>Russian tanks can't hull-down
>"We gave it up so we could have a low profile in the age of lock-on weaponry. But it doesn't matter, because we don't use our armor for defense anyway!"
>They say while all the terrain around them benefits every other tank design more
>Russian tanks are literally only good within their own borders and just beyond, but are shit for a defensive war
Russian "ingenuity"
>>30481238
The Red Army saw itself as attacking and their designs reflect that
I don't understand uh
What prevents them from being "hull down"?
>>30481411
Gun can't depress far enough.
>>30481362
This.
Just look at the Leopard 1, it got 70mm steel armor at the front, angled but still it is extreme weak. I know it was made in a time, where they thought there is no protection against HEAT, but even when it turned out there is, they didnt up amored it like crazy, but only put additional armor on the turret, because they knew, that what they will basically only doing is looking over a hill shooting at attacking russians, then draw back to the next position and repeat all over again.
>>30481238
Don't forget about how they put all the ammo under the turret, so a direct hit to the side of the hull results in a catastrophic kill.
>>30481238
Different doctrines, the Russians planned to be on the attack so they didn't give the ability to shoot from hull-down much consideration.
NATO planned to fight from prepared positions, so they could dig berms and other forms of cover for their tanks.
NATO tanks usually have much tougher turrets than hulls. The Abrams is the only exception, and even it got a turret bias starting from the HA upgrade.
Leopard 2 and Challenger both have fairly weak base hull armor.
>>30481411
-5 degrees compared to -10 minimum on every other modern tank. They have to pull up a hill and expose themselves pretty badly to do it, which defeats the point.
>>30481461
They knew what they were doing.
>>30481524
It's not really a design flaw when their entire plan of action for armor is "be a giant ball of tanks that're threatening due to number so they make dumb decisions and back off while infantry push"
Even on the defensive, Russian tactics for armor is to push in and herd enemies a certain direction.
>>30481573
Abrams was designed under the assumption that they would see first shoot first and keep moving.
>>30481573
>the Russians planned to be on the attack
I don't think this can be stressed enough. Standard Soviet advance doctrine literally consisted of moving in column formation on a road until contact was made (usually by taking fire), then spending 2-4 minutes rearranging into line formation and then advancing. It's questionable how effective this would have worked in the 80's when NATO had a clear advantage in FCS and visibility, and more importantly FASCAM become all the rage for a while. Like, seriously US, FASCAM is cool and all, but you went overboard, like calm the fuck down with your mines nigga
>>30481411
Russian tanks cannot into aiming down.
>>30481238
It's okay, anon, WoT has taught me that Russian tanks are made of impenetrable Stalinium coated with the finest Bounceonium. The designs that led into their current MBTs are also capable of aiming twice as far down than their blueprints would imply.
>>30481665
That's the thing though, Russian Bias doesn't translate into real life. Want to guess how accurate and effective the KV-2 was in real life?
>>30481997
>Russian Bias doesn't translate into real life
it will after we rewrite history, comrade)))))))))))))
>>30482072
That would be the only way
>>30482072
but russians can't even into winning the cultural war, which the americans have completely nailed down. American culture seeps into every part of the world while russian one is only in russia
>>30482477
We also have some degree of control over most of the world's economy.
>>30482477
except the people pushing the "American" culture are gonna find themselves all in prison or our of power come november
>>30481612
>>>30481573
>Abrams was designed under the assumption that they would see first shoot first and keep moving.
The Abrams was designed to be a powerful all-rounder. Good armor everywhere, good sensors, good comms, good offense, good speed, etc.
The jet engine, with the associated limited range, is about the only compromise in it, and even that is alleviated a bit with the APU.
>>30483531
No the other anon is correct, NATO strategy was to fight then retreat to the next prepared position.
The "jet engine" does not limit the Abrams range compared to its contemporaries because it has larger fuel tanks.
>>30483698
If the US Army used external drop tanks like the Soviets. Then range and the fueler truck train, would be less of an issue
>>30483698
Even with a fuel tank twice the size of other MBT's, it still has less range
>>30483698
>>30483531
Abrams has a very high reverse speed compared to it's peers.
Gas Turbines are better at delivering torque at low revs, which means that from a standstill, Abrams can out-accelerate Leopard 2 because the MTU lacks torque at low revs.
Then when the tank gets up to decent speed, the Abrams has more acceleration again when the tank goes into second reverse gear.
For all the memes about "French Tanks driving faster in reverse", Abrams and Leopard 2 really do have 2 gears for driving in reverse, while T-72 and all Soviet tanks have 1.
Why? because doctrine.
After engaging the enemy from a prepared position, these tanks need to move fast to get to their second line of defense. Turning around to drive forward is not an option as it exposes your rear armor.
Thus the Abrams and Leopard 2 have 2 reverse gears and excellent stabilization. They would reverse at 30 kph to the second line while slinging shots at the cresting/pursuing T-72s, then repeat the process all over again.
>>30482477
>winning the cultural war
we thought we won, but we're just losing slowly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wakec06NlA
Literally all coming true.
>>30484014
even the commies are still losing. they have been subverted by global capitalists and the investor class.
we will be up to our ears in cultural marxist bullshit. though no socialist economics or govermment. as the multinationals and stateless billionaires keep the politicians paid off.
>>30481997
>accurate and effective the KV-2 was in real life?
Drive up to enemy position, fire until German flavored paste oozes out the bottom, repeat until Berlin.
>>30481665
Lol, Russian tanks are shit apart from few exceptions. The only good Soviet tier 10 is Ob704 and then there's T-62 that's average(you're better off using Leo, 121, AMX or Batman). Ever since T110E5 was added even IS-7 became redundant and now only scrub clans who's 90% of members have IS-7 because "they've heart Russians are easy" use it in CW's.
>>30481620
Don't forget skeet, the one part of Assault Breaker that actually made it into production, albeit too late to matter.
>>30481610
>-10 minimum on every other modern tank
Stop being wrong.
>>30484342
You mean "break down, tip over and explode while other, better tanks get the job done."
KV's were trash.
>>30481620
>FASCAM become all the rage for a while
Reminds me of how minelayers became my most important asset in MechCommander2.
![679[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gNiOUKy.jpg "679[1].jpg")
>>30481620
>FASCAM
>>30485000
I was in an blackhawk unit in Korea.
The minute we though the Norks were going to try and cross the DMZ. We were to send the birds up with these mine layers. Then dover the DMZ and a perimeter around our airfield with them.
>>30483749
External tanks have fallen out of favor.
>>30483774
>Even with a fuel tank twice the size of other MBT's, it still has less range
Hyperbole does not give you the appearance of honesty.
>>30485024
Ex 19E here. Anything that could get an instant minefield to cut down the odds and cause mayhem was a good thing.
>>30484695
confirmed for never playing high end CW
>>30482477
What cultural war? If you communism, that has nothing to do with Russian culture.
>American culture seeps into every part of the world
Yes, fast food, dumbed down TV shows and increasingly shit music.
Daily reminder that the Soviets were fans of the combined arms tactics, and tanks weren't considered the primary AT weapon. The designs made sense in the environment they were made.
![1800349_663416067099371_7477889043124886467_n[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/5XiOuPr.png "1800349_663416067099371_7477889043124886467_n[1].png")
>>30481238
They can lob gun-launched ATGMs above the hilltop, though.
>>30481238
That's because you are supposed to make your own berms with the dozer blade installed. That way you don't get ambushed with presighted arty firing at known terrain suitable for hull down shooting.
>>30483912
>... and Leopard 2 have 2 reverse gears and excellent stabilization.
No dude, nearly all the Renk gearbox have a "reverser" which gives as much reverse gears as forward gears...
>>30481997
"Then there suddenly appeared for the first time a battalion of heavy enemy tanks previously unknown type. The tanks overran the armoured infantry regiment and broke through into the artillery position. The projectiles of all defence weapons the thick enemy armour. The one hundred German tanks were unable to check the 20 Russian dreadnoughts and suffered loses. Several Czech-built tanks of the type 35(t), which had bogged down in the grain fields because of mechanical trouble, were flattened by the enemy monsters. The same fate befell a 150mm medium howitzer battery which kept on firing until the last minute. Despite the fact that it scored numerous direct hits from as close a range as 200 yards, its heavy shells were unable to put even a single tank out of action. The situation became critical. Only the 88-mm. Flak finally knocked out a few of the Russian KV-I's and forced the others to withdraw into the woods."
One of the KVs even managed to reach the supply route of the German task force located in the northern bridgehead and blocked it for several days. The first unsuspecting trucks to arrive with supplies were immediately set ablaze by the tank. There were practically no means of eliminating the monster. It was impossible to bypass it because of the swampy surrounding terrain, Neither supplies or ammunition could be brought up. The severely wounded could not be removed to the hospital for the necessary operations, so they died. The attempt to put the tank out of action with the 50mm anti-tank gun battery, which had just been introduced at that time, at a range of 500 yards, ended with heavy losses to crews and equipment of the battery. The tank remained undamaged in spite of the fact that, as was later determined, it got fourteen direct hits. These merely produced blue spots on its armour.
>>30485908
When a camoflaged 88 was brought up, the tank calmly permitted it do be put into position at a distance of 700 yards, and then smashed it and its crew before it was even ready to fire. The attempt of engineers to blow it up at night likewise proved abortive. To be sure, the engineers managed to get to the tank after midnight, and laid the prescribed demolition charge under the caterpillar tracks. The charge went off according to plan, but was insufficient for the oversized tracks. Pieces were broken off the tracks but the tank remained mobile and continued to block all supplies. At first it received supplies at night from scattered Russian groups and civilians, but the Germans later prevented this by blocking off the surrounding area. However, even this isolation did not induce it to give up its favourable position. It finally became the victim of a German ruse. Fifty tanks were ordered to feign an attack from three sides and to fire on it so as to draw all of its attention in those directions. Under the protection of this feint it was possible to set up and camoflage another 88mm Flak to the rear of the tank, so that this time it was actually able to fire. Of the twelve direct hits scored by this weapon, three pierced the tank and destroyed it.
>>30483698
>The "jet engine" does not limit the Abrams range compared to its contemporaries because it has larger fuel tanks.
Abrams needs to be supplied with more fuel, that means more supply convoys following combat units. That ties down more troops and equipment.
Back in 70's when they designed Abrams it was expected that most fighting Abrams would ever do would be very near to own supply depots with plenty of fuel in Germany.
>>30484695
>Obj 704 T10
>Substituting a brawling T10 Medium with a leo or a Batchat ever
>Thunking that 110E5, a dpm heavy, compares to an IS-7, a brawler
Holy fuck you have 200 WN8 and a teir 8, right?
>>30482477
That's not entirely true. I heard some danish raghead kids run around, screaming "cyka blyad" at eachother here the other day.
>>30481238
I remember interview with communist general - Jaruzelski.
In they 70's they already knew it will take like 8-10 soviet tanks to kill one western tank.
And they accepted it, applied it in their statistics.
So going low-profile was their only option, since they knew their armor is useless. That's why they had autoloader, too - less crew - less training, 1 less dead crewman, plus the plan was to zerg rush and bullet-spam the western tanks.
>>30485908
>>30485918
It was about KV-2, not KV-1.
>KV-2 (334) – A heavy assault tank with the M-10 152 mm howitzer, the KV-2 was produced at the same time as the KV-1. Due to the size of its heavy turret and gun, the KV-2 was slower and had a much higher profile than the KV-1. Those captured and used by the German Army were known as (Sturm)Panzer kampfwagen KV-II 754(r) and often used for artillery observation due to its height. Few were produced due to its combat ineffectiveness, mainly the decreased speed due to the weight of the new gun and turret. The enlarged turret also offered a much bigger target, resulting in it being easier to hit and destroy than other KV tanks. Due to the increased turret weight due to expanded dimensions and a heavier gun, the turret traverse mechanism could work only on level ground.
Basically it was pretty useless for heavy tank.
>>30482477
>but russians can't even into winning the cultural war, which the americans have completely nailed down. American culture seeps into every part of the world while russian one is only in russia
They managed to fuck up universities of west pretty good and with those goes entire education system. Half of problems western world has is caused by that.
>>30486214
The idea that leftism and communism in the west comes from russian subversion is so fucking stupid that you should be banned
>>30486179
Wasn't the KV-2 used more in an assault gun / artillery role, though?
>>30486254
And you should be killed. Fuck off, commie.
>>30481238
>in the age of lock-on weaponry
Wat
>>30486254
They poured money by the bucket on all sorts of radical leftists, environmentalists and civil rights movements from 60's to 80's until they ran out of money. It doesn't come all from KGB, but they helped said movements to grow.
They didn't recruit radical commies in west that much as spies as they understood how much more damaging they can be while staying in academia.
>>30486261
Assault gun in general sense is a specialized tank designed for anti-fortification and anti-infantry work.
>>30486281
think they mean top-attack
>>30486262
Can't wait until we kill all you rednecks.
>>30486307
Weren't KV-2 attached to the artillery instead of the rest of Heavy Tanks? I think they were classified as Heavy Artillery Tank designed for bunker-buster. They still sucked though.
>>30486170
>In they 70's they already knew it will take like 8-10 soviet tanks to kill one western tank.
You do realize this is outright BS right? Chieftains that get murdered by 125 mm HEAT, Leo 1s that can be penned by HMG in the front hull, and M60 barns that are worse off in armor compared to chieftain- while T-64s and T-72s are being cranked out in the thousands...
>>30486331
Odd, it's not like as if a low profile or hull down would help in either case against top down weaponry.
>>30486351
>Weren't KV-2 attached to the artillery instead of the rest of Heavy Tanks? I think they were classified as Heavy Artillery Tank designed for bunker-buster. They still sucked though.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
What part of division it's attached to is kinda irrelevant, if it used in a way that is very close to tank.
>>30486353
Majority of WP forces were equipped with T-54/55's in 70's and NATO was updating it's legacy tanks with modern fire control systems. Western tanks could effectively fire while moving, WP tanks... mostly no. Also passive night vision was becoming a thing in 70's and commies were behind in that as well.
>>30486254
Yeah, and the CIA funded modern art in the East. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
>>30481524
>Don't forget about how they put all the ammo under the turret
>us Western tanker never do the same
summer sure is fun
>>30486440
>Middle East
>West
>>30484886
>T-72
>max step 0.8m
in this video, a T-72A or T-72M cross a 1.2m step
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjkWgek6UXU
that table is outdated and bullshit
>>30486453
Jew is the west of middle east
>>30486161
Yeah, online gaming has really spread cyka blyad to the rest of Europe.
>>30486423
CIA also funded trade unions in various European countries in 50's and 60's to keep 'em controlled by Socialist/Social democrats instead of commies. Given the fact that trade union activists and leftist politicians are overlapping groups, they indirectly financed leftists politicians on all levels.
>>30486440
>original quote said under the turret
>posts a picture of it being in the side of the turret
I'm pretty sure >>30481524 was talking about the bizarre arrangement Soviet tanks tend to have, if they had turrets that were big enough to move around in the spare ammunition was almost always under the fucking floor.
>>30486170
They? Who is "they"?
>Jaruzelski
Lol. Sounds like the Soviets trained him wrong on purpose, as a joke.
>>30486307
And after the USSR collapsed? Was it them again? And no one did anything the whole time?
>>30486413
>T-54/55's
and T-62s actually.
>Western tanks could effectively fire while moving
Not really that useful when the tactic of the day is hull down. T-62s score a bretty good 70% hit chance at 1000m while moving at 20kph at 30 deg. approaching relative to the target with sabots while stopping to move every now and then isn't really hassling provided you are well drilled as for the T-55.
>passive night vision was becoming a thing in 70's and commies were behind in that as well.
TPN-1-22-11 is standard for T-55As and TKN-2 came with the original T-62, the fuck are you talking about?
>>30486484
Worst thing is they don't even use the really good ones like mudak, pizda and pidar. But it's an amusing sort of cultural appropriation to hear slightly slurred immigrant danish, interspersed with russian insults.
>>30486906
>And after the USSR collapsed? Was it them again?
Didn't have to do anything, just let fruits of shit done in past to mature.
>And no one did anything the whole time?
Pretty much the issue.
Joe McCarthy was right, but he was barking at wrong tree. Instead of media, he should have been focused on academia. People working in media say what they are paid to say. Aside from pundits on screen, fox news is staffed by same leftists as rest of mainstream media.
>>30486958
>and T-62s actually.
Nope. T-54's and T-55's were far more common. T-54/55 production is estimated to be between 80 and 100k units. Total production of T-62 including exports is about 22k. Most WP countries outright refused to even evaluate it independently after Poles and Czechoslovakians had found out that it delivered essentially nothing over T-55 and cost about three times as much. Almost all exports went to incompetent sand people that are impressed by things like bigger model number. Only WP client that purchased T-62's was Bulgaria.
>Not really that useful when the tactic of the day is hull down.
You gotta move between hull down positions a lot in delaying action.
>T-62s score a bretty good 70% hit chance at 1000m while moving at 20kph at 30 deg. approaching relative to the target with sabots while stopping to move every now and then isn't really hassling provided you are well drilled as for the T-55.
While stopping to move every now and then isn't firing while moving.
>TPN-1-22-11 is standard for T-55As and TKN-2 came with the original T-62, the fuck are you talking about?
Difference between active and passive infrared night vision. Active IR requires IR illumination to work, passive IR doesn't. IR spotlight is massively visible to everyone using night vision, basically a shoot me neon sign. In 60's WP was ahead of west in deploying passive IR sets in all forms, for both vehicles and infantry.
>>30486125
move those goalposts
>>30485024
Its funny how they pretended our bases would not be the only targets of the entire first wave of rockets, missiles, and artillery shells long before they do any push across the dmz.
>>30486214
Modern universities entire system are built on 1700-1800 Era universities formats. IIRC harvard was founded in 1630 something, long before Russians were doing anything to America.
>>30481461
>because they knew, that what they will basically only doing is looking over a hill shooting at attacking russians, then draw back to the next position and repeat all over again
I think the Finns were fans of the StuG.
>>30487730
Alright, which one of you fatasses sat on that tank?
>>30487842
Swedes simply forgot how to tank, built an SPG & never got around admitting that instead of a tank they had built an SPG
>>30487662
Modern universities, at least in America, have spent the last 40 years coming undone from their foundations. Now they've become bastions of social justice and inimical to freedoms of speech and thought.
>>30486440
>US western
Clearly a merkava
If the layout didn't immediately tip you off, the hebrew should have.
>>30489021
>the hebrew should have.
But /pol/ says that THE JEWS control the western military!
>>30487730
That's the tank where you have to get out to load it right? What were the Swedes thinking?
>>30489181
It is an autoloader.
eeeee rockkkkkk
>>30487730
>Finns
That's not Finnish.
>>30487905
>Swedes simply forgot how to tank, built an SPG & never got around admitting that instead of a tank they had built an SPG
Yeah but aside from that it was (and probably still is given the nature of NATO armaments being largely interchangeable) a very, very effective combat vehicle that suited the Swedish doctrine perfectly. Probably wouldn't fare too well in maneuver warfare in ideal tank country but in tight forest corridors it had an advantage. Plus it's smaller than the Soviet tanks it was supposed to fight, which is pretty crazy if you know how small those things really are.
I think it's neat how the radio operator had rear-facing controls so it could be driven backwards exactly like it was driven forwards. Once the 103 lost it's element of surprise the Swedes didn't expect it to last long so keeping that front armor toward the enemy as it got the fuck out of dodge was critical.
A significant portion of currently deployed weapon systems were designed during the Cold War for very specific expected scenarios. The expectation during the Cold War was that the Soviets would be on the offensive in WWIII and would come charging through the Fulda Gap with "more tanks than God". Therefor Soviet armor designs are tailored to offensive operations. Likewise, Western armor was tailored for Defensive operations. This explains both Soviet tanks being not optimal in a hull-down configuration and the Abrams high fuel consumption.
>>30489280
(note: it never actually saw combat so it's truly impossible to tell how it would have fared in combat but it's not hard to extrapolate from real-world experiences and testing that the design would have been pretty great at it's job)
>>30489021
Israel is part of "the West" in political terms.
>>30489416
He mentioned the US, then posted a picture of an Israeli tank known for blowing up, no offense merkgunner.
>>30489437
>He mentioned the US
No, he didn't. He was using 'us' as a pronoun.
>>30489527
The only US I know is the US of A you fucking communist.
>>30489021
>>30489416
>>30489437
>>30489527
>>30489559
Looks like I need to come in and sort this shit out, here's the original post:
>>30486440
>>Don't forget about how they put all the ammo under the turret
>>us Western tanker never do the same
>summer sure is fun
Look how the anon doesn't capitalize "us" but capitalizes "Western" properly, which we can use to guess that it's supposed to be in lower-case.
>>30489610
shut up commie
>>30489640
I know it hurts to be wrong. Here's a picture to make you feel better, I picked it out since you seem to really like that word.
>>30489688
>>30489640 Is not me
>>30489559 is me.
I thought he was referring to the United States, not "us."
>>30489711
Okay, thanks for sharing and clearing that up. I have to be honest with you and say that I don't really care.
I'll give you your own picture.
>>30489416
Yeah but in military philosophy and doctrine they have some pretty significant variations.
