Why NATO IFV's in general don't carry any ATGM's like the Ruskies do?
Also, IFV appreciation thread.
A lot of cold-war era Bradly's have TOW, i know that, why do the more modern IFV's don't have that?
>>30018975
TOW are meant to be defensive tank destroyers. They are not meant for offence.
>>30018991
tell that to GW1 Iraq, brads killed more tonks than abrams.
>>30018955
They do when the doctrine requires it but theres no point having ATGM when fighting Haji who don't have armour.
>>30018991
Not really an answer to the question and I don't really think TOW was designed to be ''defensive''.
>>30018975
The general idea is that the IFV's are not meant for tank hunting, we have other stuff for that.
Of course, this comes with the implication that they expect they will always have tanks/air support available in case of a tank encounter.
>>30019041
Then why the Ruskies still equip them? In the fog of war where MBT's and IFV's rush in along side eachother, the IFV might spot, and thus target an enemy MBT just a tat quicker than the rest of team, I know it's not their primary goal, but if it doens't require that much hardware, then why take the chance?
>>30018991
TOW is meant for tank killing in hunter-killer teams.
>>30018955
because nato use jeeps which are very elusive
>>30018955
US has TOW on Bradley, France has Milan on their AMX-10P. NATO ATGMs were more expensive and less advanced than Soviet.
>>30019092
Yes, and tanks, and man-portable systems, aircraft, helicopters, mines
That doesn't answer the question why they're not putting them on IFV's.
Is an 20-30mm autocannon enough to defend against a Tank?
Just to detrack it or smash the optics.
>>30019066
Because the Ruskies obviously disagree with that idea, and would rather have their IFV's be capable of killing tanks, just like the Yankees.
>>30019114
For destroying optics, yeah, and scratching the paint.
>>30019119
Thats kinda very russian.
Having something that is very simple, cheap and versatile.
>>30019114
Reliably defend, no. But it can hurt it from the side; and in the Gulf War a number of Bradleys shot T72s to pieces with their 25mm.
>>30019148
monkey model t-55's maybe
>>30019134
Giving that the MBT is looking straight at you else you won't have a chance of destroying the optics, in wich case i'd rather have ATGM's.
>>30019148
Can you back that up?
>>30019152
No, T72s. You can call them monkey models if you want, but they were T72s.
>>30019161
It happened at 73 Easting; and in several other battles. Pure autocannon-only kills, with Bradleys maneuvering into 500m range and flanking after running out of TOWs.
To be fair, TOWs were always used first; there was a point in 73 Easting when 2 Bradleys alone on recon killed 13 T72s with their TOWs.
>>30019197
mobility kills were rare 25mm can not pen very much. But yes Bradley had the most tank kills of any vehicle in that war. 100% TOW.
>>30018955
It looks like a smiling catfish.
>>30019254
Apperently 25mm AP got a point blank turret pen (downword angle) on a t-72 with M1919
>>30019344
Sauce, Russian build quality is crap on everything but dude I started university in 93 and had plenty of GW1 vets and ROTC friends brag about the Bradley kills and this I have never heard.
>>30019387
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4O0A7iVotU
Not that guy, OP here, this docu is pretty sweet and describes an attack like that.
>>30018955
I know that thestryker isn't an IFV, but it very likely will be getting a javelin mount in the near future
>>30019387
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sum91rgJXkI
Here you go!
Given the deflection and whatnot, not entirely unbelievable.
>>30019104
French doctrine doesn't rely on infantry to fight tanks.
Of course, you can hook up an ATGM launcher on the back of the IVF, but their use is more defensive than anything.
Light cavalry uses ATGM in a more offensive way even if the light cav isn't meant to face heavies...
Aren't the Arabs organized like British/French colonial master taught them?
I remember some madman pulled up to a ditch that had a hull-down t72 in it
he saw it, shit bricks, hit the commander override and shot down into the turret through the roof with the bushmaster
>>30019418
Regarding UAE armed forces : They tend to adopt the tactics of their military advisors.
But for their doctrine, it's actually difficult to tell...
>>30019037
is that a very sexy hull machine gun?
>>30019461
Some one please explain the reason for the hull machine guns. Looks a total waste.
>>30019418
Illiterate masses with nepotistic officers.
>>30019481
Could someone explain why the IS-7 had machine guns all over it?
>>30019437
Man, everyone saw that documentary didn't they.
I'm honestly surprised no T-72 tore him to shreds when his fellow Bradley pulled to the side to reload the TOW missiles.
>>30019481
more dakka= good
>>30019507
>Man, everyone saw that documentary didn't they.
This is /k/, i'm pretty sure all of us were glued to the military channel when we were chilluns
>>30019154
ATGM time of flight is so long if you had MBT looking at you you would be dead far before the missile would reach it's target.
>>30019481
>I don't like more guns on things
>>30019507
Such a cool tank
>>30019415
not a kill. temporary disablement. seen that one. he was scared because no pen. watch the rest of it.
>>30019104
>France has Milan on their AMX-10P
AMX-10P's left service years ago.
>>30019461
>>30019481
BMP-3 interior is really cramped, because they choose rear mount engine for a fucking troop carrier
it doesn't retard or anything but the interior is cramped
so the designer position two dismount soldier to seat neat to the driver, because this two man cann't get out of the vehicle as fast as their other 5 comrade, the designer give each of them a PKMT machine gun so they can stay inside the vehicle and fight
but the driver can control the two machine with two button in his wheel
picrelated note the two PKT button
differing doctrine in regards to the application of ifv
some nations want ifv to do a multi-role,giving them atgm so that they have protection against tanks
other nations believe that arming ifv with atgm is redundant and encourages crew to risk their vehicle and load
>>30019611
No u.
The tank is no longer meantioned, and the guy backed up (logically into his LOS).
Logically a kill.
>>30019631
thanks mate, any othey inside photos?
>>30019692
have some
>>30019631
How does one control a mounted machine gun with a button?
>>30019711
he push the button to shoot then move the tank to aim by tracer
PKMT use a electric trigger
>>30018955
>made a new BMP
>still kept the fucking 2A42
I really do hope for the sake of the gunners that they changed the location of the ammoboxes and the whole feeding ramp system
>>30019734
Yes
If I recall, that turret,epoha lite, does not take space below it. The ammo is in the bustle and around the gun.
>>30019734
the new Bumerang turret is remote control
and they still have the dual feed side by side ammo box
but what is the feeding ramp system you are talking about?
>>30019723
Yes, but how does HE aim it
>>30019754
By moving the tank you mong
>>30019723
>those red boxes
>those fucking leather straps
>all those exposed wires and tubing
I hate them
I HATE THEM
>>30019754
by traversing the vehicle and look though the view port to see wear the tracer land
Brit Warrior, gettin old now, needs replacement
>Two Warriors were destroyed during the First Gulf War, with nine soldiers killed, in a friendly fire incident when hit by an AGM-65 Maverick launched in error by an American A-10 Thunderbolt II.
>>30019767
Wait....he aims the gun by phycially moving the tank?
How does he aim it up or down, you "mong"?
What in the actual fuck.
>>30019723
The ammo is stored in a carousel in the red box thingy, isnt it?
>>30019783
Ok, thats full fucking retard first of all.
Second of all, how do you aim up and down?
>>30019784
If I recall correctly, they are replacing the turrets with the 40mm telescoped ammo turret which the Ajax will have.
>>30019749
thank fucking god
>>30019751
>what is the feeding ramp system you are talking about?
the piece of shit, hand eating, knuckle busting feeding system highlighted in yellow in this image
Weren't the first BMP designed with the idea that the battlefield was going to be a nuclear wasteland almost empty of healthy soldiers?
>>30019784
Doesn't need a replacement, the chassis is still fantastic. It just needs some systems replaced, which is exactly what it's getting.
>>30019778
newer BMP have less red box, but they still have ton of wire
>>30019794
yep
>>30019786
>>30019799
he don't aim up and down
he only use the two button in emergency
probably becuase his two bow gunner that seat next to him are dead
>>30019810
>the piece of shit, hand eating, knuckle busting feeding system highlighted in yellow in this image
cool, don't know about tit
>>30019806
Sounds good
However its too old to be effective now, especially without the v-shaped hull all nato vehicles have, needs a replacement like the Scimitar
>>30019820
>cool, don't know about tit
its the bane of my existance
sure long belts are fine because you can just use the assistance feeding motor to move the belt up
but oh god have mercy if you have a belt shorter then 30 rounds, then you have to use the nice russian screwdrivers to pin the belt in place as you wiggle it and try to desperatly make sure that the belt goes in straight
and oh jesus if the rounds decide to tilt and get stuck
>>30019820
>he only use the two button in an emergency
Seems like an ineffective and complete waste of time.
Hell, compounded with the fact that the gunners WERE aiming at something so the guns wont even be faceing forwords, realisticly, but anywhere in their FOV.
>>30019836
I know all those feels brother from another hemisphere
>>30019815
Yes
>>30019620
amx10 VOA's are still in use...ish. 40eme RA still has a whole 3 (three) of them operational. Otherwise they are replaced by vab VOA
>>30019416
When do you guys understand, that ATGM is not anti-tank-only weapon? It is universal damage maker. It is few kilos of TNT which you can deliver to enemy with precise accuracy.
>>30019979
Then where is it's NBC protection
>>30018955
>Why NATO IFV's in general don't carry any ATGM's like the Ruskies do?
>posts pictures of vehicles Russia doesn't actually use
Numerically most NATO IFV's in service have an ATGM.
>>30019998
Source? Because none of the official Armee de Terre inventory documents include them.
>>30019840
the gun can only aim at a limited angle and when chechen are sneaking at your tank you don't give a fuck
>>30020006
Inside the vehicle? I mean it is designed so that troops can safely fire their AK's inside the vehicle without anything getting in the vehicle.
It got overpressure and filters to help protect the crew.
>>30020035
> Also, IFV appreciation thread.
How about you bloody read for once.
>>30020048
>Mows down fellow soldiers by accident
>Tell command, it was the Chechens
>But were in Venezuela fighting anti-government troops
>No, it was the chechens
>>30019822
I did a bit more reaearch on its upgrade programs.
>The British Army intends upgrading its Warriors to extend their service life to 2025. The Warrior Capability Sustainment Program (WCSP) will involve upgrading 643 of its Warriors with the Warrior Modular Protection System (WMPS) and Warrior Enhanced Electronic Architecture (WEEA). Within that group, 449 vehicles will also be fitted with a new turret and weapon system under the Warrior Fightability Lethality Improvement Program (WFLIP). The remainder, which will be designated as Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicles (ABSV), will lack turrets and carry out field repair and recovery roles using winch and crane attachments.
Under the WFLI program, the present turret mounting the RARDEN cannon, which lacks stabilisation and is manually loaded with three-round clips, will be replaced by a turret that will mount a stabilised 40 mm weapon developed by the Anglo-French firm CTA International and firing Cased telescoped ammunition.[6][7] This weapon will also equip the Scout SV reconnaissance vehicle which is being developed.
Seems like its getting a better engine, better electronics and a better gun but I see your point about the V shaped hull thingy.
The US army are refitting their strykers with V shaped hulls though and the new strykers which roll of the production line are fitted with V shaped hulls, so who knows.
>>30020297
pic is in wrong folder oops.
Just focus on the writing.
>>30020048
You will when the guns miss because they are pointed like a lizards googly eyes.
>>30019114
despite popular belief stemmed from vidya and shitty tracks on early light tanks, .50, 20mm and even 30mm do jack shit against tracks other than putting a small hole in it. Optics is really the only vulnerable part which can be only hit if it is stationary, if it is looking straight at you and if it is somehow unaware/uncrewed, which is a lot of ifs
Kornet has HE variant. What's stopping the Russians from ripple firing all 8 HE Kornets of a Tigr into infantry?
>>30020424
>20mm and even 30mm do jack shit against tracks other than putting a small hole in it.
Wewlad.
>>30020297
>Fightability Lethality Improvement Program
someone put a lot of effort into that spell FLIP
>>30019083
I kek'd pretty hard
>>30020548
Remember, this is the same army that called their new infantry technology "FIST".
Someone at the MoD has a real subtle sense of humour in their work.
>>30018955
Most Nato IFVs carry ATGMs, its just mounted differently.
>>30019343
Your mother
>>30019134
There has been confirmed kills of tanks with the 30mm on the Bradley. One basically drove over a tank in the Gulf War, backed up and unloaded on it with the 30mm through the top of the turret.
>>30020757
>Bradley
>30mm
>hurdurr
>>30018955
the bradley has a TOW launcher. a bmp might be able to take out a bradley, but a bradley can take out a t-90
>>30020781
Sorry 25mm I'm DRUNK!
>>30020803
Just as a Kornet can take out an M1A1 Abrams
>>30019784
Wait, wut, two Warriors one Maverick? And the brass is trying to replace the A-10 why?
>>30019114
If you caught a tank from behind, you can give it a try.
Otherwise - you are as good as dead.
>>30020297
Wait so you have to reload the gun after 3 shots?
>>30021368
6 round magazine. 3 round clips.
>>30020184
>BMPT
>IFV
>>30021051
Show us a BMP with a Kornet.
>implying a Kornet can frontally kill a modern MBT without top attack
>>30019723
>>30019736
Yo that open turret basket looks like a really good way to lose a body part.
That is because NATO air power killed all the enemy armor three weeks ago.
Commie doctrine assumes that no air superiority will be had and air support will rare. So their ground forces are better equipped to fend for them selves.
>>30021140
>BEADY
>YANKEE
>EYES
>>30019083
Smarter than carrying it.
>>30020006
It's not readily visible. It uses what is now a pretty standard overpressure system: you button up, and pressurize the interior through filters.
>>30021530
>Implying a TOW could either
>>30018988
I've never understood why they mounted the ammo container so high up instead of low and beside turret
>>30021140
It was two Mavericks.
The brass wants to replace the A-10 because it has zero ability to survive in a non-permissive environment.
>>30021605
The brass is just mad that Warriors have zero ability to survive in a non-permissive environment
![1409586[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Vpn4pi6.jpg "1409586[1].jpg")
A lot of western countries preferred to use dedicated ATGM platforms (M901 ITV, FV102 Striker, VAB Mephisto, Jaguar,...) instead.
>>30019416
>French doctrine doesn't rely on infantry to fight tanks.
Damn, all those wasted SS.11, Milans, Apilas and Eryx.
>>30019104
The AMX 10P with Milans were used only for transporting Milan teams. They had a gun mount and additional storage for missiles. It was a way for the ATGM team to use its weapon without dismounting, but it wasn't available to regular infantry.
>>30019481
Originated on the air-droppable BMDs. As those were meant to fight rear guard troops, they gave them a very high volume of small arms firepower, in order to overpower the opposition quickly.
Then they decided to put it on the BMP-3 too.
>>30021368
You can reload manually while firing. It's not very convenient, however.
>>30021663
How many IFVs can take a maverick missile and survive?
>>30021782
None.
A Maverick will wreck any IFV.
>>30019254
>pen
it's penetrate
you world of autists retard
>>30021815
I know.
>>30021836
I'm reiterating your rhetorical question to show that you are not alone on this matter.
>>30021846
Ahh sorry mate.
>>30021830
Some nice reflection going on here.
>>30021830
>being autistic about an abreviation everyone instantly recognizes
>calling someone else an autist.
>>30019030
Wait, TWO logs? Stryker is is automatically twice as good as T72
>>30019707
>>30019723
>>30019736
>>30019751
much obliged
>>30020513
Read A-10 trials against tanks. 30mm hits against tracks and wheels didn't make them inoperable. Correlates with Russian Il-2 trials during WWII when they came to the conclusion that only 37+mm full caliber AP rounds inflict enough damage to tanks driving gear.
>>30021663
You mean Warthogs, right?
>>30019810
Is there a close up of this hand disposal?
>>30020042
Source: me, since i'm staying at the 40e RA for a month at this moment, i'm well placed to know that.
>>30021598
TOW actually has a top attack variant.
>>30022133
That's an LAV-25... Logs are usually used when the vehicle gets stuck.
>>30022133
That is a NZLAV.
>>30019416
>face heavies...
why is that WoT autists keep using game terms for real life things which have nothing in common?
>>30022277
Yeah, I just thought, that logs on armor are exclusively slav thing
>>30019083
how is that dumb?
>>30022277
>>30022352
It's an LAV III derivative, not an LAV-25. Probably NZLAV like the other anon said.
>>30022086
suicide yourself
>>30022611
Master of the English written word.
>>30021530
+1m pen
>>30022267
Fair enough, mate. Was just interested to know for my own records.
>>30018975
It's the same kind of logic that the US uses for different positions for tank crewmen. Special roles for each unit. The Russians are more for versatility.
>>30022864
>9P163M-1
>IFV
>9P163M-1
>BMP-3
>>30022340
Pardon?
The classification of the tanks based on their weight is a real thing.
Just open military documents instead of insulting people you don't even know...
>>30023974
Yes, it's a real thing...in WW2. It hasn't been for the last 40 years.
>>30024021
>It hasn't been for the last 40 years.
at least the "heavy" designation. Light tanks are still a thing, if only in marketing.
>>30024021
It has still been a thing till the cold war...
Nowadays they surf on the weapon system trend.
>>30018962
sauce?
>>30019107
>Yes, and tanks, and man-portable systems, aircraft, helicopters, mines
>That doesn't answer the question why they're not putting them on IFV's.
But it does.
Apaches, A-10s, F-16s and the like are all so effective and fit so well into NATO combat tactics that they really don't need to expand it into a dedicated IFV system. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
>>30019723
>comrade to aim machine gun you must moving of tank
>>30024147
BMPT terminator I think.
http://www.kampfpanzer.de/vehicles/t-72
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator
>>30024215
It makes sense actually
In Russian doctrine u rush at the enemy
Presumably they will be in front of you
>>30018975
They generally do have the option to mount ATGMs if necessary, though?
>>30019400
>>30019415
>History Channel
Ugh. I mean, yes, it wasn't as bad before the whole ancient alien stuff, but a lot of it was still bullshit and oft-repeated myths.
>>30019163
Oh boy! Here we go!
>>30020205
>>30019820
Russ bro, do you have any more images of the new Russian tanks / IFVs from the inside ??
>>30018955
Wonder why Israel doesn't have an IFV.
>>30021368
The Warrior's armament is infamously awful. Still, the RARDEN might as well be the Death Star cannon compared to the co-axial L94A1 chaingun:
>The greatest contributor to British Military casualty figures since Haig's Chief of Staff misunderstood the General's morale boosting idea of a "Song and Dance" and instead initiated the shockingly wasteful Somme Advance in 1916.
>This thing breaks, it burns, it bites, it runs away and it explodes, all without a single round going anywhere near the target. The man who invented this was being noshed off at the time, either that or he was a blind, fingerless man from Albania.
>Designed for being a gravity fed weapon, some halfwit at the MOD put it in the Warrior upside down so that the link took all the strain. Probably looked at the link and thought that he could save some pennies there so made it thinner and easily bendable.
>You're better off throwing your helmet at the advancing hordes... either that or finding the girl (one hopes) that was giving the nosh and getting one yourself.
>See Warrior for the vehicle that the Chain Gun fails to fire from.
https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Chaingun
How long until all these ground vehicles have AESA radars and can operate as SPAAG's? Even shooting down inbound missiles/bombs?
>>30030551
>The Warrior's armament is infamously awful
Stop this meme. The RARDEN is fine, it's just been left in there too long without an upgrade.
Old doesn't mean the weapon itself is bad. It's proven itself in numerous major conflicts now. And the replacement coming is boss as fuck.
>Using ARRSE Wiki as a source
You do realise that the ARRSE wiki is purposefully complaint heavy and massively exaggerates because it's a fucking comedy site, right? It's British Army squaddie grumble humour turned up to eleven, almost like a Brit centric /k/ outlet in a way.
The complaints about the L94 mostly stem from an incident with a CR2 that resulted in friendly fire. Thats where this whole thing started, but that was found to have been human error and the chaingun worked just fine.
>>30019518
>>30019581
Battle Brothers!
>>30030682
>Stop this meme
It is not a meme when it is a 30mm autocannon that is inferior to 25mm autocannons.
>>30019343
>>30031336
It's a reliable, accurate and powerful gun and round. It's on an unstabalised mount and has 6 round clips between reloads. It has its downsides, but to put it as "infamously awful" is just true day/k/are tier hyperbole. It's in need of a replacement, but it still functions well enough to have been satisfactory for numerous conflicts.
Like I said, it's old, but it's hardly "infamously awful". It's just slightly behind the curve and has its upgrade coming very soon. Trying to turn it into some sort of repetitive meme full of over-exaggeration is just silly.
>>30030378
Merkavas and Namers operating side by side seem to be enough for them.
>>30018955
The Army's developing Strykers with Javelins and 30 Mike Mikes
>>30032356
look at this dumb british cuck,
it's a garbage cannon that you pathetic fucks keep excusing with
>well it's not bad just needs an upgrade :)))
where you at once admit that it's shit and say it needs to be fixed but hasn't but can't even comprehend that yourself. At the time that it was designed and produced cannons like the 25mm bushmaster were better in everyway possible.
you inbred islandniggers are worse than slavaboos.
>>30030682
>Stop this meme. The RARDEN is fine
Rarden is loaded manually with three-round clips. Its fine&?
>>30018955
>Why NATO IFV's in general don't carry any ATGM's like the Ruskies do?
A dismounted AGTM team is harder to spot and more effective.
However many have them. Tows or milans.
>>30032441
Ah, I see I've encountered the "best or shit" type on /k/ who can only see in binary terms and then starts samefagging to try and back it up once people apply any sense of reality.
>>30031336
The 30mm RARDEN on scimitar knocked out T62's in a frontal engagement.
There is nothing wrong with RARDEN, it's the FCS and turret that's dated.
>>30032728
As in destruction of sights and other things?
I find it highly improbable that it penetrated from the front because then it would mean it got the power to penetrate 200mm+ RHA
>>30032765
You're listing the highest thickness, it's not that everywhere.
I have no idea which instance he's refering to, but it's certainly possible, the Bradley's 25mm fucked up some tanks too from the front in that war, so it's perfectly feasible that a larger round could too.
I will never understand those that constantly try to legitimately throw shit at the British on here, just looking at the exchanges above. No-one's ever claimed it was the best, even just seeming to say it's middle of the road or just a bit below standard, but there seems to be this crusade trying to prove everything the British have is way worse than it actually is lately.
I'm sitting out here with only 50 year old slavshit in our inventory and would look enviously at half of what /k/ is trying to say is "infamously shit" as a huge upgrade.
>>30032795
>Bradley's 25mm fucked up some tanks too from the front in that war
At point blank range which would mean the gunner is also aiming down since he is going for the frontal upper glacis.
Or in rare cases firing directly down on hull down tanks at the top of the turret.
>>30022971
>The Russians are more for versatility.
Like soldiers can take out tanks OR be used to shield tanks.
>>30022277
That's a LAV III anon
>>30019418
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
Exposed fiberglass tubes get ripped to shreds under fire, the AT rockets exploding due to enemy fire are a very big threat to the vehicle.
The Malyutka for the BMP-1 getting hit while mounted on top of the turret was basically a one bullet instakill.
>>30022060
hey autismo the term you're looking for is projection and it's every internet-psychologists go to insult
>>30023974
No it's not
there are no longer heavy tanks
there are MBTs and everything else
Just because there are light tanks doesn't actually mean that MBTs are called heavy tanks you fucking autistic retard british cuck
>>30019041
>what is combined arms doctrine
>why do all IBCT's have at least some MBTs and at least 1 attack helo battalion
They WILL always have tank and helo support. They will most likely always have fixed-wing air support.
>>30019066
Ruskies cannot into combined arms. They don't have the manpower or equipment to do it so they took a different doctrinal approach.
>>30033600
>You are literally this mad over a technicality
>>30019001
Well, to be fair the Brads were killing tonks with their autocannon too, wasn't just TOWs.
>>30032721
that's the first time I've posted in this thread faggot
>>30033634
thanks for admitting you're wrong and it's not a technicality you should just go back to your childrens video game as you're too stupid to understand it.
>>30019114
Depends on which tanks you're fighting. The APFSDS round for the 25mm Bushmaster was achieving frontal turret/glacis penetration and full-kill on Iraqi T72's in 1991 (not that that's saying much) and should theoretically be able to penetrate the side and rear armor on pretty much any current MBT if you can get several good shots on it.
A similar round through a high-velocity 30mm autocannon would be slightly more capable, probably enough to penetrate the thickest parts of any T80, as well as anything but the frontal armor on a T90/T14/M1/Leo2A6/Chally2/LeClerc, especially with a high enough ROF you can land multiple hits per minute in the same spot. So if you win the maneuver, you kill the tonk.
>>30019481
Literally Ork-tier "MOAR DAKKA"
>>30033715
>frontal turret/glacis penetration and full-kill on Iraqi T72
It was firing directly down on a hull down T-72.
At the weakest part of the turret which is the top.
>A similar round through a high-velocity 30mm autocannon would be slightly more capable, probably enough to penetrate the thickest parts of any T80
This is directly wrong. The T-80 is immune against autocanons from the front as are the T-72 and T-64. You are saying a 30mm can do the same job that a 120mm or 105 can.
>>30033600
Yeah... continu to think that way...
For me there is no point to talk to an uneducated retard.
>>30033790
The T-80 is immune against HEAT and HEDP and only up to 30mm along the front, and only up to 14.5mm HMG's with ball ammo in the back. It's never been tested against tungsten or DU APFSDS, and you know it.
>>30019006
SUPER TUCANO GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
>>30033790
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX1cvcHjKu4&list=PLoDqpIH7ONJeS2DrNEOcg5FRdkS33TOfp
24:00
The incident where a Bradley knocked out a T-72 by firing directly down on it.
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/article/article.m2-bradley.1.txt
Bradleys have knocked out T-55's by firing at it from the front at point blank range.
>>30033839
Now you are being absolutely retarded. If we follow your logic then US would never use the 120mm but have 76mm guns or autocanons.
>>30033934
No, the US uses big guns for range, not penetration capabilities point blank. A 30mm autocannon might be able to penetrate a T80's frontal arc at 400-800m, it damn sure isn't doing it at 3km (unlike a 120mm APFSDS).
>>30033956
Do you have any proof for your claims?
>>30033839
>>30033956
Anon, just stop, you have no idea what you are talking about.
