Why are the Americlaps so upset that the Russians have once against

Show proof that Armata outclasses M1A2 and I'll believe. And then show it can outclass an M1A2SEP.

File: 1436666443961.jpg (66KB, 956x631px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 956x631px

>>28454884

M1 TTB

File: t72agl.jpg (130KB, 1346x874px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1346x874px

>>28454971

>World of Tank tier prototype sketched on a handkerchief

>Versus production-ready Armata

You've got some balls coming here with that m9

File: t-72ag-rightviewl.jpg (223KB, 1600x1023px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1600x1023px

>>28454928

Well, newest anti-tank gun currently developed with the latest long-rod DU saboted round could easily defeat every iteration of the Abrahams head-on.

And that's not even considering the ability to engage American tanks from 6-7 km with the beam-riding ATGM with top-attack warheads that could blast any Yankee Doodle cunt M1 with total impunity.

File: m1ttb.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>>28455047
You are a funny guy, you will die last.

File: 1425097205984.jpg (16KB, 280x276px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 280x276px

>>28455073
>beam riding
>top attack ATGM

>Russia
>top attack ATGM

These threads are always fun.

Americlaps are a little delusional about the quality of their armed forces/equipment despite the fact they get blown the fuck out in every war for the last 100 years

File: phone pics 2 182.jpg (28KB, 320x256px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 320x256px

Now here's the real question: Can I buy an armata? No. Can I buy an Abrams? No. Can I buy a T-72? Yes. I like the T-72 more.

>>28455394
Lol, ok [insert derogatory term for degrading a dumb nigger from a country poorer than the Estados Unidos].

>>28454884
>The Armata has standardized features not found on any other vehicle.
It also doesn't work, so...

>>28454884

the Armata is another Mig-25

"sooo scary :("

File: 1449193060477.jpg (563KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 798x1200px

>>28455590

>Buying the shitty M version made for countries who assemble them in jungles wearing leaves on their feet

>Instead of the B-models

Maximum pleb.

File: 1449331029176.jpg (158KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x768px

>>28456053

You mean a very high performance machine with no analogs in Homosexual Western inventories?

What's everyone's favourite Slavtonk?

File: 2013-05-27T095414Z_1863371458_GM1E95R1DCW01_RTRMADP_3_SYRIA-CRISIS-BASE[1].jpg (359KB, 1822x1024px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1822x1024px

>>28456325
dead ones

it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant and retarded russians can be. did we not just have a thread about this that proved the m1 was better? Butthurt slavs are a plenty on that board

File: Arrow.jpg (656KB, 3068x1052px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 3068x1052px

>>28456325
>very high performance machine
in other words "it was really fast but it couldn't reach its true potential because it would ruin itself

>with no analogs in Homosexual Western inventories

The US and Canada made a mach 3 fighter and strategic bomber prototype that could have, if they really pushed the issue, could have reached serial production.

Shitty politics killed them, not the lack of technology.

>>28456404
crewed by americlaps, move along now friend

File: T-55.jpg (931KB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 3504x2336px

>>28455590

You know, I had talked about this to friends at work (Rock Island Arsenal)

>buy T-55
>remove engine and transmission
>install Borg-Warner transmission
>Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel, maybe an International/Navistar

File: image.png (401KB, 610x392px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 610x392px

>>28454884
T-80 is shit.

>>28456325
Do people actually unironically believe that Russia has outclassed the US in technological development?

File: T-90A.jpg (1MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2250x1500px

>>28456525
>m1 was better

Maybe in your corn-sugar induced fantasies Fat Master.

Armata is better by every metric one can compare.

>>28455073
>Well, newest anti-tank gun currently developed with the latest long-rod DU saboted round could easily defeat every iteration of the Abrahams head-on.

It's literally just a 125mm cannon with the breech modified so it can load non-shit sabot rounds. Nothing about it that puts it ahead of the L44 or L55 and their respective ammunition.

>Beam riding ATGMs

You mean one of the easiest guidance systems to spoof and jam?

>>28456527

Mach 3.0 fighter? The Arrow maxed out at Mach 2.0. The Delta Dart and F-4 Phantom were both significantly faster in terms of top speed. They probably shouldn't have cancelled it when they did because it was already pretty far along, but let's not pretend it was some kind of super plane.

>>28454884
The true strength of the Armata is in the common platform.

Logistics and training wins wars.

File: 1448746165727.png (59KB, 545x505px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 545x505px

>>28456673

America took the lead from late 80s, but that has now come to an end.

>>28456740
Well no
Not really
Only if you are a big enough country like russia to stretch out enemy supply lines
With dogshit infrastructure so all their wheeled vehicles designed for paved roads get stuck on your mud roads.

>>28456728

He spells it "Abrahams". Don't expect even fingernail shavings' worth of intelligence.

>>28456741
>Implying Russia could ever catch up to the US with a fraction of the budget and 20 years worth of institutional rot and brain drain.

File: 6213178.jpg (33KB, 624x469px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 624x469px

>>28456740

Well, no, artillery wins wars. And the Russians have plenty.

Their Novorossiyan irregular proxies could defeat the armed forces of Ukraine with just a few BM-21 Grads fired in the right spots. And that was only a sliver of Russian capability.

Meanwhile, America armed forces have re-focused on light infantry, tactical gadgets and wheeled mobile coffins.

Good looking surviving a MLRS salvo in your latest MOLLE webbing and Operator grade face mask, fags.

>>28456740
>Logistics and training wins wars.

Funny because Russia probably won't have enough money to make any significant number of T-14s or even T-15s. They haven't been able to fully replace their tank fleet with T-90s, and the Armata will be no different.

>>28456778
But don't you understand! The precision munitions from airplanes will kill any and all enemies
So all you need are transport helicopters & light infantry to win wars!

>>28456728

>It's literally just a 125mm cannon with the breech modified so it can load non-shit sabot rounds.

Says who? Some basement dweller? Where are the proofs?

I'm guessing you have access to technical drawings and consulted the engineering staff?

>>28456778
>Their Novorossiyan irregular proxies could defeat the armed forces of Ukraine with just a few BM-21 Grads fired in the right spots. And that was only a sliver of Russian capability.

Oh yes, because the Ukrainian army is such a terrifying force to be feared. They're often barely better equipped than the separatists their fighting, especially with all the crap Russia "covertly" funnels to them.

>America has no artillery

What is: M109, M198, M777, M119, M270, and M142?

>>28456826
Better, I know the exact serial number of every Armata in active service.

I just don't feel like telling you.

>>28454884
T90MS is good, the T14 is literally fake.

File: reforger.jpg (134KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 800x535px

>>28456778

How did America go from this...

File: 1st_BDE_25th_ID(L)_Irak_2004.jpg (817KB, 2122x1676px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 2122x1676px

>>28456903

To this...

The Armored Cavalry of the 1980s was arguably the strongest ground unit every fielded.

>>28456718
How can we even compare the Armata to anything when it hasn't seen real combat yet? Didn't one of them break down during a parade in Moscow?

File: 1430775468356.jpg (1MB, 1306x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1306x2560px

>>28456885

You kidding?

The MS is just another bullshit upgrade of the horrible T-72. The Armata is miles better since it was built from the ground-up with a new design philosophy combining all of the best aspects of Western (sensors, protection) and Slav (barrel-launched ATGM, APS) design.

>>28456903
>>28456919
Because the Soviet Union collapsed and we suddenly didn't need thousands of Abrams rolling around.

File: 1434919920180.jpg (94KB, 567x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 567x800px

>>28456903
>>28456919

>Comparing Fighting in German Countryside to fighting inna shitbox.

Enjoy the .50 cents, i hope it feeds you well.

>>28456953
Worse.

It caught fire.

>>28456967
xaxaxaxxaxaxaxaxaxxaaxa nyet

Sigh. Guys. You do know that there is a meme going around on other boards that /k/ is the easiest board to troll on 4chan? As a result, you have neophyte trolls coming here to job some rats for xp. Don't contribute to the reputation, please.

>>28456967
To be fair, the T-72 is horribly underrated due to the use of monkey models and sandniggers being unable to muster enough braincells to use them right. So long as ammo is not stored outside of the carousel, cook-off becomes a lot less likely, which is something most people don't know. It's a good, solid tank, and the T-90 is even more so, though it comes in a little behind tanks like the Abrams, Leopard II, LeClerc and Challenger 2.

As for the Armata, well, it's worthless.

Even assuming it is better than its contemporaries, the Russians will never make enough to matter. Logistics win wars, and despite boasting about having a unified chassis, they'll never produce enough of it or anything based off of it to make a dent in the grand scheme of things. And it's also ugly as fuck.

The T-90 looks way better.

>>28457121
Monkey model? What's the difference between the T-72M that the Iraqi's used and what Russia used at the time?

The Armata is garbage that breaks down during parades until proven otherwise tbqh.

>>28456903

Those units still exist, but they are in Korea and CONUS.

HBCT's don't get the "H" part deployed very often.

>>28457196
The T-72B (the standard later Russian model) was fur superior to the T-72M from what I understand. As always, Russia prefers to always export underclassed versions of their weapons if possible, especially when it comes to heavy machinery.

>>28457256
How was it superior? Same gun, engine and optics right?

>>28457196

T-72M1 is better than T-72 ural, but slightly worse than T-72A. It has somewhat downgraded electronics and uses inferior composites.

T-72B is the 1985 upgraded version that is considerably better than T-72A or T-72M1.

By the late 80's, Category "A" Soviet units used either T-72B, T-80BV, or T-80U. Other Warsaw pact nations and category "B" units used T-72A/T-64/T-72M.

The Republican guard units weren't much worse equipped than an an average polish frontline division. But they were lacking in good penetrators, the Soviets kept the good stuff and gave very poor ammo to their client states.

>>28457327
Here's the thing, Iraq got it's shit pushed in in the tank battles of the gulf war because of the shit quality optics in the T-72. Not because of the armor or gun.

>>28457327
Didn't the iraqi's have monkey model tanks that had no optics and had to turn the turret manually?

>>28454884
>armour
stopped reading right there

>>28457196
Well, for starters, the T-72M doesn't have composite armor. It's just steel. On top of that, the fire control system and various other things that provide 'soft' benefits were also downgraded from the T-72A. To make things worse, and this is IIRC, the Iraqis were using T-72Ms which were cobbled together from parts they acquired from various countries to get around embargoes and shit, so the tanks are a bit mismatched and not operating at their best. Makes the auto loaders extra cranky if the tolerances are off for an example. That's not to mention their local copy though. Now, that was a total POS made out of whatever industrial steel they had which was way too brittle in comparison to modern RHA. The mechanical tolerances were even worse at this point and the optics were cheap knockoffs of a monkey model's. It even lacked things like spall liners and infrared illuminators.

>>28457355
>>28457349

yea the "monkey model" T-72 they used were pretty much T-72M1's. While not up to the standards of T-72A or T-72B, they certainly had optics and power traverse. These tanks were a hair away from the standard T-72M1's in service with Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact. Unsuprising considering the first batch of Iraqi T-72's were literally assembled from polish parts.

What had the truely shit optics are the T-55/62's in use by the regular Iraqi army. The T-72M's, however crap they are compared to the Abrams, were issued to Republican guard units and thus a small fraction of all Iraqi tanks.

>>28457388
The armor didn't matter. By all accounts during the 91 war the T-72s had such shit optics that they were basically ineffective.

Which explains why Russia has to buy gear from France for the T-90. They knew their gear was worthless. I don't think the T-72B had any better optics than the T-72M.

>>28457388

T-72M's all have composites, but the "blend" they had was inferior to that of the T-72A.

>>28457445
I wouldn't say the armor was completely worthless. Against certain HEAT rounds and AT launchers - namely whatever lightweights we had - it would work.

File: 1A40-1M_4.jpg (81KB, 500x351px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x351px

>>28457445
>Which explains why Russia has to buy gear from France for the T-90.
The Russians had to buy their thermal optics from France, their regular and IR optics were fine though.

>I don't think the T-72B had any better optics than the T-72M.
The B has better a IR/missile guidance sight (Not sure if it has a ranging laser though) and a dynamic lead calculator for its day sight.

>>28457558

A had a lead calculator too. IIRC the difference was that lead for the T-72A FCS was projecting the aim point with a reflector sight while T-72B upgraded it to a 2 axis lens like Abrams, so the sight could be stabilized while still giving the aim point.

I'll wait till I see them make more than four of them. And deploy into the field.
Till then I'll consider this is a troll thread.

(These are the same guys who told the world the Dragunov sniper rifle could snipe 1500m )

File: T-72B M1989.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>28457196
>Monkey model? What's the difference between the T-72M that the Iraqi's used and what Russia used at the time?

Much better armor on the T-27B, ceramic, laminated NERA in the hull and turret, much better sights, better fire-control, better gun, better gun laying drives, better engine etc. It's a very different vehicle.

>>28457785

technically that's a T-72B obr 1989, 72B vanilia doesn't have the ERA ( not NERA) and lacking a few electronics.

>>28457638
As far as I have read, the T-72A and T-72B both use the TPD-K1, but the dynamic lead indicator was only used with the T-72B.
I have no idea what the dynamic lead indicator is called or when it was developed, so I might be wrong and it may have seen use a long time before the T-72B showed up.

>IIRC the difference was that lead for the T-72A FCS was projecting the aim point with a reflector sight
The neccesary lead is just displayed as a number indicating the number of milliradians you need to adjust the sight by, it doesn't actually move the sight itself.

This website has a lot of information about Soviet tank sights:
http://www.kotsch88.de/f_t-72m.htm

>>28457445
>Which explains why Russia has to buy gear from France for the T-90.

The Soviets had thermal viewer technology in the late 80s, but when the USSR collapsed the engineers and expertise that made optics ended up in Belarus. So the Russians had no industrial basis for it, and decided to order from Thales instead of creating an industry from zero.

I think they are finally using their own in the Armata.

>>28457806

I didn't say pic related.

>>28457816
>http://www.kotsch88.de/f_t-72m.htm

Damn, that German sure knows his shit.

>>28457121
>To be fair, the T-72 is horribly underrated due to the use of monkey models and sandniggers being unable to muster enough braincells to use them right.

Except 'monkey model' is a myth, while the Soviet Union had started to field T-72Bs, the T-72s Iraq had were on par with the T-72As that made up the bulk of Soviet T-72s.

>>28458294
there is truth to it but differences are exaggerated. Mostly, it was retard sandniggers being retards.

File: LOL-I-TROLL-YOU.png (87KB, 755x1255px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 755x1255px

>>28457116
Who cares, /v/ and /pol/ are infinitely easier. It's not like biting the bait isn't a little amusing from time to time either.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1988-1007-008,_Berlin,_39._Jahrestag_DDR-Gründung,_Parade.jpg (83KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x531px

>>28456293
You don't understand. That's no regular M model, it's the DDR version.
It has tons of improved features, courtesy of German ingenuity.Features like... more smoke grenade launchers. And rubber side skirts.
NATO would cower in fear when these advanced Kampfpanzer stormed into the West. Not that they would even be able to see them due to the aforementioned smoke launchers.

File: 1442804096504.png (81KB, 624x628px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 624x628px

>>28454884
>Why are the Americlaps so upset that the Russians have once against outclassed them in armour development?
>oh boy somebody is gonna rustle some murriclap jimies
>Armata
trashed
literally you had good bait and you ruined it

>>28456903
>>28456919
because tanks in an infantry nest WITHOUT your own infantry is an awful idea?

>>28457121
>monkey models and sandniggers being unable to muster enough braincells to use them right.

What happened in Desert Storm was actually what you could call perfect conditions for a NATO army: Open terrain with full air support with the enemy AA net and artillery nearly completely disabled.

The Soviet threat in Europe was very terrain-based. Their inferior technology across the board could never contend with well manage NATO forces in the open, but thankfully for them Europe is heavily urbanized, forested, and hilled with the exception of the NGP (Where truly amazing things would have been seen like Brigades taking on whole Armies and winning, minus the nuclear threat). While it in turn would have provided plenty of cover for NATO air assets, it would also put them on a fair playing field with Soviet ZSUs and IR missiles which were the bulk of the Soviet AA suite: themselves outranged and easily identified as well as targeted. A typical battle in Europe probably would have gone as follows:

>squadron of armored cav + air support rushes in to plug a gap in NATO lines
>penetrating element is soviet tank regiment
>well-hidden, data-linked NATO forces with good recon begin immediate artillery and air harassment/interdiction/etc.
>at some point local soviet artillery and AA is disabled or destroyed
>soviet tank force begins to get annihilated by a-10s, f-16s, cobras, apaches, etc. in addition to technologically superior ground forces
>soviet tank regiment completely destroyed with minimal NATO casualties
>repeat

>>28457327
There were no T-80Us in Germany and they were all stationed in Russia. The oh-so-feared soviet cat A unit at most would be a ratio of 1 T-80BV for every 3 T-80B (ie. company of T-80BV with 2 T-80B). In addition, only 1/3rd of Soviet ATGM-capable tanks were even loaded with them, due to logistical constraints. The effectiveness of these missiles themselves is dubious as they a) could not penetrate the frontal armor of NATO MBTs and b) were very easy to jam, being beam riders

The best a Soviet unit could hope for was very forested/hilled terrain where they could effectively hide from NATO recon and air assets. Their doctrine was to rapidly close to knife fight range with enemy forces a-la WW2 so as to deny the enemy their force multipliers, being danger close. How advanced the NATO army is at the time however is important. It ranges from taking Europe easily in the early 70's to being pushed into Poland in the late 80's. Needless to say, there was a good reason that their operational doctrine relied on the idea of a winnable, limited nuclear war: conventionally they didn't stand a chance.

>>28456634
It'd be great at parades to have one with the reliability of a large modern mass produced engine. Just remember that the suspension and tracks aren't designed to handle the extra speed & torque a configuration like that is capable of.

>>28454884
>Why do people assume that US and NATO tanks are better?

Better ergonomics, fire control, more advanced ammunition and most importantly better crew quality.

>NATO only really achieved technical parity sometime in the mid-1980s with their Leopard 2 and M1A1.

Russia never had major technological advantage. Only advantage they had was numerical superiority.

>Up until the 1990s, the bulk of the US tank force were hopelessly outdated M60 series vehicles

Hopelessly outdated tank that had stabilization that was matched by Russians in 90's... in late 60's. Also thermal sight that was.... sorry... still is better than anything Russians have in active service tanks.

>shit-wagons like the AMX-30 and tin-armoured Leopard 1 which couldn't even scratch the T-72A and B, T-64B, not to mention anything from the T-80 line.

Western 105mm guns have raped slavshit in every war they have encountered.

Delusional vatniks are delusional.

>>28456325
>What's everyone's favourite Slavtonk?

T-34 or T-54/55. Proof that there is a point where quality can be outmatched by quantity.

>>28456525
>did we not just have a thread about this that proved the m1 was better?

You mean original 1979 plain M1 that almost immediately got 25% thicker armor on turret?

>>28456903
>>28456919

Expeditionary warfare against goat fuckers requires different tools than spanking slavs.

>>28457196
>Monkey model? What's the difference between the T-72M that the Iraqi's used and what Russia used at the time?

Usually Soviets started to export weapons few years after those were introduced into their own army. Export spec tank were usually comparable to five or so years earlier domestic models in armor and fire control. Then again, Iraq was sort of special education case as they ditched shit like night vision gear to cut costs. They spent entire 80's to do WWI re-enactment with Iran with relatively modern weaponry.

File: FNCBFO2I9YBJLK7.LARGE.jpg (51KB, 907x718px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 907x718px

Reminder:

>Russia didn't use IR opaque smoke until 1988
>Russia didn't put passive thermals on their vehicles until 1989, and even then in limited numbers
>For the 70s and 80s the Soviets used smoke rounds for artillery that blinded their own forces and did nothing to NATO forces

File: 1450967457350.png (466KB, 719x658px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 719x658px

>>28462499
>i too can make shit up on the internet...

>>28456760
It is the slav's realization, despite a long history of self-inflicted atheism and other insults, that God himself is on the side of the USA.

File: 798.png (306KB, 593x540px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 593x540px

>>28462554
>T-64
>no passive thermals
>T-72
>no passive thermals
>T-80
>no passive thermals
>T-80U
>No passive thermal as standard until 88 retrofit
>T-72 obr 1989
>T-72 series finally gets passive thermals

:3

>>28456728
>beam riding
>easiest to spoof and jam

That poster is a fucktard vatnik, but beam riders are extremely difficult to counter.
The seeker head isn't looking at the tank for a laser mark, it's looking BACK at the launcher to align itself.

So unless you have countermeasures BEHIND the missile, your not jamming it.
You'll have to rely on obscuring yourself from the missile operator and returning fire quickly to make them retreat.

>>28459939

Your scenario may have worked in 1989, but not 1979...

>>28456718
combat record and proven service capabilities?

lel

>>28456778
>implying the US doesn't have shittons of artillery and MLRS systems

>>28457447
IIRC the Iraqis poured cement into the composite cavities.

File: 9M119_INVAR_007.jpg (313KB, 666x600px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 666x600px

>>28462743

You are correct Mr. Burger King. Pic is Refleks missile with the optical sensor in the base.

The gunner needs only a LOS to make a hit. Sure, there is smoke and obscuration and shitty night optics that reduce the effectiveness of this weapon, but it does give Soviet tankers a stand-off advantage.

>>28455047
>production-ready Armata
Production ready doesnt mean produced

File: 1444687891001.png (422KB, 597x412px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 597x412px

>>28463081

So according to your logic the M1 Abrams was a piece of shit from 1979 until 1991 because it had its combat debut 12 years after entering service?

And then it magically became better?

Fucking retard.

File: T-80UM1_015.jpg (102KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x533px

>>28463134

sand niggers gonna sand.

The Syrian army can't even defeat some irregulars with Russian assistance because their discipline, training and morale is so shit.

Only when you promise a stinking, dirty Arab 72 boy virgins after a glorious death will he fight with some conviction.

Why are Arabs so sub-human?

>>28456731

Quite accurate.

Unfortunately, you're liable to get stabbed here in Canadaland if you so much as imply the Arrow wasn't designed by god himself.

>>28459978
>and b) were very easy to jam, being beam riders

Laser beam riders aren't easy to jam, IR-guided SACLOS and laser-designated (painting the target with a strong laser) missiles are easier to jam.
Beam riders are actually very difficult to counter, because they are looking behind them, towards the launcher, to lay themselves onto the laser beam.
This gives them an enormous benefit over regular laser designation: the laser doesn't have to be powerful or be a wide beam.
Additionally, in many systems the beam is narrower than the missile body itself, meaning that there will be little to no light hitting the target, only the back of the missile.

Radar beam riders are a completely different story, and have no use today.

>>28463219
>Why are Arabs so sub-human?

They have literally the worst work culture/ethic in the world. The ONLY way you can get Arabs to fight effectively is if you have a Persian, a Kurd, or the Prophet Muhammed himself leading them.

>>28456826
Not him but to be fair, you can't make a claim based on information you can't possibly have, then use that exact reason as the basis to refute a counter argument. That's just like, idk, silly

>>28463200
no. but the claim was that the armata was better than the abrams by every metric. I brought up the metric of combat service. In that, the abrams is waaayyy better.

Has nothing to do with the tank magically becoming "better" when it sees combat, retard. It has to do with comparing combat record and service, not raw specs of the vehicle.

>>28456769
>no no non ivan if we drink more vodka we can surely outsmart the west

>>28454884
>Why are the Americlaps so upset that the Russians have once against outclassed them in armour development?
Sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tghr4OTZg

>>28454884
A DU round is still going to go in that thing and kill everyone inside at an range, so I'm failing to see what's so impressive or forward thinking about design features the US rejected in the 80s.

File: ramadi candle party.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>28463905
>A DU round is still going to go in that thing and kill everyone inside at an range
it won't, since
assuming afghanit fails? doubtful, as the crew is sitting inside compsoite armored capsule instead of being trapped between two tanks of kerosine

>>28463905
APS and ERA will significantly degrade the DU shell
And then armor will stop it

>>28457713
Agreed.

But to be fair, the dragunov is impressively accurate

>>28464224
APS and ERA have minimal effect on the current 'DU shells'.

>>28464065
I am not sure if a webm of ammunition blow out panels working correctly is evidence of your statement.

>>28464224
If you actually think that then it's no wonder Slavshit gets blown up so often. ERA doesn't do much against decent kinetic rounds.

>>28462556
Man, fuck jesus

The US is great without trying to shoehorn religion into it

>>28464065
>implying they won't go through the crew compartment and still take out the ammo magazine
DU be some nasty shit when it comes to that.

>>28463353
IR/UV riding missile are also hard to jam, hence why spoofing the launcher is preferable for any modern SACLOS missile.

>>28464224
Except for the fact that the latest DU rounds have been designed specifically to defeat ERA and APS.

>>28465600
Actually ERA does, but it's effects can be countered.

File: 1445020379792.jpg (30KB, 608x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 608x360px

>>28456718
Yes based of whatever RT has been feeding you degenerates

File: kHruzBM.png (174KB, 416x396px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 416x396px

>>28454884

>Russians have once against outclassed them

Just like PAK "We have no S-Ducts, are only making twelve by 2020, and is so shitty not even the POO IN LOO Indians want to buy into it" FA?