ that day was priceless.
>>29852111
By having 8000 M1s in service and 3000 more in storage. The Armata may be marginally better the M1. Time will tell. The truth remains that historically that armor with minor advantages or disadvantages as compared to their opponents are not the deciding factor. Combined arms are the answer as well as crew training and overwhelming numbers. At the moment, even if the Armata proves to be a superior tank, Russia's economy is not able to produce them in significant numbers, so outside of a few limited conflicts, Armata crews would be at a huge disadvantage against the full weight of the U.S. military.
Barring the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. military has been a mean dog held on a very short leash.
And you really don't want to see that dog off its chain.
>>29858947
>By having 8000 M1s in service and 3000 more in storage.
3000 in storage?
No. Nope they don't exist. They were supposed to be produced but then they saw operational costs.
>>29858942
Nah, people were still laughing at it breaking down during its victory parade and how it looked absolutely nothing like the renders that were paraded around here by vatniks for months beforehand and it had none of the features they said it did either.
>>29859001
Don't the US have acres and acres of M1s stuffed away in some forgotten desert backwater? I rememeber seeing pics of one of those "graveyards" somewhere.
>>29859001
>Buk caught on fire in some parade in random city in Siberia
>Finnish website says it was the T-14
For a country with supposedly the best education on earth, you guys sure are dumb.
