You guys seen this? Barefooted Huthis are BTFO another Saudi M1A2! And with a fucking old-ass 9K111 Fagot ATGM!
Fucking embarrassing. Tanks without APS are useless and are death traps. Anyone who signs up to be a tank crew member is insane.
BONUS: M113 also gets BTFO!
>dat motherfucking butthurt
The mind of a mindless jingoist, everyone.
They could have an Armata, a K2, or a Leclerc and the result would be the same. Everyone jerks off over tank stats and whether the tiny differences between them makes them invincible but at the end of the day, if you don't know how to properly use a tank its useless.
See: All of the T80s that got BTFO in Gronzy
>See: All of the T80s that got BTFO in Gronzy
I would even be so bold as to wager that in the first Iraq war, you could have switched the crews around and had the Coalition in '72's and the Iraqi's in Chally's and Abram's and the end result would have been largely the same.
And there's a Chally 2 that took far more than that and didn't give much of a fuck.
There are many Abrams that have endured the same thing and been fine.
If you use your tanks properly and in coordination with infantry, then you won't get killed by ATGMs very often.
If you act like a retarded Saudi or the russians in Grozny then you'll get fucked up.
>there's a Chally 2 that took far more than that and didn't give much of a fuck.
no ATGMs involved.
>there's a Chally 2 that took far more than that and didn't give much of a fuck.
maybe to the frontal turret
>If you use your tanks properly and in coordination with infantry, then you won't get killed by ATGMs very often.
MBTs are next to useless for this fight with the houthis. Anyone got a clue why they are using them? Sell them all, buy apaches.
>no ATGMs involved.
You're referring to the incident involving 70+ RPGs.
I was referring to the incident where it ate 14 RPGs and a MILAN, crew were fine, it was only immobilized because it threw a track derping into a trench.
>maybe to the frontal turret
Well duh, any modern tank is going to get buttfucked by ATGMs to the rear or side armor. It's not a thing exclusive to western tanks, it's a weight thing.
>MBTs are next to useless for this fight with the houthis. Anyone got a clue why they are using them? Sell them all, buy apaches
I thought my response was appropriate, considering you were calling tanks useless in general. They're pretty important if you want to support infantry or advance on heavily defended areas. You can't hold ground with an AH-64.
>didn't give much of a fuck
>They're pretty important if you want to support infantry or advance on heavily defended areas.
so you give a senario that air support does better in counter-insurgency
> You can't hold ground with an AH-64.
then off of that first thought you begin another one completely unrelated to the afformentioned task which ALSO, as has been demonstrated, cannot be completed with MBTs.
due to the crew GOING INTO A DITCH. NOT FROM BEING STRUCK BY ENEMY FIRE.
>so you give a senario that air support does better in counter-insurgency
The OP was shitting on tanks in general, not just in COIN. In conventional warfare, when the skies are contested? You'll need armor. Air assets don't make a real strategic contribution if you don't have men and armor on the ground to make use of their support.
>then off of that first thought you begin another one completely unrelated to the afformentioned task which ALSO, as has been demonstrated, cannot be completed with MBTs.
Tanks and infantry working together can both advance and defend.
well the GIF is from a COIN mission, so thats what i was talking about.
>Tanks and infantry working together can both advance and defend.
lol tell me you'd rather have an MBT that might take a fagot up the ass from 3km away than a fucking Apache in a situation like the houthis.
Just another shitty export monkey model, vatnick. It's not equipped with real armor packages or electronics like the SEP and proves nothing about real american armor performance in the battlefield
If it were a T-72 or your shitty armata it would've completely exploded, like in this video:
Now go back to crying your vatnick shill tears, tomorrow america will blow you the fuck out again kek
thats why i said this
>MBTs are next to useless for this fight with the houthis.
btw i don't actually believe those stories about the challenger. 70 RPGs sounds like a fairy-tale to me. Not that it couldn't withstand the punishment, but any enemy capable of 70RPG hits is in control of the situation. I think it's highly unlikely. what did they do? count the blast marks? keep a tally of all of the impacts they heard while they are trying not to die? war story most likely. We all know from bravo two zero how the british armed forces arent exactly any better than the Americans about embellishment.
>MBTs are next to useless for this fight with the houthis. Anyone got a clue why they are using them? Sell them all, buy apaches.
Most crash, the few that don't hover in front of .50s and get shot down.
You can give an idiot the most advanced weapons from all around the world and he will still die.
The US has left a lot of survivability off their tanks simply because its completely unnecessary for them.
If they actually were fighting a real foe who was equipped with modern ATGM's, you would probably see a new tank produced ASAP, along with APS on every vehicle.
There was that one "kill" anti-Abramsfags like prancing around that just demonstrates the blowout panels working as intended, an the tank still clearly mobile even after that hit.
I don't see any reason building a whole new tank, seeing as how easy ERA and APS are to simply bolt onto existing platforms, like the TUSK upgrade.
US composite materials are high quality enough that they don't have to rely on directly integrating ERA into it like the Russians have to.
As if that makes any difference.
Here's a vid of another Saudi Abrams getting hit by a Kornet.
>the difference between M1 and M-60
No tank is going to able to shrug off an ATGM on side armor. A tank sitting on open ground like that under observation from higher elevation? The ATGM crew basically had that kill handed to them on a silver platter.
Not even APS can help you these days. This thing fires two rockets and will fuck up APS, reactive armor etc... and still go through any MBT in service today.
I'm a bit skeptical of a base Chally 2 surviving a ATGM side hit, unless it has all the addon armor, as well. But in that case you'd have to compare it to the latest gen Leo 2 or the Abrams TUSK.
sure thing. I'd love to see a Merkava getting hit by one or two of these. my bet is that it will end up like Kornet surprise they got in Lebanon in 2006.
In 2014, Merkava 4 with Trophy got hit by a Kornet in Gaza and it got BTFO.
>In response to concerns that the RPG-30 had fallen into the hands of Hezbollah fighters, Israel Defense reported that the Rafael weapons development authority developed a defense system called the "Trench Coat" that can counteract the RPG-30, by utilizing a 360-degree radar to detect all threats and, in the case of one, launch 17 projectiles, one of which should strike the incoming missile.
Because it's from 2014. All Merkavas have been updated to 4 by then.
No APS is 100%. You can also fuck with it by using something as old as RPG-7 and fire it a second before you fire Kornet to distract it.
Military anti-tank tactics are constantly evolving. Thinking that some magical pice of tech will keep you safe is foolish.
>Military anti-tank tactics are constantly evolving. Thinking that some magical pice of tech will keep you safe is foolish.
Which is why tank tactics are equally as important as your armor. That's the Arabs' greatest failing, because they just don't know how to deploy their tanks in a way to minimize getting sniped by ATGMs.
>Because it's from 2014. All Merkavas have been updated to 4 by then.
Wrong. The 401st was the only regular armor brigade to use Mk.4's at the time. 7th brigade deployed Mk.2's and 188th deployed Mk.3's. In addition to the regular brigades there were also reserve brigades that deployed Mk.2's. 7th brigade is still in the middle of replacing their Mk.2's qith 4's and there are currently no plans to retire the Mk.3.
> the best tank on the planet.
There is no "best tank on the planet."
There may be a "most heavily armored tank on the planet," but without APS how could its survivability compare to a somewhat poorer-armored tank with cutting edge APS?
>As if that makes any difference.
It does actually.
Since abandoned tanks can be repaired and brought back into service by a competant military force with excellent logistics. Hence why American and even ISIS have managed to repair said abrams to bring them back to service.
IIRC, it was Merkava IV with Trophy that got hit. There was a writeup in Janes.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that Merkava is the best MBT today but even Merkava is not even close to being 100% safe. If there's another trip to Lebanon, I wouldn't wanna be in one.
kek'd. RPG-29 says hi.
Too right m80.
Yanks are you even trying?
Let me explain this to you with these charts.
>Chally has FAR superior armour and a longer ranged gun
No it doesn't, challenger is a piece of shit and rifled guns are obsolete.
Get your pig disgusting nationalism out of here you inbred islander.
>Oh wow you sure showed me with all those hot opinions.
Can't even come up with your own retort. Cute.
Challenger 2 is objectively a piece of shit, it isn't the best in any category except being shit.
>there's only like 200 of them
>dude HESH lmao
>cant see after firing
>cant observe round impact
>had to have an armor upgrade package for the lower glacis because it's straight fucking steel
>inb4 b-b-but that was a belly shot!
>ammunition exposed to the crew at all times
>two pieced ammunition
>inferior demo rounds
>inferior barrel life
>cant even upgrade to single piece gun because theres nowhere in the turret to store single pieced ammo
>no blowout panels ( as if theyd do anything with ammo exposed to crew at all times )
The list goes on.
tl;dr fuck off inbred islander
One is enough anon. Problem with Challenger 2 is that it's not in any serious battle zone.
Merkava, T-90, Abrams have all been in ATGM rich zones and have been battle tested.
Challenger 2 saw some action in Iraq and some in Afghanistan (where RPG-7 is the biggest threat) and didn't do so well.
What kind of fucked up, biased, cherry-picked bullshit data are these charts based on?. At no point in the history of the universe has your country ever been more good than mine.
Maybe they threw a track or had some small but crucial part bust or some damn thing, and simply left it. Not much cross training amongst the Ay-rabs, and not much maintenance:
I think he's on pretty good ground. The blow-out panels just give the crew a few seconds to bail, but once that fire gets going every system is pretty much fucked. At those temperatures wiring and shielding melts.
Tank is not salvageable after an ammunition fire.
Yes the blow-out panels saved one crew member, no, they didn't just drive away and repaint the tank the next day.
>3 T-72s in the ranking
Kek, maybe in 1980.
I'd go with M1A2SEP, followed by Merkava 4 and then the latest Leopard.
Everything else is death trap tier.
Have you played Air Land Battle? That's how long infantry lasts in a full scale war.
Institutional problems. Arabs don't put a premium on military training. Officers hoard knowledge to make themselves more valuable, and regular foot trips are only taught the bare minimum. No effective NCO system also means huge disconnects between the enlisted men/conscripts and the commissioned officers.
The amount of inbreeding amongst town Arabs -- not to mention the lack of salt or potassium in their diet in a lot of cases -- is not even to be believed. They've all been marrying safely inside the clan for generations. They're worse than the worst trailer trash. So... yeah, unfortunately.
I despise Islam, but I'm not sure that's the culprit here. I took it to be more of a tribal thing. Marrying inside the tribe is nice and safe and gives no chances of giving offense and keeps the resultant family near to the clan's power base.
Of course, the price you pay for all this nice demographic security is being mean and stupid and inbred as a bunch of stereotypical Appalachian hillbillies. Being Arabs, they seem willing to pay it.
>Not supporting your infantry with counter-battery fire
>Not calling a retreat when your infantry is at risk of being overrun
>Not using mobility to evade artillery and napalm strikes
In the long run it will be cheaper for you to retreat where you can. And spending the extra points on heavy ifvs can save alot of lives when moving infantry under artillery fire.
And how many decades and different models did it take to just reach that level? One can imagine what will come about when the US actually decides to design and field a wholly new tank.
>China's tanks are utterly garbage
ZTZ-99A seems decent based on what little is public.
Plus, all the lightweight craptanks they have are intended for internal police actions in terrain that is difficult for heavy vehicles, like Southern China and Tibet/Qinghai.
YOu can literally watch the crew leave the tank.
old pic slightly related
As a tanker, I am straight up refuting this. Lesser armored and armed tanks aren't better than, well, a tank that is better armed and better armored. M1A2 SEPV2 is currently the best tank for the money. The Leopard and Challenger are easily right next to it before you get the Type 98/99, T90, fT14 etc, those tanks are jokes compared to actual modern tanks.
>MBTs are next to useless for this fight with the houthis. Anyone got a clue why they are using them? Sell them all, buy apaches.
Read the following. Yes, it will direct you to a download. It's a paper by the name of "The Relevance of Armor in Counterinsurgency Operations"
Abrams is going to regain the title of heaviest MBT.
Last I checked, there was no info, only that A3 was coming and there would probably be an interim upgrade in the meanwhile. So really even a bullet list of confirmed upgrades would be much appreciated.
>The Abrams program must execute a series of Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) to address capability gaps on the tank fleet. These technology upgrades will be integrated through a recapitalization program between Anniston Army Depot and General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). ECP 1A addresses interoperability on the new network and system shortfalls in electrical power to enable integration of approved directed requirements, survivability improvements and an electronics refresh to address obsolescence and significantly improve sustainability. Specifically the upgrades include an updated Handheld Manpack Small (HMS) communication system, a new 1,000 amp generator, power management distribution system (a new slip ring, battery monitoring system, and an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)), the integration kit for the Counter Radio-Controlled IED Electronic Warfare (CREW/Duke3), Next Generation Armor, Ammunition Data Link (ADL) to enable the system to fire a smart round currently under development, and the upgrade of six (6) line replaceable units (LRUs) to line replaceable modules (LRMs).
>why can't russia?
can't? they invented s-ducts. who knows why they decided not to use them in T-50.
>Yep tanks sure are death traps
Except that these tanks are like fucking magnets for deadly missiles. As soon as tanks enter a war zone, they're the primary target. And if history has taught us anything, they will find a way to kill you.
So YES, retard, tanks are death magnets and death traps.
The Abrams is an abysmal tank. Huge gas guzzler, pathetic availability rate and gets rekked by everything and everyone.
amerilards are a bit butthurt about the american things being blown up, so they try their best to be realistic and debate in the best and most polite way they can.
Which cant be said when some other country is mentioned.
/k/ is mostly for americans that own guns and think they are invincible and we all respect their oppinion.
But who the fuck cares about their tanks being blown up?
You can give a monkey the best ww2 tank, and he still wont win the pack war in the jungle against other monkey.
What amerilards forget, is that the tank that got blown the fuck up, is already SOLD!
It is fucking SOLD with all the fancy equipment, with all the nice things in it and with fresh paint and tune up. All of it is payed for.
Instead of being happy that they are giving away things they produce to some dying empire of sandniggers with a stone age mindset for a lot of money, they should be happy that they are selling it.
The weapons market is the most beautifull market on earth right now.
You sell your produce to someone who uses it, or doesnt, who gives a shit.
As long as they pay for it, and as long as they need it.
The weapons market is like a grand shopping mall. The cheap and most bought things are the old ass soviet things, that still work but arent very sophisticated, and then there are the expensive things.
You dont hear Rolex company bitching about how some moron lost his watch any more than hearing some chinese Miki Moose rubber wrist watch factory bitching about the mice and moos.
did you just cite fucking Wargame: ALB as an example of infantry's viability in warfare
>Abrams is going to regain the title of heaviest MBT.
If US ever decides to invade Russia with that thing, they won't even make it 10 miles into Russia... it will just sink from its weight into one of the marshes.
These HUGE, HEAVY AS LEAD, tanks are insane. They're good for fighting in deserts (where 90% of US's wars were waged) but not anywhere else.
>What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank
>The T-90 packs a gyro stabilized 125MM smooth bore cannon, but unlike her American counter part, she is not relegated to "just" firing armored piercing discarded sabot (APDS), high explosive anti-tank and high explosive fragmentation rounds. The T-90's 125mm can also fire the 9M119 "Refleks" anti-tank guided missile. This laser guided missile can strike ground based and low flying aerial targets at close to double range of the T-90's main gun. Yes, you read that right, the T-90 can shoot guided missiles out of its main gun and can even take down helicopters with those missiles under certain conditions.
You should really work on the arguments rather than playing the "BURGERCLAP ARE BAD & SHOULD FEEL BAD ABOUT EVERYTHING EVER IF NOT LOLIGNORANT" angle.
Or step back from the alcohol, it's not doing you any favors. Have you considered stepping outside, getting some fresh air?
Since this is now a tank thread, here's the only video of the inside of a T-14.
Challenger 2 is shit-tier if only because Charm 3 is literally the worst 120/125mm APFSDS in service.
It barely breaks 600mm when M829A3 and DM53 out of a 55 are in the 800's range.
I know /k/ like to shit on the arabs and they are bad at warfare, but what is the 'correct' way or what would you do? Ignoring the correct answer which is western intel, surveillance and huge airpower, just imagine you have a standard land force of arabs at your disposal.
If there is a city that has an unknown number of combatants/equipment at unknown locations and generally these places only have 1 or 2 roads leading in and out eventually you're gonna have to bite the bullet and assault it. All I see is muh infantry but what are they gonna do? Advance first into the city on foot several kilometers ahead of the tanks and attack fortified positions by themselves? Form a human chain 20 kilometers wide and scour the city and surrounding areas for ATGMs?
The only thing I can think of but is kinda vague is well trained fast communications and of course the classic combined arms. Although specifically one bit of practical info I picked up from the Germans which seems simple but I had no idea is they made use of small groups of recon units with fast vehicles who would make 'probing' attacks to reveal the enemy which then I imagine the germans would sit back and obliterate the position with artillery.
The important thing is to have infantry secure the flanks and act as eyes. MBT's are highly resistant to infantry ATGM's in the frontal profile.
Notice in all the "Saudi getting wrecked" videos you don't see infantry.
I read the memoires of Otto Carius and he stated that extensive training in tank warfare is key above all al else to achieve success.
When he was recalled to the western front to help defend Germany during the endgame he had his pick of the best tech that was left. He lamented how it all went to waste because there were no proficient tankers left.
Ah I see, I understand the concept but had a bit of trouble picturing how it would be done in detail in a practical scenario, specifically how the infantry would move and attack against fortified positions.
What I came up with is going back to the human chain idea but basically having groups of infantry advance in a line with tanks spaced out between them, and the infantry would advance slowly from cover to cover and when they encountered resistance the tank would come to them and blast them but crucially never advances past the infantry.
This seems like the WW1 doctrine so how would blitzkrieg go? 30 tanks just drive straight down the middle while artillery goes off around them and go crazy?
I was just about to post that great read.
What is so amazing about that article is the fact that it was written in 1999.
1999. Before 9/11. Before Afghanistan's invasion, before the Second Gulf War, before the current year.
Yet it is still relevant today, over 15 years later.
Here is a follow up by the same writer published in 2004.
People like machinegunning tanks. Also like shelling them with everything they've got - because they can see them a long way away. And the bullets hitting the tank bounce all around it
Tl;dr accompanying tank does not mean standing anywhere near it since a very long time
Jesus why does this keep getting posted. The propulsion and mechanism are completely different. Lockmart bought tech data and didn't even use it. What the fuck.
Saps like >>28860455 fall for it though.
Blitzkrieg attacks would involve tanks and mechanized infantry completely encircling the city and cutting it off from reinforcements and supply. Then the attackers just slowly move in and press into the city.
This, I watched a lecture on Germany's success against France in WW2 even though they pretty much only had panzer 1 and 2's which were shit, from what I could gather the most important thing was the training and the radios, all tanks had at least 1 and the commanders had minimum 2 with some people having 3 I think.
Imagine 50 tanks driving around all talking to each other, even just organizing simple shit like who's gonna drive out from behind cover first while one goes the other way for example and all talking to the commander about what they see who's then talking to higher up planners and possibly talking directly to artillery or infantry letting them know when to start laying down rounds and letting a small infantry group know when to assault while they cover.
50 arabs driving around on their own with a map and a general target to attack while popping off rounds at whatever they see.
abrams wasnt designed for desert warfare and had to be adapted to it.
it was designed to kill russian tanks in the area between moscow and brussels.
i bet it would work just fine.
Actually, the Islamic tradition of arranged marriage ensures inbreeding to close cousins. They're stunted intellectually.
That's why they can't produce anything. Factories, labs, all setup by Soviets or purchased from someone else.
That is a huge stretch, we may have had the training and skill but Abrams brought a lot of tech advantages that the T-72 didn't have.
No difference anon, unless it's moving at something like 600 to 700m/s it will still get intercepted. They pretty much engage the moment they detect incoming that threatens the tank.
Problem is they also shred infantry.
>Type 96 worse than Chonma-Ho, Al-Khalid, M84, T-84
No, I don't agree. Where's the K-2? Why is the Arjun at 10 and not 11? Merkava and LeClerc are too low, Challenger 2 is too high, this list is shit.
>I don't think speed is a factor with ATGMs other than they reach the target quicker.
yup. most RPG attacks that actually hit their target occur really close, like under 100m, sometimes as close as 50m, whilst typically a TOW would fire at targets 1-1.5km from it; close enough to minimize the launcher's visual sig from infantry and at the same time enough to detect a tank by unaided means. In terms of time until target the RPG is much quicker but then again APS have limited engagement ranges- 50m is what I remember for vanilla Arena which could sound bad for it coming up against TOW but afaik again its rated to intercept just under the hair of tank fired HEAT rounds, so <900m/s which is much faster than the TOW so it would still intercept it. The much newer Afghanit is stated to intercept terminal stage APFSDS so 1700m/s.
>You are now aware the effective range of Reflecks is about the same as the FCS on a western tank can accurately shoot an APFSDS.
False. Western tanks' laser rangefinders dont even give a reading beyond 4km, let alone 5km.
Not that anon but: the chickenshit commander bolted safely, and then shortly after the tank started moving while the ammunition continued to cook off so the driver was okay. No idea about the gunner or the loader though. (probably the same guy lmao)
I'm fairly certain the reason the russians can't do stealth (or vtol) is because they lack the avionics to fly the resulting aerodynamic hot mess. I've heard that flying anything with stealth faceting is a nightmare without computer assistance, and VTOL aint much better. And I think OP is living proof that russians can't into computers.
>nightmare without computer assistance
That's actually precisely why they couldn't implement those equations in 1980s and 1990s... they simply didn't have computers powerful enough to run all the simulations. But that's not the case anymore. There's a docu about Ufimtsev on YT and he explains it.
>but what is the 'correct' way or what would you do?
>just imagine you have a standard land force of arabs at your disposal.
Attract Armenian, Jewish, and Persian settlers to immigrate en masse like some kind of new-age Zionism. Create forces out of these immigrants.
Its actually a HEAT round, besides France no user of NATO 120mm has even had HE rounds until the last 5-10 years.
But that definitely is a HUGE factor. Many targets simply couldn't be hit if the missile wasn't fast enough. For example, someone moving perpendicular from the firer, moving from cover to cover. If the missile wasn't fast enough, there'd be no way to hit it.
Mutual support. These nations seem to forget that they aren't alone on the battlefield. You use tanks en masse, and combined arms along side them. A single tank by itself is far more vulnerable than two tanks together, which is more vulnerable than four tanks together. Then, you start adding in supporting elements. Infantry, IFVs, indirect fire assets. Now, you have eyes that cover the whole battlefield. A given tank is now very unlikely to get surrounded and cut off, now that there are people to watch its back. Further, all of these working in concert are more likely to see a threat before it shoots, and are more likely to kill it if it does, perhaps even before something is hit.
>I don't see any reason building a whole new tank
Abrams is an old ass tank
An engine that guzzles less fuel would be a huge effectiveness increase, the turrent weighs 20+ tons, that could be reduced.
I think this one size fits all MBT idea is nonsense, and that medium/heavy/super heavy/infantry support tanks should be produced. All on the same chassis of course.
>I think this one size fits all MBT idea is nonsense
Then you're retarded. There is no more need for anything other than light tanks. MBTs have the armor of a heavy tank, the mobility of a medium, and the armor to take any hits that could be given it. There is literally no reason to switch back to the old metric.
Look, right? The most modern MBTs have the ability to get shot in the front by literally anything and not be penetrated. If you get hit from the side or rear, sure, you'll get penetrated. That wouldn't change in any situation. The thing is, by proper employment you should never be hit in those areas.
The T-14 armata can penetrate the frontal armor of an abrams
>That wouldn't change in any situation.
Unless you produced an infantry support variant that was optimized vs ATGM's, and had heavy armor on the sides, less on the front.
It is to be expected that China has tanks that are outclassing American inferior tanks. Calling them equivalents should be wrong as Chinese tanks have no analogue anywhere in the world. And it is true it is hard to deny the fact of Chinese military superiority.
The 2A82 MIGHT, big might, be able to penetrate the Abrams now, but they're adding an armor package right about now.
>Unless you produced an infantry support variant that was optimized vs ATGM's, and had heavy armor on the sides, less on the front.
Nope. ATGMs are best dealt with via APS or ERA.
>The T-14 armata can penetrate the frontal armor of an abrams
You have nothing to back this up, just as I cannot claim an Abrams can penetrate the frontal hull armor of a T-14.
The 'lightly' armored turret of a T-14 is another matter.
AFAIK only Quick Kill and the one the Germans are working on are effective against APFSDS.
The EFP's used by Arena and Trophy on't have the mass to seriously degrade a penetrator. It definitely helps if it hits frontal armor, but a shot to sides might still penetrate. Modern sabots are all segmented to reduce the lateral shear of ERA.
All tanks of the future will want to use all 3 types of hard protection, APS, ERA, and composites. Using just one or two leaves your tank vulnerable.
>starting an amerilard b8 thread without the original tried and true old gold AIDF.webm
kids these days, no respect.