When will we as Americans collectively agree that the Abrams is a fucking pile of shit?
Seriously, fuck this thing. It is NOT a good tank. For that matter, America has NEVER had very good armor. Everything we had in WWII was a glass cannon (and sometimes just a glass box), the M48 and M60 were tall as fuck and generally useless, and the Starship was a fucking joke. The MBT-70 was on the right track until it was cancelled because we didn't want to use the metric system.
So when the 1970s comes around, what does the Pentagon decide to do? Should we go the way of the Russians, and start putting more R&D into things like ERA, designed at defeating or avoiding increasingly prevalent ATGM and airborne threats? Nope! Fuck it, let's just slap lots of armor on this piece of shit because tank engagements definitely, definitely really only involve tanks shooting at each other with their main cannon from a reasonable distance in open areas not confined by buildings.
>tl;dr
Fuck this thing. It's combat record in Iraq with the monkey models has shown that it is a fucking inherently flawed design (inb4 hurrrr monkey model, it's still a fucking Abrams and it still sucks shit).
We need to stop being so arrogant and just admit that our armor is shit, and then do the correct thing and adopt the Leopard 2A6.
>>30552242
How is this copypasta? Copypasta implies this exact post has been made numerous times, it hasn't, because I just drunkenly typed it out.
The reason it seems like copypasta is because EVERYONE that knows jack shit about military equipment knows it's a fucking joke.
>>30552271
You're trying too hard OP, you gotta be more subtle.
>>30552271
trying too hard/10
I'd sooner order a Type 99, and guess what model did they copied that from.
>>30552549
>>30552561
>almost exactly one minute apart
He's going to call us a samefag, if only you'd been a little quicker or I'd been a little slower. Oh well.
>>30552228
>>30552271
Im just confused on this. Are you a tanker who actually doesnt like the platform, are you in the military and have an opinion as a person who has received support from the tank, are you in the miltary or industrial complex as someone who maintains or services the tank, or are you someone who wants to have an opinion on the internet about something that they have little to no understanding of?
If you could pick one of those, it would be great.
>not sure if vatnik or europoor leofag
>>30552561
This, it's a whole post of nothing but US tanks suck misconceptions and memes.
>IB4 HUURR da hiztory channel and fury sez us tankz suck and slav is best tank, and leo is best tank too. why dont us uze dis
>>30552661
>hurr you can't comment on something unless you are an expert on it
By that standard, you aren't allowed to run your mouth on global warming, carcinogens, or even politics since you aren't a scientist, doctor, or politician.
Anyone with half a brain can see that the M1 is shit. The ones in service with Iraq are mobile coffins that fucking stovepipe if you even glance at them wrong. It's a very mediocre tank, there are much better options out there but the US doesn't use them because it would damage our image.
>>30552661
Don't feed him, just call him a troll and move along. I'm all for playing along but this guy is just lazy. See
>>30552725
Lazy.
>>30552794
>guy disagrees with the popular notion that American military equipment is invincible and perfect in every way
>"hurrrr dumbass durrrr stupid troll"
How do you explain the massive number of Abrams kills or mobility kills in Iraq since we left then?
And don't just say "hurr monkey model" because it is essentially the same model we were fielding in the 1980s when that piece of shit was expected to go up against Soviet troops.
The only reason we didn't see such a massive number of Abrams kills during our occupation of Iraq was because our infantry was actually competent enough to more or less keep our armor safe.
>>30552228
Go away Pierre Sprey.
>>30552858
Dude, you could give sand niggers a god damn working wing zero and it'd get fucked up because they can't into war.
>>30552652
Always thought it should have been
>Scoping in the pussy
or
>Scoping out your mom's ass
But that's just me.
>>30552858
It was a nice try, OP, but it's not working. Just try again later, okay? Don't be so aggressive to start with, try to come off as genuine, and stop using a single "fact" that anyone could disprove with even a modicum of knowledge of the platform or, gee I don't know, Desert Storm?
2/10, you'll get better, don't worry.
>>30552953
What about Desert Storm proves that the Abrams is an amazing MBT?
Cruising past the smoked out hulls of tanks destroyed by A-10s?
Getting tons of mobility kills by getting stuck in trenches on the way to Baghdad?
Managing to not get killed by soldiers who either defected or surrendered?
Surviving against goat fuckers with old Soviet RPGs?
None of that is remotely impressive.
>>30552228
>When will we as Americans
This is a terrible attempt at falseflagging, OP. Embarrassing desu
>>30552975
Can you give me an example of another tank that performed better in recent history?
Inb4 5000000000 shermans for 1 tiger or something gay op is gay op is nigger
>>30552975
>>30552228
suck start a shotgun OP
by your logic, T90 is terrible because Syria
>>30552228
>MBT-70
Anything that could fire the Shillelagh missile belongs in the trash see >>>M60A2
>>30552986
In combat? As far as NATO tanks are concerned, no, I can't, because they haven't seen combat.
And before you try saying "HURR DURR NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE DERP DERP," that's like saying I couldn't beat a retard in a footrace because I've never ran in the Olympics before.
But in theory, there are several tanks in the NATO arsenal that perform better than all but the most advanced Abrams variants.
>>30552975
It's more impressive than shitposting on 4chan
>>30552975
Or, you know, fucking owning the Tawakalna Division.
Republican Guard were not the regular pushovers, retard.
Furthermore
>Cruising past the smoked out hulls of tanks destroyed by A-10s?
A-10s didn't fly that many sorties during Desert Storm. Why is it that, inevitably, you faggots always suck it off?
>Getting tons of mobility kills by getting stuck in trenches on the way to Baghdad?
>He doesn't know the difference between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom!
Also, getting stuck isn't a kill when you get a recovery vehicle to pull you out.
>Managing to not get killed by soldiers who either defected or surrendered?
I'd surrender to an Abrams, too, tbqh senpai.
Just give up, senpai.
>>30552228
Put a diesel engine , an autoloader and some frag round in the ammo rack and it's fine.
Prove me wrong.
>>30553317
>Republican Guard were not the regular pushovers
Ahahahahahahahahaha
You mean those "elite spec ops elite stormtrooper DELTA force Iraqi SEALs" that we never even had a major engagement with?
That force that had equal desertion and surrender rates as the rest of the army?
The Republican Guard was the fucking definition of a paper tiger force. All show, no game.
The Abrams is a mediocre tank and fanboys like you refuse to wake up to the fact because it hasn't had to go up against a serious threat.
Well, actually, it has with the current war between Iraq and ISIS, but Abrams fanboys ignore that like edgy college kids ignore Venezuela because that's not a *real* Abrams.
Keep saying that when the Russians start ferrying more and more modern equipment to our enemies and the Abrams gets BTFO'd by "slavshit"
>>30552228
>When will we as Americans collectively agree that the Abrams is a fucking pile of shit?
Don't underestimate jingoism. Most people will believe whatever the state tells them, including here on /k/.
>>30552858
Abrahams losses of US operated models would still have been high if they were as shit as you say. We didn't have to make a stop gap like with the unarmored Hummers for the M1 and you bet your ass we would have if there was a need.
>>30553421
this kills the abrams
>>30553421
What is a webm of an ATGM hitting the turret rear, an ammunition cookoff being vented out the blowoff panels, and the crew seen exiting the vehicle afterwards supposed to imply?
>>30553464
>damage control
>Damage Control
>DAMAGE CONTROL
>>30553403
All of the well trained unemployed Bathist military men formed all the militias that we fought in places like Falluja during Operation Phantom Fury. You can't say that those were cake walk battles for the US
We lost a lot of abrams to EFP and powerful IEDs in iraq. But hey... The thumpers always have an excuse.
the only time the entire crew died though, was when a marine drove an abrams off a bridge into a shallow body of water and everybody drowned.
>>30553234
>But in theory, there are several tanks in the NATO arsenal that perform better than all but the most advanced Abrams variants.
>the latest NATO contemporaries will outperform old Abrams variants
Is that supposed to be a surprise?
>>30553475
Yes, you are damage controlling. Care to actually answer the question?
>>30553464
Guess hard.
>>30553544
The ATGM clearly hit the side of the turret, that was more than an ammo cookoff being vented, and none of the crew are seen getting out of the vehicle.
Even if they did, that tank is fucked, more than a mobility kill.
>>30553581
>The ATGM clearly hit the side of the turret
Well at least we agree the turret was pointed away from the location of the ATGM impact.
>that was more than an ammo cookoff being vented
Setting aside that all of the flames originate from the blowout panels.
>and none of the crew are seen getting out of the vehicle.
Image related.
>Even if they did, that tank is fucked, more than a mobility kill.
Of course the tank was fucked, it was abandoned by its crew and recovered by Houthi.
>>30553658
They just have to fix it up and send it back into combat.
Best tank ever. A russian or european tank would probably have to been scrapped after that
>>30553702
>A russian or european tank would probably have to been scrapped after that
With a ATGM hit in the same location, only a Leopard 2 and Merkava 4 would have survived as they also have blowout panels for their bustle storage.
>>30553736
haha, are you implying that the abrams survived that hit?
>>30553658
I don't really agree that that is a crewmember, anon. I would need to see something else stating that the guy was captured or something. The resolution is so low that that could literally be anything. A piece of shrapnel, a bush blowing from the overpressure of the explosion, anything.
And in any case, I don't really see how this supports the "Abrams is da best tank eber!!!11" argument. There are MBTs out there that would have taken that hit a lot better.
>>30552975
Don't know about you, but I work with a guy who shot down a Hind with an M1A2, and ripped apart a BMP that started firing in his general direction.
>>30553873
>I don't really agree that that is a crewmember, anon.
Try watching the original video.
>There are MBTs out there that would have taken that hit a lot better.
Which MBT's do you think could have taken a Kornet hit to the rear of the turret and protected their crews?
>>30553927
You mean M1A1, M1A2's did not enter service until after Desert Storm.
>>30553807
Blowout panels are a depot level repair job. The inside of the ammo container has to be inspected, cleaned, new mounting racks for the ammo honeycomb installed, and new blowout panels installed.
Judging by where the fireworks came out of, I would say that the ammo hatch was closed and the crew survived. If they had the common sense and training to drive their tank back to the depot instead of abandoning it, they could have gotten the tank repaired in relatively quick order.
>>30553927
My dad works for Nintendo.
>>30553807
It would have been able to drive away under its own power if the Saudi crew had not run away.
>>30553980
The only one I can think of is Merkava 4, since that usually sorties with an APS and could have shot down the missile before it hits.
>>30554044
So one of the two tanks I mentioned that could have survived the hit as well >>30553736
On the topic of APS, the US Army is going to mount Trophy on its Abrams stationed in Europe.
>>30554003
True, brain fart.
Either way, turns out that Hinds are easy targets when they don't think they are in range of any of your guns and fly straight and level.
>>30552228
It's not about having a good tank. It's about having an adequate tank backed by god's own logistics, a top-tier training program, and a doctrine that properly exploits both of them.
The monkey model isn't any worse, it's just that the monkeys don't have the logistics, training, and doctrine to make it work.
>>30552725
When it comes to things like, I dunno, armor composition and effectiveness, as well as things like fire control systems and ammunition performance, I don't see how you can have an informed opinion
>By that standard, you aren't allowed to run your mouth on global warming, carcinogens, or even politics since you aren't a scientist, doctor, or politician.
This is entirely correct.
In general, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. At best, you are relying on those aformentioned SMEs.
