Why can't the United States come up with something better than the upgrade for the Abrams tank? Other parts of the world coming up with cooler tanks.
How about we come up with some alternatives that would actually be cooler?
the last couple replacement programs have gotten canceled so maybe they are worried
Though the cancellation was mostly a good thing since they were founded on retarded ideas like "all 20 ton vehicles"
>>30156823
Your picture is not a real tank.
>>30156823
Why fix what works.
Sure russia came up with a cardboard on bmp but there's like 5 of them made and 4 of these are out of order due to maintenance problems
>>30156823
>Why can't the United States come up with something better than the upgrade for the Abrams tank?
Serious answer? There is nothing game changing enough to warrant a replacement.
Abrams has the growth for pretty much anything you would want.
>>30156823
Because an entirely new tank isn't needed yet.
>>30156823
because there's no reason to upgrade?
m1a2sepv2 is still one of the most advanced tanks in the world
>>30156823
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPv0lxktr4A
>>30156996
This isn't a Leopard 2A5, T-90 or M1A2 Abrams.
T-14 is a new development and there is a atmosphere of interest around it. The united states will need to make improvements or develop a new tank.
>>30156823
The Germans aren't finished with their new design just yet. If the Americans went on their own the product is sure to be crap.
>>30157066
>or develop a new tank.
Why?
The Russians went since the T-54 without developing a new tank and instead kept using it as the building block.
>>30156823
>hue hue hue it has to look cool to be worth a damn
Go back to your people
>>>/b/
>>>/r9k/
>>>/toy/
>>>/vp/
>>30157066
The T-14 doesn't have anything special about it besides the crew layout. Even that was experimented with in the past by the Americans, and a few others, and found to be lacking.
No point in rushing to develop something that may very well turn out to be mediocre. For example the scramble to build the M103 and Conqueror heavy tanks to combat the IS-3, which turned out to be pretty bad and not worth the panic. Or western tank designers giving themselves headaches trying to cram 140mm guns into their designs to counter advances in Soviet armor that never came about.
>>30157155
The crew layout was also put into production with Jordanian Challengers.
>Or western tank designers giving themselves headaches trying to cram 140mm guns into their designs to counter advances in Soviet armor that never came about.
My favorite was proposed Triple Warhead TOWs to defeat rumored 'dual layer' ERA.
>>30156996
A Leopard 2A4 with a modernization kit is supposed to show what?
>>30157175
>The crew layout was also put into production with Jordanian Challengers.
No it wasn't.
>>30157175
>The crew layout was also put into production with Jordanian Challengers.
That's not an unmanned turret. The crew are just sitting really low under the level of the turret ring.
>My favorite was proposed Triple Warhead TOWs to defeat rumored 'dual layer' ERA.
Its the wrong approach. APS would chew em up before hitting the armor.
>>30157227
>Its the wrong approach. APS would chew em up before hitting the armor.
Are you actually retarded?
>>30157175
I knew about the M1 TTB, but the Jordanian challenger were news to me. I just looked them up.
What exactly is so special about the T-14 other than it having an unmanned turret and being chosen for production? I get that it's based from the Armata hull which simplifies production of various vehicles. But the whole ' it has a new unmanned turret' thing seems to be another misconception like people thinking the T-34 invented sloped armor.
>>30157235
Evidently you are, confusing an unmanned turret with a manned albeit extremely low silhouette one.
>>30157253
>it's specifically to counter rumored new ERA with multiple layers
>DURRRRRR APS WILL GET IT FIRST
You truly are retarded. Bravo.
>>30156823
>Russians hypothetically develop tank that MAY be as good as existing 30 year old platforms IF they manage to build more than 3 and the capabilities isn't blatant propaganda
>/k/ reacts by screaming about how nothing is competitive with a completely unproven design
Never change
>>30156823
Wasting money on an entirely new design that would most likely only offer marginal advantages compared to what they already have is a great idea
>>30157107
I have not heard people talk about armour capabilities, but regardless the T-14 seems like an overall improvent to T-90s, T-80's and T-72s, of course it's equipment isn't a shockwave of improvement but it is a new combat vehicle which will more then likely have abilities to trump vehicles like the abrams or the leopard.
People seem to think the western world has this odd invincibility.
>>30157261
What
Most of this thread is supportive of the abrams you dunce.
>>30157253
>confusing discussion of a turret with discussion of a missile
anon
>>30157260
>You truly are retarded. Bravo.
APS have demonstrated the ability to swat slow flying HEAT missiles for decades now(starting with Drozd) retard.
>>30157326
>Drozd
>Ever useful
You're a funny guy. Especially considering that the conversation was clearly about things from the 80s. You flailing about so impotently is cute though.
>>30157309
>but regardless the T-14 seems like an overall improvent to T-90s, T-80's and T-72s
The general consensus among non vatniks seems to be that the T-14 finally gives Russia a tank on par with the west.
>>30157235
How the hell would someone reload that?
>>30157366
>Vatniks
Look, I won't bother even discussing shit with you and I'll be blatant about that. It isn't because I foam over russian technology, I know the faults and the problems of the technology but I'm not a brainwashed idiot who thinks that everything must be black or white.
>>30157395
He was agreeing with you though.
>>30157403
I don't like people who spout vantik on /k/, it's about as cancerous as /v/ spouting /pol/ or x on y, you can't have a fucking opinion on this site without someone boogymanning you.
I wasn't agreeing with him, The T-90 is apt enough to take on most modern western vehicles.
>>30156823
>Why can't the United States come up with something better than the upgrade for the Abrams tank?
Because US tank industry is dead. It took more than 20 years to build a replacement for M60. And aprx. 5-10 years to polish it to level of "decent" tank.
>>30157155
>The T-14 doesn't have anything special about it besides the crew layout.
Complete modularity off the top of my head.
Most tanks require redesigning of their interiors when upgunning, the T-14 simply just accepts the bigger gun and bigger autoloader cassettes.
Its also the base for a whole family of vehicles.
>Even that was experimented with in the past by the Americans, and a few others, and found to be lacking
Nobody has the tech in the 70s-80s to make an unmanned turreted tank possible. TV cameras for instance are shit back then, and thermals could not operate for extended periods of time, unlike today when you can just practically leave them on the wole time.
>For example the scramble to build the M103 and Conqueror heavy tanks to combat the IS-3, which turned out to be pretty bad and not worth the panic.
Ironically the much simpler effective successor to it caused the first tank gap panic of the West.
>>30157419
Which is why I specifically said, if the T-14 is an improvent, the west needs to butt-rush towards a counter as they did with their counterparts to russian technology the past.
Some globe of ignorance came over the world, old american documentaries acknowledged the power of soviet equipment but for some reason idiots decided to take the middle east an example of russians not being capable of developing armaments, it'd be like reviewing the usage of abrams by the saudis and using it as tool to call the abrams shit.
>>30157419
>I don't like people who spout vantik on /k/
There's a difference though in that /k/ does get vatniks and a lot of them. Thus looking for a non-vatnik opinion on anything Russia is preferred.
>>30157347
>You're a funny guy. Especially considering that the conversation was clearly about things from the 80s. You flailing about so impotently is cute though.
Nice denial. Its even more hilarious you guys are so incompetent you don't even have a working APS - just buy from the yids.
>>30157366
>The general consensus among delusionals seems to be that the T-14 finally gives Russia a tank on par with the west.
ftfu pham. The best of the west is only marginally better than the T-72++++ despite weighing at least 10 tons more and costing many times more. How sad.
>>30157437
0/10
>>30157512
Sounds like you specifically want to fitler anything positive about the russians or the soviet and try to cover it as if there was a boogyman. Any actual soviet thread appearing on /k/ is flooded with jingois fuckwitts pretending that anyone who isn't sucking uncle sam's dick is a vatnik.
>>30157518
>you guys
You don't even know what country I'm from.
>muh yids
OH it's you!
Keep telling yourself Drozd was anything but a failure though. There's a reason why it was never used in any real quantity and was quickly abandoned.
Anyone got any new info on the M1A3 dieselization idea? Last I heard it was being very seriously thought about.
>>30156823
Make way make way!
M5 Schwarzkopf MBT coming through!
>>30157536
>muh everybody who hates vatniks is a burger
It's like you're not even trying.
>>30157419
Are you new here? I didn't call you a vatnik and you should be familiar with the over 9000 overhype the T-14 was given in the wave of Russian nationalism after the invasion of Ukraine.
>>30157527
But this is true, abrams did have prototypes but wasn't in the field until the 80s and by then T-62 and T-64 were out and rolling.
>>30157560
Did I say americans in specific?
You know very well as much as I do that america isn't the only country giving old uncle sam a sloppy.
>>30157541
>You don't even know what country I'm from.
lemme guess. an actual shithole that can't afford a tank? Somewhere in Africa perhaps?
>Keep telling yourself Drozd was anything but a failure though. There's a reason why it was never used in any real quantity and was quickly abandoned.
The project was abandoned by the Army, but completed by the Soviet Naval Infantry to increase protection for about 250 older T-55 tanks in 1981–82 (newer T-72s were problematic on landing craft, due to size and weight, and $170 million Drozd development was much cheaper than a commencement of an all-new time-consuming tank design). Tanks were upgraded to T-55M standard and equipped with Drozd at the tank rebuilding plant in Lviv, Ukraine, and kept in war stores for secrecy. The rebuilt tanks were designated T-55AD, or T-55AD1 if they had the newer V-46 engine. Drozd APS was later replaced by the simpler non-APS Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour.
Drozd was also fitted to a small number of T-62s, which were designated T-62D or, if fitted with the V-46-5M engine upgrade, T-62D-1.[2]
Drozd was exported in small numbers to China and to an undisclosed Middle-Eastern client. It was subsequently discontinued. The Drozd-2 system was developed to give a 120-degree protection arc with more projectile launchers. It was intended to be installed on the then-upcoming T-80U main battle tanks. An even more sophisticated all-round active protection system is the Arena Active Protection System.
AHAHAHAHAHA the denial in this faggot!
>>30157583
No, this actually one of my favourite boards especially for it's interesting historical and niche model threads.
I know specifically that this board is plagued with people spamming vatnik at anything remotely russian.
>Over-hype
Are you kidding me?
The amount of "T-14 BROKE DOWN" or "Armata Bingos" by tripfaggots say otherwise.
>>30157585
70s, not 80s.
Don't know how that came out.
>>30156823
Why develop new tanks when you are engaged in asymmetrical warfare?
Fuck you could probably use Lees and you'd still dominate.
>>30157066
Didn't the company making t-14 and the apc go bankrupt.
>>30157634
>Didn't the company making t-14 and the apc go bankrupt.
The civilian or train making subsidiary of the company did.
>>30157634
>Uralvagonzavod
>Bankrupcy
Unless I'm living under a rock, you are living in a fantasy world.
>>30157669
No that happened.
>>30157379
Autoloader.
>>30156823
>cooler tanks
because replacing what works with what's cool is dumb
>>30157446
>the T-14 simply just accepts the bigger gun and bigger autoloader cassettes.
Using a new turret.
>>30157720
Look at the mantlet; its made intentionally overbig.
>>30157677
From what I've just researched, it wasn't bankrupcy rather a company demanding debts in a form of new exchange rates, from an outside bank.
Keep in mind, the tank company is a state-owned asset.
>>30157618
So you are new here, given your response is based on 2015 or later trends.
>>30157746
>2015 trends
It's been here since 2014 if I remember correctly.
2013 was anti-wehraboo in /pol/'s prime.
>>30157736
The mantlet is not oversized, are you confusing it with the entire turret face?
>>30157757
>T-14 broke down
>Armata bingo
>2014
I will take note that TankSgt's(?) bingo triggered you despite only being posted a couple times.
>>30157824
>Focuses on one thing I said, despite that I've show I'm not new
Despite that, I did not claim the bingo was from 2014, I've said the vatnik shit has been around since then. The fact that you're trying to twist my argument and manipulate the setting doesn't boast well for someone who claims that there is some outside boogyman who causes all the problems.
>>30157824
>I will take note that TankSgt's(?) bingo triggered you despite only being posted a couple times.
Nothing more triggering than blatant bullshit.
>>30157855
>Nothing more triggering than blatant bullshit.
how can you stand 4chan?
>>30157618
>I selectively don't remember the over a years worth of ARMATA GREATEST TANK LOOK AT ALL THESE RENDERS OF IT WITH 30MM CANNONS A 152MM CANNON AND ALL THIS OTHER SHIT
>comes out looking absolutely nothing like it
>cyka blyat stop picking on poor russia west dogs fuk u blyat
>>30157855
triggered as fuck
>>30157588
>quoting wikipedia that justifies the greentext you're trying to prove wrong
>>30157865
Because dumb-fucks where miscontruing pictures of the prototype T-95 which did exist but was taken over by the armata. Whoever you were talking to were fucking stupid.
>>30157859
>>30157868
You do realize this is another poster, right?
If you want my response to >>30157824
Go here
>>30157846
>>30157585
>Did I say americans in specific
>isn't sucking uncle sam's dick
Proof you're a vatnik.
>The vatnik always puts the relationship between individuals or countries and the US in explicit terms of sexual dominance, a telling sign of Russia’s sometimes amusing but ultimately disturbing masculinity crisis. Refusal to bow to Putin’s Russia is bending over or getting down on one’s knees for the United States, the only other country in the world that matters. To this end the vatnik likes to portray his enemies as prostitutes or passive homosexuals, unwittingly revealing his fears and insecurities about sexual domination and humiliation. Insults revolving around oral and anal sex are par-for-the course when discussing politics with the vatnik, regardless of age.
>>30157881
Not him but in what universe is being used for at least 250 tanks constitute as "never used in any real quantity and was quickly abandoned".
Its even more than the Merk 4s with Trophies.
>>30157906
I want to hope that you are shitposting and this is a copy pasta, because if you've went to this fucking length to defend a fucking boogyman then you are not doing yourself any better.
>>30157914
>250 tanks
>out of 20,000 in the 80s that were operational
>this is real quantity
>implying it wasn't dropped for even K-1 on most units
>>30157846
>The fact that you're trying to twist my argument and manipulate the setting
>claim to not be new
>only recount recent specific 'events'
>>30157929
>out of 20,000 in the 80s that were operational
Lol. They only had 6k at their height ready to roll anytime. The rest are second-3rd echelons that would take weeks and months respectively to mobilize.
>implying it wasn't dropped for even K-1 on most units
With a per unit cost of $250k it costed as much as a T-55 and a quarter of the average T-72 price. Of course they wouldn't adopt it in huge numbers since it would reduce that number through sheer cost. And K-1s are simply too cheap and yet effective they implemented it on every tank they could just because.
US military is actually switching to weaponized penny farthings.
>>30157923
>there's no such thing as vatniks
Who are you trying to fool again?
>>30157977
Let us go from your perspective, as you are clearly ignorant enough not to be able to acknowledge anything other then your own view.
First of all, by the same logic you have been using it'd be idiotic to imply that anyone that has a positive opinion towards russia is a vatnik, in the same way that saying anyone who dislikes russian equipment is a jingoistic american. So you'd be an outright hypocrite to use the boogyman of vatnik if you agree to not call anyone simply favouring another nation's technology over another as x or y.
>>30158009
There isn't, because reality is not black and white. We've had plenty of threads on 4chan talking about americans supreme navy and anyone who says otherwise is a vatnik, we've had threads of germans who claim their tiger is superior and that everyone is a jew, we've had threads were people come in and pretend that x is superior to y. If we went by the logic you had we'd all be boogymen.
>>30157066
But we already have
>>30156823
Because jets destroy tanks
Why piss around with armor battles when we can just bomb the enemy with impunity after suppressing their air defenses? Because that's the reality of modern combat, not these theoretical tank vs tank circlejerks
>>30158044
That'd be like refering to T-95 prototype as the current MBT, we know that didn't go through.
>>30158046
Here comes the air superiority faggot
>>30157545
There's pretty much no info about the M1A3 out that isn't speculation.
The only news of a diesel engine I've heard about recently is from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP8jw2WrgX0
Where the guy being interviewed mentions they did make a Diesel engine Abrams prototype and according to him it functioned just fine with similar performance to the turbine.
But the Army doesn't want it because the Turbine is fine.
>>30157437
Best I can do is a 1/10
If you want to sea a dead tank industry, look at Britain. The US is still producing Abrams's.
>>30158046
You mean like how air jockeys consistently blew up their kill claims by laughable factors?
>>30158097
At 2:35 btw
>>30158039
>There isn't
>there aren't jingoistic russians that shitpost nonstop and there most definitely aren't any paid posters to shitpost or anything
Meanwhile, in reality
https://news.vice.com/article/pro-putin-troll-factory-in-russia-will-pay-labor-abuse-settlement-to-former-employee
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/
>>30156823
Short answer, too expensive.
The US has arguably more tanks than anyone else and replacing each one is going to cost more for us than anybody else.
>>30157923
Pretty sure that is from 'Why the West can't understand Russia', its description of 'vatniks' was a spot on description of pro Russian posters during the events in 2014.
>>30158046
Which is why airpower won Vietnam, right?
>>30158135
There's no denying it's tactical and strategic impact.
>wait for Russia to finish T-14
>assess capabilities in actual combat environment
>design new MBT to exceed those capabilities
>????
It's the lazy way of doing things; but the US has much more important air force and navy programs to maintain, and can afford to wait.
>>30158119
>>30158132
>Using drags as citiations
>Very same drags which fear-monger about russia 24/7 because of "Transphobia" or some bullshit.
As a born australian citizen, I'm heavily disappointed that because I have a non-biased view of international politics and technology I have to say or showcase that I'm not some retarded boogyman a board fears.
>>30158215
The fact that you think you are unbiased shows your bias.
>>30158215
I'd be embarrassed if I made this post fampai
>>30158255
I'm not you, and I'm not sure how you've managed to think that I'm baiting.
>>30158242
You could say so, there is a inherent bias anywhere because everyone lives through a subjective perspective towards reality, probably explaining why half of your posts in reply to me can make an appeal of no true scottsman then call everyone vatniks.
But I'm saying it in the context of where I can talk about the capabilities of a Leopard and T-72 without going "OOORAH" or "SUKA BLYAT"
>>30157536
>Any actual soviet thread appearing on /k/ is flooded with jingois(t)
But American shit gets the exact same treatment, literally every single thread about the Abrams, the F-35 or their new "stealth" boat gets the same kind of shitposts in reverse. The only difference is people in those threads just call them dumb slavaboos
>>30158215
>d-d-d-dezinformatsiya isn't real, /k/omrades!
>>30158312
Poor Russia, always being picked on by evil west.. vatniks dindunuffin
How much better would the abrams be if it didn't have a 25 ton turrent?
Reduce that to a 5 ton unmanned turrent, reduce overall weight by 10 tons while increasing armor protection....
What could be wrong?
>>30158316
I'm making the argument that not everyone supporting russia is an apparent boogyman, retard. Reading comprehension is important.
>>30158312
>Calls them dumbslavboos
Ahahaha.
I'm not denying that american threads are met with equal criticism, remember it doesn't even have to be an russian thread for the word vatnik to appear, just like this thread and many anothers. A mere sugguestion that russian equipment is competent is met with "DELUSIONAL VATNIK"
>>30158323
>RAAAARRRGGH I AM SO SILLY
>>30158312
Cmon man he is unbiased, surely he does not selectively read/interpret threads.
>>30158405
>Reading comprehension is important.
Yes it is, which is why is unfortunate you did not comprehend that I seperated most anons from the fervent pro Russians >>30157366
>>30158405
>I'm making the argument that not everyone supporting russia is an apparent boogyman, retard.
Of course not. Most are just useful idiots whom have been taken for a ride by said boogeyman. Or whom were simply idiots to begin with.
You'll have to pardon my lack of interest in the initial argument about the veracity of criticisms against the T-14. I imagine it will be quite capable when all is said and done with the program.
Regardless, just don't trust pro-Russian individuals, organizations, or information, ever. The Russian Federation is the sublimated corpse of a delusional empire that now serves as the artery for all manner of barbaric corruption that is being channeled into the West from all the fetid kingdoms of Africa and Asia.
>>30158575
wat the devil are you talking about
Russia has nothing to do with any of that.
The only thing is them bombing western allies in the form of syrian/iraqi jihadists
>>30158539
I knew you'd reply with this, I did not misinterpret what you've said.
My post in reply to that post pointed out that you were specifically ignoring previous models, and you weren't seperating anyone beyond your own personal perspective upon what is okay or not.
>>30158575
>That whole post
Well that explains it, I'm talking with people who are still plagued by the red scare.
Jesus christ.
>>30156823
>Why can't the United States come up with something better than the upgrade for the Abrams tank?
Because the Abrams isn't shooting at anything that warrants replacing it.
>>30158598
The global proliferation of ideological communism perpetuated by the Kremlin throughout the Cold War, and its attendant anti-colonial revolutionary doctrine, has become mutated and co-opted by the same Islamist death-cults (not to mention the Politburo in Beijing, and groups across Africa and Latin America) that Russia claims to be struggling so valiantly against now. Putin's--and by extent, Russia's--grand mission in this century is to bring about the downfall of the West by any means, blithely unaware as he is in his chauvinistic desperation to revive the Soviet golden age that his country has already been mortally wounded by the same mass-political hallucination that he helped spread in that time.
The Syrian gambit is simply one means by which Putin seeks to accelerate this terrifying destruction of Western civilization. He cares not one whit for the Syrian country nor its people beyond the military usefulness of their geographic situation. Hence it suits him perfectly to purge as many millions of poor Levantines as possible from the region while he consolidates power along the valuable Mediterranean coast, funneling them up into Europe where there retrograde socio-cultural practices were always bound to cause massive public unrest and discord, hopefully unraveling all that the continent has accomplished in the process.
Again, never trust Russia.
>>30158674
>red scare
Never underestimate a cornered beast--even a dying one.
>>30158674
>My post in reply to that post pointed out that you were specifically ignoring previous models,
The T-90A has never been par with its Western contemporaries, which is why I mentioned the improvement in the T-14 allows Russia to rival the West again.
>>30158809
>and its attendant anti-colonial revolutionary doctrine
Which was just as much supported by the west, its people and government, as the USSR
>has become mutated and co-opted by the same Islamist death-cults
Hardly
They are just devout muslims practicing their religion
It is the WEST who supports them. Not Russia.
>Putin's--and by extent, Russia's--grand mission in this century is to bring about the downfall of the West by any means
You are insane & delusional, nothing could be further from the truth, Putin wants a strong & friendly west.
>He cares not one whit for the Syrian country nor its people
He certainly cares more than the west which has been funding/arming foreign jihadists for the past few years
>Hence it suits him perfectly to purge as many millions of poor Levantines as possible
Madness
It is western allies or puppet states that allow these millions of migrants through
It is the west who advertises in these mid east countries about how much money/free shit they will get if they merely arrive in europe.
It is the west who forces Greece to let millions of them through, it is the west who is friendly with the turks who encourages this migration while cheering for the eventual white genocide.
It is the west that sends naval ships to pick up boats off the coast of libya and bring them to europe
What stage are we in?
>>30158809
>Seriously thinking that the same country which made the attempted secularism is somehow supportive of islam
The united states and it's allies have intentionally turned more then five coutnries into islamic states and continues do so, and you think russia is a communist idealogue?
>>30158869
By what standards and specifics?
>Rival the west again
Nigger are you joking?
>>30158674
>I'm talking with people who are still plagued by the red scare.
Russia invading Ukraine and threatening the baltics/Poland/Romania/Sweden/Finland is a "red scare"?
>>30158891
>By what standards and specifics?
optics
FCS
gun+ammunition
protection
crew survivability
hp/ton
>>30158888
Nice quads, but you ruined it with "I AM SILLY"
>>30158896
>Invading
Crimea didn't exactly go down in bombs and DNR is a result of soviet nostalgias
Why the fuck would russia want the baltics out of everything.
>>30158922
I'd like to see an actual article on optics, that'd interest me.
I'd agree on FCS.
Doctrine made the big difference in armour, so it's a poor argument.
Crew survivability is basically the same shit in the form of a buzzword.
I'd like some information on HP/TON.
>>30158896
>threatening the baltics/Poland/Romania/Sweden/Finland
[citation needed]
>>30159029
There's nothing silly about it.
>>30159032
It was real in our minds m8
>>30159047
>>30159094
You're not doing anything to disprove it.
>>30159113
That's the whole purpose of denouncing your comic as it "I am silly"
Can't really "Disprove' a comic which is intentionally exaggerating points and perspectives in the benefit of it's own view.
>>30157309
>People seem to think the western world has this odd invincibility.
All the planes, cruise missiles and ATGMs kinda made tank development a secondary priority. The T-14 is a nice PR piece, and it may be a solid vehicles (which you either won't know for another 20 years, or are working are MIPT or something), but it isn't anything new that will change the battlefield. At best it will cause modifications to ATGMs or something. Same tactics will stay though.
>>30158888
pump the brakes with the skinhead quads
>iv8888
>>30159135
It's not silly though, it's an accurate classification of the stages that a vatnik goes through.
>>30159029
>Crew survivability is basically the same shit in the form of a buzzword
The ability of a crew to survive a penetration is hardly a buzzword, I think the most common comparison is how many tankers died for every Sherman and T-34 that was knocked out in WW2.
>I'd like some information on HP/TON.
M1A2 SEPv2, Leopard 2A6
>62-63 metric tons with 1500hp engines
T-90A
>46 metric tons with a 1000hp engine
T-80U
>46 metric tons with a 1250hp engine
I don't recall the weight of a Challenger 2 with its add on composite side armor but it has a 1200hp engine.
>>30159187
I mean, I knew this board was filled with idealogue but not the extent that /k/unt's have trouble understanding shit. And you're still spouting that ridiculous boogyman.
>>30159162
>Planes
Russia's thorough anti-air system infamous even in the west is a contestant to that, so you can't count on that unless you think of it in assymeterical context, cruise missiles are in the same league and russia is aptly developing APS as well along with the west. I mean, you're talking in the context of a tank's usefulness but this dogmatic bullshit of air superiority is dated bullshit with beliefs from experiences against a regime with age old tech.
>>30159348
I'm saying that in context of armour and crew survivability, it's practically in the same area.
Aren't both the T-80u and T-90a on diesel though?
>>30159351
Nobody's making it out to be a boogeyman. You just refuse to see the truth and you even went so far as to refuse delivery of any evidence that would counter your world view.
>>30159361
T-80UD was the diesel version.
Another thread where half the people claim they know more than the entire US Military and start saying tanks should have gimmicky shit or be built like panzers. Then the typical slavaboo comes in bragging about Russia's new prototype tank that will never see production and state how it totally does not look like every other Tank Russia has made for the past 50 years.
>>30159466
>Anyone who doesn't have my view is x
>I'm not boogymanning
Make your mind.
>>30159489
My mistake, I legitimately thought the T-80 ant T-90 would have improved abilities due to their lack of weight.
>>30159534
>Prototype tank
If you were talking about the black eagle, sure.
But did they show at events? No, they did not parade it either.
It'd be like saying their new fleet of vehicles will not come in.
The armata universal platform is coming and will meet production, you would not parade a whole fleet of shit you won't use. I understand you're trying to be neutral but at least be educated about it.
>>30156823
Because we have tanks that fly
>>30159600
You still have done nothing to dispute the links given to you and instead have shut your eyes and just cried about it like a petulant child.
>>30156823
Too busy spending money on the Navy and USAF
>>30159696
As I've said multiple times I'm not saying that disinformation does not exist, and I've been arguing that not everyone who talks about russia positively is a vatnik.
I'm not the one crying like a child, infact you're the one spewing bullshit and using comics to justify your arguments.
>>30157550
Noice!
I think a new MBT would need to be faster and more maneuverable than current ones. Quad treads would be great at maneuvering over rocky terrain, and dual rotating autocannons would be great for reducing reload times. Thick angled armor to deflect even high width HE shells. It would need extreme power, so a thorium reactor would need to be in order. The reactor could provide safe and clean energy, and a lot of it. New ejection systems for the crew, along with an ammunition self destruct system to prevent it from being captured. The treads would be powered by electric motors for insane torque and acceleration.
>>30159811
Im an engineer by the way.
>>30159811
>Nuclear reactor for tank
Woah boy.
>>30159811
You forgot the glider wings, submersible capability, triple 16 inch railguns, and troop trailer.
>>30159834
Well it's safe, reliable and efficient. A reactor lockdown system would need to be implimented to prevent explosive fission though.
>>30159845
Oh silly me.
>>30159834
>>30159849
'ere we go again.
>inb4 Chrysler TV-8
>>30159849
I know nuclear energy is efficent but fuck man imagine both the wrecks and the explosions caused by that shit, not to even mention if that shit gets damaged and the crew is exposed to radiation.
I don't doubt that it could be used efficently, but they'd have to really make the reactor invulnerable standard attacks.
>>30159811
I don't hink the tread idea is able to be utilized properly.
Autocannons aren't really monumental, they've been done quite a few times, just don't see them out in force. Armour is still suspectible, you just need to have appropiate levels of defense and an active protection system.
>Ejection systems for the crew
Nigger what
>Self-destruct
Doesn't take much thinking to do that to modern day tanks, don't really need a button for that shit.
>>30159879
Yes, I see the controversy. Yes, I worked out safty protocols. Yes, people think I am a mad scientist.
>>30159905
It's amusing how some whack-job can come into the thread and make it more of an interesting discussion by contesting norms.
I don't usually do this, but thanks you spergy bastard.
>>30159898
2 120mm autocannons would devestate the enemy, and reduce loading times.
Ejection systems are optional. Just a think tank idea. Too many parts could malfunction.
Quad treads as in 4 treads that are seperate from each other, but as close as possible, so there can be a break for flexibillity.
Thorium is safe and reliable. A person can be exposed for several hours before recieving the first bad dose of radiation becose of its low fussionable temperaturw.
>>30159932
No problem /k/ommando.
>>30157588
>see original Drozd post
>look it up on wiki
>see this paragraph
>return to thread
>see same paragraph
Troll harder, Ivan.
>>30157993
>ywn see hipsters ride into battle on penny farthings to remove normies with MP18's
>>30158888
None.
>>30156823
>coming up with cooler tanks
That's cute, but I am waiting for a single tank to actually pass up the Abrams capabilities. The only tanks in the last 15 years that pose a threat to the Abrams current status of king of the battlefield are the T14 Aramta, T90MS, Type 99, and the rest are our dearest allies anyway. Considering how the first lacks the firepower, or armor to beat our hero, the T90MS is a "cool guy upgrade kit" to a venerable but aging T72 design, and the Type 99 is a copied leopard turret bolted onto a T72 hull, they do not warrant us needing a better tank when ours is already better. Not to mention, the aforementioned tanks are hardly more then experimental prototypes anyway.
Need I remind you any country that would think about going to war with the most heavily funded military on the planet are easily 10-15 years behind in technology, and their own respective R&D firms have plateaued in development for the shear exuberant amount of money it costs to develop the optics, ballistic computers, armor piercing ammo, armor, and other systems that make tanks, tanks. Let alone, a tank that can compete with the country that has literally set the standard for the last 25 years.
>>30160031
>Trip faggot makes obnoxious post
>>30160031
Did you just call the Type 99, a tank which has been in service for 15 years a prototype?
>>30159811
>need to be faster and more maneuverable
Now just find a solution to that, to your ridiculous standard. If you sacrifice armor to make it faster, you're going to get split open. If you put in a monstrous engine you're going to need an even bigger supply chain, and your own personal maintenance team, and a fuckload of money to build it. Please, elaborate on this and how you solve it.
>Quad treads would be great at maneuvering over rocky terrain
Like regular treads, that actually offer more contact and load dispersion meaning your idea is retarded? Lets forget the additional roadwheels and idlers, drive sprockets, and final drives that would add weight, and place higher maintenance demands on the vehicle. You can throw 1 track, and still be moveable I guess, slightly.....
>and dual rotating autocannons
You're going to destroy your turret ring with the offset of the guns. At least, any caliber that would damage other tanks. And even then, you're not building an autocannon that can fire the size of rounds that will meat the minimum requirement to make an "autocannon" a benefit. "but but muh 30mm gau8 ground vehicle" shut the fuck up
>Thick angled armor to deflect even high width HE shells
HE shells haven't been a significant threat, in over half a century. Chemical and Kinetic penetrators have been the primary ammo type for the last generation+ of tanks. And modern penetrators are designed to pen angled armor with high efficiency.
> thorium reactor
I am going home. I can't be seen on 4chan with this troublemaker.
>>30160119
You goddamned autist he was evidently joking.
>>30160103
excuse me, the A model and A2 model, the point still stands.
>>30160050
Ok, I'll be nice. The core element of my job for the last several years is to know tanks, I think I know more than 95% of the average wikipedia reader.
>>30160130
technically for the vast majority of you faggots this isn't that far from something you "would" believe. "clearly" is hardly the word I'd call it when posts like his have been posted all the time.
>>30160119
I was coming up with the coolest tank, not the best.
>>30160198
already done
>>30160143
Type 99 was an advantage itself, it's improvements in the later years only added onto that.
You were an engineer for the united states military, not an engineer for multiple ground forces around the world, making a evident difference in what knowledge you have. I'm not denying you know the abrams but other tanks are debatable.
>>30160175
Jesus H Christ, what stick is so far your ass?
>>30160103
While I wouldn't call the ZTZ-99A a prototype, equating it with a ZTZ-98 is like saying a T-90MS is a T-72A.
>>30159719
Still waiting for you to prove those links wrong :3
>>30160233
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/594460/
Hello furfaggot.
>>30160258
I don't deny that, I'm just saying that his post is pretty fucking stupid in the context of other militaries doctrines.
>>30160233
Everything is as good as it gets, but still needs a thorium reactor.
>>30158102
>The US is still producing Abrams's.
But it's not. Abrmses already produced. When you nned new tank, you take hull which was build years ago.
>>30159029
>Crimea didn't exactly go down in bombs
Doesn't change that Russian soldiers occupied it and organized a secession vote.
>and DNR is a result of soviet nostalgias
Russian soldiers in Donbass is Soviet nostalgia?
>Why the fuck would russia want the baltics out of everything.
Because they 'belong' to Russia and provide a buffer for Moscow. Threatening polite green men and making noise about their independence not being legal doesn't comfort them either.
>>30160549
>Occupied
Not to mention that one video of the locals saying slayva russia in a area which was mostly filled with ukranians.
>Russian soldiers in donbass.
Ah yes, the mysterious armatas and russian infiltration teams.
I won't deny their involvement, but there was definitely ethnonationalists russians in urkaine before the "Invasion"
>That last one
This sounds like basic NATO scaremongering bullshit, about on the level of sweden blaming their television failures on russian interception or some bullshit.
>>30160295
Where do you think you are?
>>30157066
T14 Armata is already cancelled.
>>30160603
>This meme again
>>30160601
Oh I know this board is filled with furries, probably explains why there is so much ridiculous fucking idealogue there is.
>>30156823
>Why can't the United States come up with something better than the upgrade for the Abrams tank?
Because no one else has anything that stands up to it.
>>30157550
>>30159849
>A reactor lockdown system would need to be implimented to prevent explosive fission though.
Jill Stein plz leave. Reactors can melt and have steam or hydrogen explosions. They can't go full nuclear bomb.
>>30159811
>Quad treads would be great at maneuvering over rocky terrain
Alright
>dual rotating autocannons would be great for reducing reload times
My dick
> Thick angled armor to deflect even high width HE shells
Getting as hard as that armor
>It would need extreme power, so a thorium reactor would need to be in order
I might be a Russian agent. My dick will penetrate that armor and splatter the turret with hot cum.
>>30157446
Ivan, just because your government tells you that their shit is game changing doesn't mean it actually is. Please get off of the krokodil and start using your head.
Quad tracks are doable
All/mostly rubber tracks are likely the way to go
Unmanned turrent is the future
You probably want to go HEAVIER tanks with more efficient engines, HP/ton is just a meme, top speed of tanks is irrelevant
Active protection systems and Explosive armor will make guns obsolete, and we'll need to switch over to higher energy kinetic kill missiles
Lasers/railguns will make non-stealth aircraft obsolete too, along with their non-stealth munitions/atgms.
>>30156865
This.
It's threads like this that make me not want to come to /k/.
>>30160945
I meant hydrogen explosion you mung.
>>30160031
DELUSIONS THE POST
>first lacks the firepower,
It packs a much more powerful gun with a much longer APFSDS projectile you dumbass.
>armor
Complete APS + ERA + a thicc frontal hull armor
>type 99 is a copied leopard turret
Confirmed for not knowing jack shit.
>>30159811
>quad treads would be great at being a fucking maintenance / engineering ultra nightmare
>with higher ground pressure than standard tracks
ftfy
>>30164675
>It packs a much more powerful gun with a much longer APFSDS projectile you dumbass.
Tell us the max chamber pressures and APFSDS lengths.
>Complete APS + ERA + a thicc frontal hull armor
And a turret on an MBT that can be frontally penetrated by an autocannon.
>>30158135
It did pretty well in stopping the Easter Invasion of '72, which is the last time we bothered fighting (thanks Democrats!).
Ok, now for the best ACTUAL tank design.
120mm high velocity cannon on an unmanned turret. It can shoot AP or Chemical rounds.
Normal tank treads made out of a strong composite.
Several anti-personnel weapons (MGs, grenade launcher for urban situations).
High Power Diesel engine powering high torque electric motors.
Active Defence System with chemical hardening and protection, as well as thick armor to protect against high velocity AP rounds.
Long and Short range comms systems, and optional AC unit.
>>30156823
Because it works, nigga. Even if other countries have better tanks (and we're just taking their word for it), they're not better enough to make up the fact that we'll four tanks to their one.
>>30157550
>let's throw in some random hexagons!
>that looks like the future, right?
>>30156823
Because solid tanks crewed by solid people backed by solid logistics rape opposition made of a few cool tanks plus lots of shitty tanks, piloted by shitty, tired crews with bad maintenance.
4 man crews support the American combat tempo. 3 men isn't enough for maintenance or guard shifts or good sleep. And it loses out in human ergonomics - two men awake with one weapon have geometrically better combat stats than one, two men awake can drive and command better than one, etc.
Americans plan for multiple days of back-to-back 24/7 advance, followed by 18/6 followon for several weeks. Soviets...not so much.
>>30164812
The body is feminine, but the face looks male. I am genuinely confused.
>APS
Daily reminder that the TOW 2B (wireless standoff top-attack twin EFP) is rated effective against all existing active protection systems.
>>30159811
>+1 crew because nuclear reactor engineer guy
>ejection seats
>look outside is all fuck and more fuck
>lets go way up without any cover
I like your idea otherwise.
>>30156823
Unless we decide that we need to mount a 140mm gun then there's no real need. It can still take down anything else well enough and can be improved further with new armor or targeting packages if that proves insufficient.
If we decided we needed a larger gun, however, it would be easier to just design a new one instead of trying to modify an Abrams to do the job because of how many changes it would need. I think someone came up with the Abrams, pre-TUSK upgrade, would have ended up being right around 90 tons after they extended the chassis, made the turret longer, added an autoloader, and added a bigger engine so that it could have a bigger gun without compromising elsewhere. Add in TUSK and an APS and you'd be looking at a 100 ton Abrams before all was said and done, and at that point you'd have a hard time moving that behemoth around and may be better off just making a brand new design that was a bit smaller.
>>30157175
>The crew layout was also put into production with Jordanian Challengers.
Wrong. A few examples were made to generate interest for export sales. Jordanian Challengers are still using manned turrets.
>>30156823
because tanks are just infantry support. What else do you want them to do? Fight other tanks? That's dumb. Why would you ever need to do that.
>>30159811
>ammunition self destruct system
what could possibly go wrong
>>30166729
Only everything. Thats why its cool.
>>30166396
Doesn't mean you need to keep a manual loader
You could have an auto loader and still have a fourth crew member
>>30166681
Autism The Post
>>30156823
Because we're really working on Mk1 Bolos
I mean, come on, you really think all this self driving car bullshit is about civilian applications?
>Have you heard of the F-35?
seriously though, why replace 4000 tanks with something margially better for trillions of $$$.
When you can make 4000 tanks marginally better for 100+ billion?
