Are main battle tanks now obsolete?
>The United States's experience in the Vietnam War contributed to the idea among army leadership that the role of the main battle tank could be fulfilled by attack helicopters. During the Vietnam War, helicopters and missiles competed with MBTs for research money.
>Though the Persian Gulf War reaffirmed the role of main battle tanks, MBTs were outperformed by the attack helicopter. Other strategists considered that the MBT was entirely obsolete in the light of the efficacy and speed with which coalition forces neutralized Iraqi armour.
I think so, and the role of the attack helicopter itself will soon be superceded by low-flying urban combat drones, maybe even small robots with guns that can fly through doors to replace ground troops, as we put ourselves further and further away from man-on-man combat.
You won't be asking that if there's a line of them parked in an open field while supported by AAA and artillery, OP.
They work just fine when supported. The Russians even used them in urban areas in Afghanistan before Drozd came about. I don't remember the exact details of the vignette, but it's in "Bear Went Over The Mountain" if you want to read about it.
The author said something along the lines like "if it is stupid and it works, it is not stupid."
There will always been a need for MBTs, how they will look 20 years in the future i dont think many can say accurately, the same goes for attack helicopters.
The only reason i wouldnt say that attack helis will replace mbts is how fragile and maintenance heavy helis are
Helicopters cannot take or hold ground. Tanks can.
Its essentially the same reason as to why you need an army to invade and conquer territories. An Air Force can do a great job of supporting an invasion or defending against one. But to own real estate, you need boots and treads on the ground.
But would it work better if it was AAA + artillery + attack helicopters?
I wouldn't say always. MBT evolved from the concept of Medium Tanks (strong enough to kill yet fast enough to get there) in late WWII, which evolved from the concept of Heavy (poke holes in lines) and Light Tanks (exploit holes in lines).
Obviously neither helicopters nor tanks can work solo, they need support. These guys I linked in the OP are saying attack helicopters + boots on ground > MBT + boots on ground.
And in the future it might be drones + mechanical boots on ground.
>But would it work better if it was AAA + artillery + attack helicopters?
What do you do with helicopters above a line of tanks that the tanks can't already do? Get shotdown by small arms?
As long as the a need for a stable platform that can carry both a large direct-fire gun and several machine guns exists, the tank will remain relevant.
>Iraq and Syria has lots of tanks. It didn't help them.
>Citing arab militaries: whose problem is structural rather than equipment/tactics
Need I remind you that the First World Tier Saudi Arabian army RAN AT THE FIRST SIGHT OF IRAQIS during the Gulf War.
>attack helicopters + boots on ground > MBT + boots on ground.
Tactically, though, attack helicopters just don't do the same thing as tanks. Their firepower is more devastating than a tank's, and they're faster, but they can't take or hold ground. Also, as fast as they are, they have a very low loiter time, whereas tanks can stay in the same place indefinitely as long as you can keep the fuel coming to them--helicopters have to scurry back to the rear to rearm and refuel. Really, they're pure fire support - more like artillery than tanks.
You're right, people say tanks are a great morale boost for the troops as well. Soldiers generally feel "safer" with a tank than with helicopter support.
But that's also their weakness, because a tank can never be as mobile as a helicopter, and as anti-armour weapons improve tanks will be sitting ducks.
Helicopters versus AA is bad too but they aren't as vulnerable to a RPG-carrying insurgent in an alleyway as a tank is.
That's also why I think eventually drones will take over both roles of infantry support.
No. Quit posting this. Unless those drones of yours can take on the same roles as tanks, MBTs aren't going anywhere.
You people know the tank hasn't even been in existence for a century yet, right?
Attack Helicopters are not performing the same roles as tanks though: for one thing, they crumple apart like wet tissue paper when they're being struck by anything larger than a .50 cal, they constantly expend fuel even when loitering (especially when loitering), are unable to take cover in any place that isn't an urban enviornment full of tall skyscrapers (which is coincidentally a place where tanks tend to flounder), and using their missiles for direct fire costs several tank shells for the same effect, and most of all, they're areseloads more expensive then a tank and have a limited shelf-life; where there have been tanks that have been seen serving over 70 years after they were first constructed, helicopters tend to fail mechanically over the end of their careers and need to be retired at the end of each decade as their very method of propulsion does all sorts of nasty things to their air frames. Did I mention the part where helicopters eat a tank's worth of money every mission yet?
TL;DR: Attack helicopters cannot replace tanks because they serve different roles, and trying to shoehorn helis into the role of armor is retardedly inefficient and expensive.
>The fuel consumption was an important issue. M1 Abrams gave only 255 meters to the litter traveling, much shorter than diesel tanks such as Leopard 2 (330 meters). This value was given by the high speed cruising. During the Operation Desert Storm, the value was decreased to 142 meters to the litter traveling, this might be twice worse than diesels. Leopard 2 consumed 12 kg fuels per one hour during idling. On the other hand, AGT1500 consumed 2.5 times as much fuel as diesels. Idling would take a large part of the tank operation time and it was predicted that the vast amount of fuels would be required in the operation. During the operation, the advancement of the tank force was restricted by the speed of refueling trucks.
> Posts half the paragraph
What did US Army got in exchange for this serious disadvantage?
The first was the turbine's unmatched acceleration. Turbine's light weight and torque feature gave the tank high mobility.
The second was the turbine's stealth feature. The rotating and continuous combustion feature significantly decreases large noises, vibrations and conspicuous exhaust gases characteristic to diesels. So that M1 Abrams is nicknamed as "Whispering Death". Turbine's clean exhaust and low noise also gave much more comfortable environment to soldiers while marching with the tank. Turbine's unseen exhausts were also reassuring in battle fields.
The third was its easy maintenance feature. The compact and light weight power pack could replace easily and had the low failure rate. The engine could start easily at a cooling environment without any warm-up operation.
But there were some problems in the exhaust. High temperature, large amount of exhaust gases emitted infrared signals and were attractive target to infrared seeking missiles. Infantry marching just after the tank should avoid these hot gases and get clear of the exhaust port. The exhaust guide was equipped lately to reduce this defect.
>able to move 0.5km/h for 5 min is true mobility
History has shown us time and time again that logistics win wars.
I hate to admit it, but Russians have it right by committing to smaller, lighter tanks and relying on an APS to defend them rather than 10 tons of armor.
>So that M1 Abrams is nicknamed as "Whispering Death". Turbine's clean exhaust and low noise also gave much more comfortable environment to soldiers while marching with the tank.
No fucking self-respecting tanker I've ever worked with has ever fucking considered calling the Abrams "Whispering Death."
Should a helicoptor get close enough to the ground it could be disabled by someone with a sling shot. In the end you will always need a roaming bunker with a big gun and you will always need the close air support that is attack helies neither can be replaced in the foreseeable future even by magic drones.
i dont think humans will ever be completely replaced if we are still fighting wars. We are pretty fucking expendable with 7 billion of us anyways.
And how heavy will Americans next gen tank be
I def think that America should commit to light/medium/heavy tank again.
Use the same chassis, to keep things easy on logistics.
Technically, the US was using that system up until the 90s: the Sheridan being the light tank, the M60 being the medium, and the Abrams serving the role as a heavy breakthrough tank; the M60 was retired because the Abrams can do anything it can do better (if less efficiently), but we've still been looking for a good Sheridan replacement, and the Army has just started reconsidering rejecting the M8 AGS.
Not sure if a medium tank will ever exist again though: the M60 was still being used because the logistics existed, but trying to create a new medium from scratch sounds more expensive than just continuing with the Abrams and gradually shaving weight off it.
Perhaps downscale it?
>And how heavy will Americans next gen tank be
The M1A3 is actually projected to be LIGHTER than the M1A2, by employing weight saving features such as reducing the weight of the cannon and swapping out all the copper wiring for fiber optics.
>History has shown us time and time again that logistics win wars.
You realize that the Abrams uses JP8, which is the US Army's universal fuel, right? They're also multifuel capable, so they're piss easy to keep fueled if you've got the money for it.
Abrams will continue to be heavy as long as has that big 4-man turret.
Armata is definitely a step in the right direction; compact auto-loading unmanned turret is definitely the way to go. But the Russians may have tried it before all the pre-req technology is mature enough, and shot themselves in the foot by committing to a faulty design.
Right now, the commander not being able to go hatch up is a very serious disadvantage. The loss of situational awareness is big. What you need is EODAS made rugged enough to fit on a tank.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the Abrams replacement resembles an up-armored mounted combat system with an unmanned turret. ~40 or so tons seems the weight to shoot for.
Since they still have the factories for the abram
I imagine you could produce a 40~ ton turret less assault gun version of it
The only reason they want the M8 AGS is not because they see a need for light tanks, but because the airborne wants something to airdrop with.
Obviously the solution of just building a heavy glider to carry a heavier vehicle hasn't crossed their minds.
>What did US Army got in exchange for this serious disadvantage?
Fulfilling it own prediction that turbines are the future of tank power plants? They certainly proved that staff officers can't be wrong. Turbine might have had advantages over diesels in early 60's when studies that ended up in Abrams specifications were made. Then intercooled variable vane turbochargers happened and diesel engines got a rather big performance gain.
The thing is that tanks drive a lot with speeds considerably slower than top speed. Abrams problem is that difference in fuel consumption while driving slowly and while driving at full speed is non-existent.
High fuel consumption of Abrams wasn't really an issue in 70's or 80's. US Army was expecting to fight on doorsteps of it's own bases and fuel depots in Germany. That is same reason why they ditched hull ammunition storage and third of main gun rounds without any shits given when they came up with M1A1 update. Supply wasn't an issue because Abrams was designed to fight on it's home turf. Expeditionary warfare is another matter.
>The third was its easy maintenance feature. The compact and light weight power pack could replace easily and had the low failure rate.
Compact size is more than offset with high fuel consumption and larger fuel tanks required due to it.
Maintenance is at least two fold issue. Turbines are usually more reliable, but if it breaks down it can't be repaired in field or anywhere close to frontlines. It needs to be fixed on depot or at factory.
Another advantage some people see in turbines is higher cost. Those are more expensive than diesels and that makes defense contractors happy.
Lets follow OP's advice.
>World's armies all decide tanks are useless in the face of helicopters and drones. All tanks are scrapped
>armies realize friendly helicopters cant really hold ground, also need a ground based weapon to deal with them
>germany offers its Gepard SPAA
>BRRRT and missles effectively deals with enemy helicopters, also makes decent support for ground troops
>soon, the battlefield is flooded with SPAA taking on both roles
>armies realize its still not as effective as an MBT for supporting ground forces
>Attack helicopters outperform MBTs in modern wars
In a lot of recent conflicts attack helis have performed a pretty small role. (e.g. Syria, Ukraine)
In both situations helis were rarely used due to strong ground defense and the lack of air bases that had reasonably safe perimeter defense.
Armor is, well, armored. Extremely well armored. And because it is low to the ground it isn't such an easy target. You can take out a heli with much less(even concentrated rifle fire) and pretty much anyone in the AO can shoot at it.
In both Vietnam and Iraq wars the defenders didn't really have the type of agile air defense necessary to neutralize helicopters. But with the role filled by proliferation of MANPADs and light SAMs, helicopters are pretty much grounded.
I mean fuck, one Pantsir-S1, at a cost of $15m can down 12 AH-64e's which cost $35m each. The AH-64's don't have any viable countermeasure.
true, but in attrition warfare, if you kill enough tanks, only helos remain.
Helo's cover a much larger area as well, being more flexible. Think of them as the "cavalry". even more so than a tank
Helo's can attack tanks and most AAA from standoff ranges. As for SAMs and manpads, you're right. Manpads are becoming increasingly sophisticated and prevalent. Yet, they still have limited engagement windows due to small size and apaches typically can avoid these.
SAM's are another story. But keep in mind during the gulf war, apaches and pave low III's penetrated and destroyed a good portion of Iraq's radar network through low level penetration.
not if the tanks cannot trade off fire from standoff ranges > 4km. Especially if someone forward is designating targets. This minimizes the risks to the helos and maximizes the full advantages of the helos.
thats why I stated standoff ranges.Which would be hard to figure out unless you had an idea of what enemy air defenses you are going up against. But keeping a low altitude can keep a chopper relatively safe-ish.
The big problems with choppers in asymmetric warfare is that just about anyone can have a gun. One guy who you identified just minutes before as a civilian can go into his car or house and grab an RPK to take potshots at close range of a hiding Apache.
>~51 tons w/ urban kit
Bullshit. its closer to 55 tons.>>28537800
>Armata is definitely a step in the right direction; compact auto-loading unmanned turret is definitely the way to go. But the Russians may have tried it before all the pre-req technology is mature enough, and shot themselves in the foot by committing to a faulty design.
hogwash. The T-14 is actually the most mature out of their new vehicles- its basically a revamped, in some cases simplified, and technology updated obj. 195- which was fcking ready for production when the Russian Gates had them cancelled.
>Right now, the commander not being able to go hatch up is a very serious disadvantage. The loss of situational awareness is big. What you need is EODAS made rugged enough to fit on a tank.
um there is actually one. notice 8:46 and 13:50
you'll see the tank's video processor highlighting objects of interest around the tank from multiple sources, the former from the multiple TV cameras installed around the tank and the latter from the commander's/gunner's sights.
>Helo's can attack tanks and most AAA from standoff ranges.
unless crewed by Arabs, tanks would utilize terrain to keep LOS within their own effective engagement range, and we aren't even considering their use of multispectal cammo which will definitely reduce the helo's detection range of the tanks and bring the helo much closer for a knife fight its ill-equipped and ill-prepared. Same goes true for all anti-air systems, including gun and missile.
>not if the tanks cannot trade off fire from standoff ranges > 4km. Especially if someone forward is designating targets. This minimizes the risks to the helos and maximizes the full advantages of the helos.
most tanks can be fitted with equipment to allow them to use GLATGMs that can reach out and touch to 5km in current models and up to 8km in future ones.
>I like the part of the video where they were way off center high and to the left on the target at like fucking rock throwing range
its called parallax error you doofus. they zeroed the sights to 2-3 km when the target is 80 m. They actually shot two targets and guess what- same spot was hit.
>proofs I can find this nowhere. were your there or something or are you just trying to obfuscate with your asspulls
again [NOGUNZ DETECTED]
pretty much every gun owner knows this, get
>>>out you faggot.
>yet again provide proofs or are you gunna just keep deflecting.
i assume you are smart enough to know that tanks are expected to fire at targets up to 2-3km away, mmkay?
Yet again you seem to fail to understand that I'm challenging you to show how you garnered so much information about the methods used in that 1 minute video. You can keep trying to show off your usage of wikipedia as much as you want it's irrelevant. I'll wait
>Yet again you seem to fail to understand that I'm challenging you to show how you garnered so much information about the methods used in that 1 minute video.
the rest is from the full but unsubbed vid, plus some article about the docu from one of the interviewees. you do know how to search for both and turn on cc right or do i have to hold your hand along the way too?
Tanks make the modern battlefield a hell of a lot easier. At least it has in Afghanistan and iraq. They can create holes in walls. They can fuck people up at really far range. They're a hell of a morale booster.
>lmao you've been reading to much ww2 shit m8
or more like they just didn't bother - its not like you are sniping fcking heads of humans at those ranges with a tank gun for the error to even matter.
>Ok so I've sat through your propaganda piece nothing you have said seems to be in there care to try again. I don't seem to be as good as you at consuming russian milprop.
jesus christ man apply yourself a little more before going muh propaganda!
>only thing is if your system is that far off at less than 100 meters imagine how far off you're gonna be at 3k
my god. get a rifle with a scope- shoot at targets far away and you get nice hits provided its zeroed properly. now strap that thing to something stable and shoot at a wall 5m away- observe where you see the hole and the aimpoint is.
Funny how in a war the German Leopard 1 and 2 tanks would have carried the most weight, because all the other tanks lacked the operational mobility.
It's kind of interesting that the Post-War designs were grounded by the WW2 experience.
The German generals and officers were traumatized that they were slowly losing ground although deploying bigger and bigger tanks, which created a nostolgia about the good old Panzer II/III/IV days when superior tactical and strategical mobility beat superior armor and guns.
While the Allies experienced the opposite shit when everything became a Tiger and forced them to retreat.
This is correct. It is well known by experts that the range where they fired into is probably 5km or more, you can tell this by knowing where it is fired from, the Kuril shooting range.
All who says otherwise are slavashills and are paid to taint the name of America and China.
>What trick they done to the wires from the base, so it is not tangled during the turret rotation? How many times they can full turn the turret?
dont know the exact term, but the wire on the hull is wound around the turret ring and as the turret rotates on top of it via bearings the wires from the turret maintain contact with the ones on the turret ring.
>rifle scope =/= the optics and computer systes of a 50ton+ mbt
basic underlying principle is the same.
>So it seems the testing methods you described were just an asspull as expected.
are you that ignorant? oh wait....
>dont know the exact term, but the wire on the hull is wound around the turret ring and as the turret rotates on top of it via bearings the wires from the turret maintain contact with the ones on the turret ring.
dont sound like reliable connector for data transmission.
Fucking arm chair generals
A helicopter will hover around and give good support to boots on the ground and so will a drone, then they fly all the way back to base
A tank will be there from the start to the finish
TDLR: You want both
what do you expect m8 the armata was designed purely as a propaganda piece to hype up random vatniks. t-90am is literally better in ever way, particularly in that it actually works.
The only tank that matters is China's. China is a big country. From the manmade islands of the South China Sea to the peak of Mt. Everest, China has to defend the land. It is unquestionable that Chinese tanks and tankers are logistically and tactically superior that any other tank of other nations because Chinese tankers train with heart unlike other nations that only do it for money.
Why does the tank look like its based ona GI Joe toy line?
Is there a tank more sexy than the Leopard 2? I don't think so.
>hogwash. The T-14 is actually the most mature out of their new vehicles- its basically a revamped, in some cases simplified, and technology updated obj. 195- which was fcking ready for production when the Russian Gates had them cancelled.
195 was a somewhat failed competitor to work of the Malyshev - 195 was basically an upgunned T-72B with crew under turret ring (crew still surrounded by ammunition).
Actually Armata has many fathers - the biggest ones are object 299 and 477.
T-15 is straight up modernised 299.
This is how T-14 might look without the masking on the turret.
>195 was basically an upgunned T-72B with crew under turret ring (crew still surrounded by ammunition).
No it's what the T-90 should have been.
Something superior to both the T-72B and T-80U and not keeping a old weakness from the T-64
Notice the gun manlet. It's ready take the 152 mm cannon in.
A few months ago I saw a footage of Leopards 2 and M1 Abrams tanks moving in one column. The M1 was noticeably quieter than Leo 2.
Crew is separated from the ammo - tank is busted but the crew is not.
>not keeping a old weakness from the T-64
Except it kept the weakness - crew surrounded by 30 152 mm shells.
Newer AA will spank apaches. Shortwave integrated radars mean longer detection ranges, lower altitudes, and faster lock times. Combined with digital improvements that allow multiple tracking and engagement. One AA can fire two missiles each at multiple apaches simultaneously. This means one defense unit is virtually guaranteed a hit on multiple apaches.
Attack Helis had a short heyday while AAs took the time to catch up.
2k22 vs Longbow?
Who saw enemy first is the winner.
Anyone know if Apache was ever cleared to use Sidearm? I know that AH-64 can drop the ECM pod and install AIM-9, but I have never heard about it using Sidearm.
oh shit I was talking about object 187.
If the Apache crew knows that there is an enemy AA behind that hill, it only takes to expose the radar and then fire the hellfire.
They are fucked when there are no natural cover for them though.
When the heli is surprised by the AA, the ground unit almost always wins.
Even know relatively light vehicles (30-40 tons) can be protected against modern APFSDS - for example by usage ERA Knife or APS AMAP-ADS.
I recently read interesting article about new DARPA project with very creative take on protection.
>Turbine's clean exhaust and low noise also gave much more comfortable environment to soldiers while marching with the tank.
Ahahahahaha. Yeah, try that in the sandbox and you'll have people rop from heatstroke. Also makes the vaunted stealth features a mockery against anyone with 30-years-old or newer IR gear.
Have you even ever worked with fiber optics? You can splice fiber optics, but you do it differently than traditional wire. Also you don't fix traditional wire with duct tape either you retard.
this. Target practice could be more dangerous than attacking the iraqis.
Folding is their game. US comes to destroy their beloved dictator? Fold. ISIS comes to rapenslave their daughters, rape their wives, torture them to death? Fold and give them free equipment.
Considering the FCS is being developed in Turkey, the weapons are being developed in Turkey, the armour is being developed in Turkey all for a hull design purchased from Korea I can say it's an active tank project, and Turkey is the only NATO country with an active tank project.
Both Germany and France are on conceptual stage of the development.
The USA is also doing their secret things.
>What it feels like to drown in abbreviations
Where is there anything about a German, French or US tank replacement/development program?
Germany have said they'd be interested in starting a Leopard development for the military but there's been no commitment, France and the USA haven't had anything.
In ~2019 they have to decide between upgrading M1 or going with a new construction.
For that they need to develop at least a concept of the next generation tank. It's not like they have a few black projects already on the shelve.
Fun fact. They have never stopped working on a new designs. It's on low priority - theoretical work - mostly focused on hybrid drive, new armor, APS and ETC technology.
Hot air is not visible on thermals.
This is quite fresh - from F-35 EODAS.
Flame is visible on thermals, but hot air and fumes produces only distortion. M1 exhaust isn't hot enough to glow like a giant torch - and if you crank up sensitivity you wouldn't see a thing.
Because Americans have some really dumb officers & civilians influencing vehicle designs.
Same reason they ended up doing COIN in humvees and getting thousands of people killed to mines.
Air has very low emissivity, what you are seeing out of the F-16 is exhaust particulate.
The turbine on an Abrams does not directly exhaust like an aircraft engine, there is much more air per volume.
There are also exhaust diverters, which are commonly carried.
>120mm against the 105mm of the Abrams
Both use a 120mm, the Leo with a longer barrel and the Abrams with better ammo.
The Leo still uses the same sights/FCS that were adopted on the 2A5.
>easier logistics and maintenance
Fuel consumption was noted.
Germany liquidating it's used tanks is not a proper measure.
>was in service before the Abrams
There was a study done by the Army around 2010 that actually shows that Tanks have repeatedly been undervalued in COIN scenarios ever since Vietnam.
It's an interesting read: www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA562878
I remember seeing the Leopard 2 for the first time.
It was a gamechanger, one of the few moments in military history when all other tanks suddenly became outdated or even obsolete.
Armor, mobility, firepower. It was an incredible event.
A United States tank gun that is a variant of Royal Ordnance L7
A German developement for the American-German tank Main Battle Tank 70/Kampfpanzer70.
Which was rejected by the Americans because they wanted to see their 152mm combi gun on that thing. Though the 152mm gun was an engineering clusterfuck and was canceled.
>Helicopters cannot take or hold ground. Tanks can.
hahaaha, this is the first i've heard of tanks taking/holding ground. I've always heard people in the military insist that they need the infantry because tanks cannot take or hold ground.
Not you again. I've had enough of your shit posting 'we should combine SPG's and MBT's into one perfect vehicle', 'missile tanks are the future' and 'walkers are totally doable guys' threads.
Just hurry up and give yourself a tripcode so I can filter your faggot ass.
Why even use helicopters? They crash all the time and kill and injure thousands every year.
Instead you could use armoured gliders that would be completely silent and less likely to have crash and injure the soldiers. It makes sense.
Just kidding, I'm not that guy.
What about emps? And tanks can travel on the ground, through light forest, while helicopters must fly above, exposed. Also, tanks can stay in the field longer, and are more armored than helicopters
>being close to the Leopard 2
It was the time when Soviet tanks lost the fearsome reputation. After the NATO was capable of pulling out way better tanks and the fact that Russian tanks performed badly everywhere they were used.
>A United States tank gun that is a variant of Royal Ordnance L7
The M68 has a much more interesting history than being an L7 copy. It's interesting that people still think it's related to the L7 though.
>It's interesting that people still think it's related to the L7 though.
Because it is. It's a licence built version of the L7 with different breech system. Your picture confirms it.
>U.S. built gun for the M60 Patton. Initially designated as the T254E2, it is a variant of the indigenous U.S. 105mm T254. Unlike the 105mm T254, its tube was interchangeable with that of the British X15E8. It retains the round breech with a vertically-sliding breechblock of the T254 and initially used a concentric bore evacuator, which was later replaced with an eccentric bore evacuator.
>variant of the indigenous U.S. 105mm T254
>the indigenous U.S. 105mm T254
>this faggot did not know that they are experimenting a new power pack that can drive with backup power
>MURRICUNTS were all like WE BTFO YOUR OLD T90 BITCH
>then the vodka came up with new tank that they can't win
>MURRICUNTS are all like TONKS DUNT MATTER ANYMORE
talk about being salty
>anything other than a propaganda piece
>can't shoot straight
>has no ceramic armor
>effectively unarmored turret
>still has to use old stubby ammo because lol poor
>60 degree fixed aps
>under crewed to the point of information overload
>transmition that catches on fire constantly or simply doesn't work
>significantly less stable shooting platform than t-90am
>PINDO AMERIKKKA CYKAS WE CRUSH YOUR PUNY TANK
>195 was a somewhat failed competitor to work of the Malyshev - 195 was basically an upgunned T-72B with crew under turret ring (crew still surrounded by ammunition).
aside from not knowing what you're talking about(obj. 195 being a failed competitor to anything; when its the only Russian future tank program being funded, or even failed; when its ready for production by the time its cancelled, or even an upgunned T-72B; lel) your beloved Malyshev didn't even design anything that remotely separates the crew from the ammo.
>Actually Armata has many fathers - the biggest ones are object 299 and 477.
agree with the obj. 299 which is basically it gutted to make room for troops but disagree with the obj. 477 aka the tank with three AL so you can AL while you AL and with the crew around them.
its shit. it has extremely variable effect on the offending penetrator; most of the time the jets just smear across the surface of the penetrator since they didn't achieve proper geometry, and for it to be effective you need a couple layers of it; which doesn't help because its both expensive and hella heavy, but wait there's more; since the amount of explosives used is just wowsers every contact with an enemy projectile is sure to blow a huge chunk of your ERA protection and also some bits and pieces of the tank like the tracks, sights and antennas for example.
>The system is not intended to completely substitute for passive base armor. Larger caliber projectiles will only be fragmented and not entirely deflected. Therefore, a minimum of passive armor is still required to absorb the residual energy of the fragments.
>Have you even ever worked with fiber optics? You can splice fiber optics, but you do it differently than traditional wire.
yes i did. and its a pain. you kinda have to be really good with needles and have small hands at the same time to insert both ends into the patch cord with breaks that are in some tight spaces aka 90% of the time in a tank.
>lso you don't fix traditional wire with duct tape either you retard.
its a field expedient solution you retard. something you do in 30 secs tops and while in the heat of combat.
Armata is still in development. Every big military development has teething problems. Look at how poorly the abrams performed in urban combat in Iraq. Lots of testing is needed. The problems you're whining about are all easily fixable.
But with that said. A modernized T-90 is hands down superior to an M1 on a dollar for dollar basis and arguably on a unit for unit basis.
>Look at how poorly the abrams performed in urban combat in Iraq
source. last i checks it performed fine because unlike slavshit designs it actually has machineguns and more then 100mm of roof armor
>more then 100mm of roof armor
Oh ok, tell those snackbars with relic soviet atgms to aim at those roofs instead of cardboard panels below next time.
>saudi or iraqi autists sitting out in the open asleep with no infantry support
>export model without enhanced armor package
>blast panels still function correctly tank could be serviced and put back in action unlike a t90
I love this meme
>whereas the tanks Saddam had were equal to what was being used by the Soviets at the time
I just like using that since that's what butthurt Ameriboos have been using for years. I'll easily concede that in both cases they really are just inferior export models.
>Its funny because it actually is a monkey model, whereas the tanks Saddam had were equal to what was being used by the Soviets at the time.
>construction grade steel used in armor construction
>practice rounds not used since the 70s are used as ammo
>used by the Soviets at the time.
Saddam's T-72s were functionally equal to the T-72A, which made up the bulk of the Soviets tank fleet of the time. Granted there were T-72Bs and T-80s, but those were in smaller numbers in the 'elite' units.
Slavboos would have done themselves a huge favor if they had just pointed out Arab crews suck instead of pretending the equipment was inferior.
That fucking shitskin commander jumping out of his own tank when his blast panels are working. Holy fuck did noone train these retards? your a fucking tank commander know how your tank works instead of jumping into possible fucking machinegun fire.
>blast panels still function correctly tank could be serviced and put back in action unlike a t90
if you recover it. most of the time the orders are just to scuttle and torch them. Btw T-90/72s that only load ammos in the carousel are safe from the jack in the box effect unless you can hit the bottom of the hull from the sides and back where the carousel is.
>Saddam's T-72s were functionally equal to the T-72A, which made up the bulk of the Soviets tank fleet of the time.
they didnt call the T-72A dolly partons for nothing. also FCS are downgraded even further for T-72M models aside from thinner armor.
>The truth is hard to swallow eh vatnik?
harder to swallow lies, pass me some of that koolaid you have, sure does the job well enough, i mean look at you all sprightly spewing debunked maymays.
the carousel isn't safe in any manner of speaking m8 any penetration regardless of heat or ke penetration into the turret or hull is going to start a fire. And don't even get me started on top attack or russian HE being literally artillery shells in 125mm.
>And they cripple their ammunition capacity in doing so.
only really affects Arabs who like to park their tanks for days and shoot at anything that moves in front of them. In urban combat infantry move up and when they encounter fierce resistance they send for the tanks to shell them up- most of the time you run of fuel before ammo going around city blocks.
>the carousel isn't safe in any manner of speaking m8 any penetration regardless of heat or ke penetration into the turret or hull is going to start a fire. And don't even get me started on top attack or russian HE being literally artillery shells in 125mm.
The carousel has a steel cover on top of it- where do you think the crew's feet rest?
also HE shells don't detonate even with their detonators screwed on, the jack in the box effect is caused by the cardboard propellant charges. Top attack is going to fuck every third gen tank anyways, unless you fit them with APS.
That plate is only there for the crew m8 the autoloader wouldn't function if that plate didtn't have huge fucking gaps in it to allow it to actually funtion. All it takes is one to get it started and its cookin. on newer models like the t90am this has been mitigated to an extend but the problem is inherent to the design. hence the reason the armata uses a french style autoloader.
T-72M = T-72A w/o composite armor on turret and weaker hull armor, no NBC gear
T-72M also uses the older night sight as well as older stabilizers.
T-72M is roughly equal to very first T-72, which is inadequate even then- almost immediately they upgraded them and had a better version in production before the mills got cold.
>So you agree that Iraqi tank monkey models are a debunked meme?
having reading comprehension problems?
>That plate is only there for the crew m8 the autoloader wouldn't function if that plate didtn't have huge fucking gaps in it to allow it to actually funtion. All it takes is one to get it started and its cookin. on newer models like the t90am this has been mitigated to an extend but the problem is inherent to the design. hence the reason the armata uses a french style autoloader.
are you fucking for real? you can only see the metal projectile stubs on the butt end of the propellant charge sticking out of their holders and viewable with the gaps.
have you ever seen what happens to fires in enclosed spaces the heated air alone starts lighting other components on fire all heat needs is a way to get to it and its going to light.
>have you ever seen what happens to fires in enclosed spaces the heated air alone starts lighting other components on fire all heat needs is a way to get to it and its going to light.
open fires are easy to put out; they have automated firefighting systems since the T-55- its the sparks that hit the propellant impregnated cardboard that cause propellant fires that kill everyone in the tank.
>the composite only added like 100mm more armor vs kinetic penetrators so what does it even matter
but it does matter, a lot. its the difference of being able to operate with impunity against enemy anti-tank means as long as its your front they face and being cored all day long even from the front.
>is it really? that's even worse than speculated that's practically a fucking t64 autoloader and we all know what was wrong with those.
the crew is nowhere near the fucking ammo!!!
side armor is thicker plus more importantly since there is no fucking crew you can actually put blow out panels on top of the turret(i think the service hatch is the one) and also really agressive firefighting gear like tanks of inert gas under immense pressure like they use in subs.
>m829a1 goes through like 670mm of armor like butter whats 400-500mm rha effective going to do?
>comparing an at most 10 year newer round to older armor
>not even its more proper response(T-72B)
>being this dishonest
but thats the round that was employed against iraqi armor i dont see the problem. the vatnik argument seems to be that if only it had its composite armor it would have done better,
oh lord don't post that faggot he's been well known by most of the track fag community as an autist who pretty much never uses data to back up his opinions and just uses his feelings. his opinions have been trash forever
>so basically when an armata lights up noones going to die but its going to need a completely new turret and wont be able to fight at all.
depends. if you relieve the pressure effectively the only damage the propellant fire will cause is heat damage so i recon if they put fireproofing on the inner surfaces most stuff should survive.
Certainly the carousel assembly will be damaged, but if you look at Abrams with its turret bustle blown off the ammo racks are pretty much intact, charred yes but intact still.
>but thats the round that was employed against iraqi armor i dont see the problem. the vatnik argument seems to be that if only it had its composite armor it would have done better,
nah, composite armor or not Iraqi excuses for a T-72 are shit.
technically incorrect, yes id give you that. but its hilarious anyway- the T-72A uses ceramic formulation called "kvartz" or sandbar armor; lo and behold they just shovelled common sand in the cavities for T-72M!
>Its also funny because there is no evidence that ever actually happened, much like an Abrams taking an M829 to the side of the turret.
i cant find the article but they basically inspected Iraqi tank hulks and found lots of "interesting" (in the Chinese sense) stuff.
anyway this should be helpful.
You morons are the sort of people who think or respond to people who think that a Pokpung-ho is a outdated T-62 copy that has has no technological upgrades for 30 years.
it came from a nato exercise in the 80's alot of the participants were expecting the sound of hundreds of diesel engines instead they had abrams on top of them before they expected it.
until they introduce gundam mobile suit, tanks will always be relevant
turbine engines don't use their exaust for thrust m8 so despite having high initial decibel intensity, but because it is of much higher pitch itdissipates far quicker than low frequency diesel engines
you can literally hear the tracks squeaking before you hear the engine
>Notice the gun manlet. It's ready take the 152 mm cannon in.
>this meme that it'll ever get a 152mm cannon
>russians make a new cannon specifically for the Armata that fixes the 24A6 and make it accept real chamber pressures
>fix the accuracy issues of it while increasing performance all around
>B-B-B-B-BUT THEY'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO UPGUN IT THE 125MM IS JUST A P[LACEHOLDER
worst meme 2016
>In ~2019 they have to decide between upgrading M1 or going with a new construction
they will almost certainly upgrade the M1, there's really no compelling reason to build an entirely new tank at this stage.
It's funny because the stuff he quotes also say the opposite what he claims.
It's also interesting that Germany has already an operation ready 140mm gun with autoloader.
To be fair the Americans have had the xm291 140mm gun for awile(it also comes in 120mm too which actually performs similarly to some of the 140mm guns producing 14mj of energy at the muzzle) But because of the experimental and finicky nature of ETC both are kind of a pain. So it really comes down to whether the xm360 uses any of that tech, if it does moving up to 140mm might be unnecessary atleast for awhile. Also the candians and brits did a joint research project on their own 140mm forever ago and could so something maybe but not likely.
>By the 2030 some of the M1 hulls will be 50 over years old.
You son will pray to machine spirit. Like something bad.
Asymmetrical warfare is making them not so much obsolete but ineffective right now.
Countries going to war again will be what brings them back as a major factor on the battlefield.
The DU can just be pulled out they've replaced the DU through 3 generations of DU patterns now it isn't hard. Also DU isn't dangerous aslong as you don't try to grind it up and snort it
Been a lot of improvements in the last few decades that would encourage a different design of a tank.
Not having a turbine engine, for one.
Or unmanned turret allowing superior armor all around
Well, the Leopard 2 pretty much destroys everyone in any competition.
The only times it lost like in Turkey or India it was more about the lack of technolgy transfer (South Korea for Turkey, Russia for India).
You mean Lebanon in 06? 08 was domestic political conflict. Anyway, 06 was a conventional conflict, not COIN. The IDF's armor losses were overwhelmingly from ATGMs during retarded frontal assaults on prepared positions across open ground. I don't see how there are any lessons to be gleaned for COIN, but still goes in the book as a good example of what not to do.
>It's also interesting that Germany has already an operation ready 140mm gun with autoloader.
...as well as the french, long before, since the Leclerc was designed around such a weapon in the first place...
Tanks can take cover and sometimes multiple hits
I'd say tanks are good for holding a line and keeping enemies from advancing, and also advacning itself along with infantry, with the attack helicopter supporting them of course.
In my view attack helicopters fill a skirmish role better than actual direct fighting due to the existence of MANPADs and guns.