Why can't other countries make tanks as good as ours?

>>72818485

Have they seen combat?

Didn't turky and Yemin already loose a handful to rpg-7s and fagots?
seems only the chally has beat the true test of armour :^)

>>72818522
You and your fucking magic space ceramic bullshit

*cof russia cof cof*

File: 1485118922551.png (23KB, 499x550px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 499x550px

Why is Germany allowed to have an army while Japan isn't?

rheinmetall is making a 130mm for their new tank with france, it looks pretty good

M1 Abrams vs. T.90 vs. Leopard 2
Who wins?

>>72818612
Because Germany is a vital member for NATO, and because of East German they had to have an own army, Japan localization is not dangerous enough to they become allowed to have an army

>>72818648
Leopard 2 for sure

File: rawr.jpg (156KB, 1500x981px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1500x981px

>>72818612
The immediate post war was different. Japan had an unconditional surrender to the USA, while Germany was taken by the Bolsheviks. Germany would then be split and as soon as the Cold War arose, there was a clear need to have both Germanies be a strong military power to serve in either NATO or Warsaw Pact side if war breaks lose. So basically since Japan surrendered completely the US ordered the Japanese military to surrender and wrote article 7 to prevent Japan from becoming a warmonger again, and since Germany was divided in two, it would benefit the USA that West Germany had its on military (same applies to East Germany and the USSR). However, more recently, Japan has been investing more in its military than Germany.
>>72818648
2A7 and more recent versions are superior in many ways to both the M1A2 and T90S.

File: pz87140mm1ku.jpg (416KB, 800x695px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 800x695px

>>72818485
140mm fun when?

>>72818485
What's the point? You will never use them again

Please sell

>>72818761
I'm not trying to be rude, if it's for exports there are more profitable things

>>72818761
They are used in Afghanistan mate...

>>72818485
PAY DENBTS

File: just some innocent trees.jpg (282KB, 1023x614px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1023x614px

>>72818485
>implying

>>72818837
>19 trillion

File: IMG_2298.jpg (104KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1280x720px

>>72818485
Polaks make ones

File: maxresdefault.jpg (285KB, 1600x902px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1600x902px

>>72818485
I have some news buddy

>>72818890
>just a bunch of trees
Good bants

File: arjun_mk2.jpg (146KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 600x400px

>>72818485
We are trying

>>72818612
Because Germany is known for breaking every treaty they sign.

So why make them sign another one if they're going to break it anyway?

File: BtsLhJN.jpg (73KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x480px

fuck you

>>72818890

Why are you posting a pic of an empty spot?

>>72818522
There's no such thing as an invincible tank, especially with the advent of cheap and effective man-portable anti-tank systems.
Mitigating tank losses in low or medium intensity warfare environments is more about not being dumb with them and overestimating their capabilities. man portable systems have limitations, like any other weapon system, particularly in the matter of effective range. So long as one does the obvious and does not approach places where they're in that effective range, one is safe.
I mean, that sounds simple, but folks forget, just ask the russians and their dumb tank columns during the first chechen war.

File: Type10MBT.jpg (423KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1500x1000px

>>72819059
The Type 10 looks cool

>>72819188

Looks like a copycat but smaller version of the Leopard

File: 141112-13strv3-elov.jpg (377KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1920x1080px

>>72819188

>>72819267
To be fair all MBTs that aren't Russian British or American look like the Leopard.

File: turret.png (716KB, 1012x620px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 1012x620px

I like tanks with big turrets.
Tanks with small turrets in relation to the hull, such as the T-55 and the Merkava I look abhorrant.
Others like the Challenge 2 and Altay are better looking.
I hope one day tank design evolves into turrets as big and squary as the tank's hulls.

>>72819329
why would it tho
do large turrets offer any benefits whatsoever

>>72819329
Somebody didn't think their design the whole way through.
The rear of the turret can't clear the engine deck.

File: chrysler-TV-8.jpg (126KB, 1016x627px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1016x627px

>>72819354
You could theorically install a nuclear reactor in the turret, like the US tried in the Cold War.

File: photography_mark_iv_merkava_merkava_mark_iv_tank-11760.jpg (262KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1920x1200px

>>72819317
K2, Leclerc, and especially Merkava look different enough from the 2A4.

File: Stridsvagn_103_Revinge_2012-3_.jpg (3MB, 4000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x2400px

>>72819317

Not quite.

>>72819354
Crew space and comfort, more tech, ammo stowage, more armour

>>72818485

No need, they can't drive over water.

>>72819465

This one can drive over water >>72819440

File: K-9thunder.jpg (129KB, 1000x765px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1000x765px

>>72819329
Big turrets eh?

>>72819524

That's a SPG, pajeet... Not a tank.

File: owatta.jpg (237KB, 872x760px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 872x760px

>>72819440
>>72819488
What is the red thing for?
I see it a lot too on artillery.

>>72819547
transporting

shit's very heavy and can damage itself

>>72819572
doesn't make much sense but ok

>>72819410
why not just install it in the hull tho
>>72819461
>Crew space and comfort
Hull
>more tech
basically meaningless
>ammo stowage
valid somewhat
>more armour
we've reached about the limits of what "more armour" can provide for a tank. There's diminishing returns.

>>72818648
The one filled with guys who have gone to war in it.

>>72819583
If the barrel is without anything to support it then it will swing and deform during transport, which will negatively affect the accuracy of the gun.
Hold a piece of spaghetti from one end and swing it, now hold it closer to the middle and swing it. Do you notice the difference in how it bends?

>>72818485

That shit isn't even the best tank in Europe, let alone the world.

The Challenger 2 is overall the best tank in Europe.

>>72818737
>vital member
>doesn't even have 2% gdp military spending

>>72819541
I know, but you could also say its a tank with a very big range.

The Merkava IIIis unironically the best 3rd gen tank currently in production
But all things considered, it may also be the worst

File: Stridsvagn 122.jpg (382KB, 950x561px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 950x561px

>>72819636

Basically every country in Europe has the Leopard as their Main battle tank, though ours is somewhat modified.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_122

File: sentinel tank ac1.jpg (136KB, 1000x674px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1000x674px

This was the first and last tank we completely designed and manufactured, the Sentinel tank created in a rush in case nips tried to invade.

Tanks are irrelevant. Any future war between 1st and 2nd world countries will be fought with missles, planes and ships.

>>72819595
Because in the hull goes other things like engine, suspension, etc.
>>72819626
What I don't get about it is why would it swing in the first place... Each of those tanks costs millions of dollars and they're all high tech, and yet the turrets can't just stand still? Do the turrets just flap around in combat too? Like how when you start dancing naked and your dick starts flapping around? If the tank can move the turret/canon around freely, why can't it just stand still? I don't know if I'm expressing myself right, I hope you get what i mean.

>>72819759

Well we had a plane thread yesterday

>>72819759
That's very misinformed. Stop spouting nonsense. GO to /k/. They have discussion like this all the time. Tanks are centuries away from not being useful.

>>72819771
Because it's tons of steel and there's a lot of momentum involved

>>72819759
bait

>>72819787
Explain to me how in a war, say between usa and China how tanks can be used. Also I browse k

>>72819818
How would the US take land in China were it to invade?

>>72819842
We don't need to?

File: 1489557856117.jpg (118KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 768x1024px

@72819852

>>72819852
Invade that is.

>>72819818
Assuming it's a conventional war with no nukes

>Chinese and American fire tons of rockets/missiles
>China eventually gets blasted away
>We assume this is full blown total war of subjugation
>American troops land on Chinese mainland
>Infantry/artillery/tanks
And there you have it.

>>72819771
>Because in the hull goes other things like engine, suspension, etc.
and crew
>Each of those tanks costs millions of dollars and they're all high tech, and yet the turrets can't just stand still?
money cannot break the laws of physics
>Do the turrets just flap around in combat too?
Most tank crews, if they can help it, do not fire on the move.
>If the tank can move the turret/canon around freely, why can't it just stand still?
tanks generally have to move or be moved to battles.

>>72819852
Going by your logic, might as well completely disband the conventional military and make everything be nukes.

>>72819440
>Design your "MBTs" like a tank destroyer on crack
It's sexy but come on

>>72819881
Why would we risk massive casualties when we can just bomb infrastructure until they capitulate.

>>72818522
You could make the most advanced vehicle on earth and Turks and Arabs would still fuck it all up.

>>72819891

USA can't mass produce for a total war scenario, since almost all of it's consumer based factories are in China. If USA can make the people live without anything for awhile, then they are good to go.

>>72819904
Why would they capitulate if there is no guy with a gun around the corner to force them?

Just use your noggin dude.

The thing with China is we don't need tanks because America's most likely strategy for a war with the Chinese is wipe out enemy Navy and then blockade.

But a war with say, N. Korea would definitely require tanks. A war with Russia would require tanks. A war with the vast majority of this planet requires tanks.

>>72819930
If you want to be realistic, a war with China can't be fought without nukes in any way.
Beijing's police force alone has more men than the entire US Marine Corps.

>>72819904
because they might, y'know, not capitulate.

File: 1490139020053.jpg (131KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 800x400px

>>72819930
>USA can't mass produce for a total war scenario
>since almost all of it's consumer based factories are in China
>consumer factories
>in total war

>>72819953
So what, we can afford to wait in this scenario.

File: Stridsvagn_m42_Revinge_2012-2_.jpg (2MB, 3668x2498px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3668x2498px

>>72819894
Well that one together with this one was considered the "main tanks" before replaced by the Leopard.

>having tanks

>>72819981
but then again, so can they

File: 1490493071242.jpg (21KB, 292x315px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 292x315px

>>72819999
>Be Pole
>Grab RPG 7 from shed
>Get a motorcycle
>Put on a bulletproof vest
>Become the modern Hussar

>>72820002
Not when their countries in ruins from our massive bombing campaign.

File: 1489755236322.png (21KB, 593x521px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 593x521px

@72820020
Holy fucking shit this bait

>>72819984
It's the best interwar tank in terms of looks.

>>72819999

Nice quads

>>72820020
plenty of other countries have done so

>>72820000

File: 1484595936131.jpg (76KB, 1065x859px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1065x859px

>>72818485
The Churchill is obviously superior

>>72819709
>tfw you realize that tanks are just artillery on steroids

>>72818485
>>72818505
when will Finland field test these against Russia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Finnish_Army

>>72820531
tanks are mobile armored guns

also tank vs tank fights are rare, usually only in large battles

>>72818890

That's not a tank. It's a IFV with a bodykit. Neither did Poland design it.

File: 4mayrehearsal_28-M.jpg (86KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x400px

Who the fuck need tanks lmao

>>72819027
does it fire turds

>>>/k/

>>72819027
>Poo colored

>>72820742
>Its always german who speak about turd
not surprised

File: 5vuottaluolassa.jpg (9KB, 207x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 207x240px

>>72819440
I like how you use jerrycans as sidearmor

swedes you were so cool in the cold war era, what happened to you

File: 14849519842080.jpg (394KB, 1242x664px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1242x664px

>>72818485
nice meme kamerad

>>72818485
No tank is invincible. It is a good tank though.

>>72820839
no it's not, it had a hilariously miserable outing in syria

>>72818760
What the fug, that's swiss camouflage?

>>72818522
>loose

Kill yourself

>>72820854
It's miserable in syria because it's in the hands of the turks
even the finest weapons turn to dust with poor operators

>>72821509
>t-72 is a deathtrap
>What? [Western mbt name] is miserable? Its turks!!Untrained crew!!!!!

>>72820982
Good post
>>72819155
>In range
And how do you know you are in range?
You could be passing a town and there might be some infantry hiding inside
You could be passing over some hills and some infantry are hiding in a foxhole
What I'm saying is there is no real "proper way" to not loosing your tank
You will always loose armour that's just how war works
What I'm saying is that armor that is built to stand up to said threats are extremely useful even if they can still get rekt by at-6 or an rpg-29
>>72818760
>meme metal

File: _42648053_gtank_afp416.jpg (31KB, 416x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 416x300px

>>72818485

Please discount

>start Leopard
>threads break
>engine catches fire
>crew dies, tank explodes
>everything destroyed within 50 meters
>another success for German engineering

>>72818522
turks loose them because they used them in urban region, in combo with heavy anti-tank weapons it is a death penalty for every tank.

>>72821589
T-72 is not a deathtrap, it's certainly an aging design but it's an otherwise perfectly workable tank.

>>72821699
Yet the chally did the same thing and survived

File: leclerc-openphotonet_pict6015_0.jpg (110KB, 780x519px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 780x519px

Tell me about Leclerc, wht is it the /besttank/?

>>72821819
depens on the situation and where he was hit, from what i know the turk leopards got direct hit at the back. no tank can survive that.

>>72821903
*leopards
More than just one has been lost senpai

>>72821977
i know that

>>72821892
Have a soft spot for it desu
That auto loaded is butiful

>>72821995
So you are saying they are got hit in the bum?
Every single one?
Wow I'm amazed I truely believe that

File: [email protected] (71KB, 621x414px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 621x414px

>>72821892

This is the strongest

File: POL_PT91_Twardy.jpg (328KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1200x900px

>>72818485
Hide your toys, Hans.

>>72822042
they have lost 3 leopards you know, so yeah it is possibly

>>72822087
Huh can't beat that desu

>>72822088
Hide yo kids, hide yo wife
Hide yo kuran

>>72821616
>You could be passing a town and there might be some infantry hiding inside
The simple answer is don't pass a town with tanks.
>You could be passing over some hills and some infantry are hiding in a foxhole
The simple answer is don't pass those hills with tanks

I specified low to medium intensity warfare environments, between simple counterinsurgency and saddam era iraqi army. You know, conflicts we regularly engage in and probably will continue in the near future. We, the bigger stick of an asymmetrical conflict, more often than not get to choose where and when to fight than the opposing force, and can move more of and more varied materiel into any given area.
The advantage of a tank is that it's a big gun that moves itself and can take hits. That's extremely valuable in open terrain, there's a reason Poland is so stocked on tanks. However, in close quarters, like moving through a town or hills in close proximity to an opposing force, there are weapons that can do the same job without risking a million dollar investment to something worth a few thousand, and as the bigger stick one is at liberty to use such instead. That's why the Israeli's, when they decide to have a go at Gaza, prefer a simple infantry and air support combo with tanks in a support role, as opposed to using them up front on the streets. And that's not for lack of trying to modify the merkava to function better in close quarters, mind you.

File: em9ud2FyLnJ1L2ltYWdlcy9uZXdzNS9uZXdzLTg0N180LmpwZz9fX2lkPTkxMjk2.jpg (76KB, 710x451px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 710x451px

>Tanks are still releva-

>>72822276
aren't you lot supposed to be super stoked about the armata finally hitting the production line

>>72819478
kek

>>72822276
Rocket buggy is ready!

File: pt-91-920-10.jpg (279KB, 920x617px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 920x617px

>>72822088
Isn't the thing still a T-72 that is vulnerable to ammo explosion?

Tanks are actually totally obsolete in urban environment or any environment where enemy can easily hide at very close range.

>>72819735
Benis mg :DDDDDD

>>72818890
It's a swedish designed IFV with a custom made fancy bodykit

File: Challenger 2 in Alberta, Canada.jpg (2MB, 3000x1231px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1231px

>>72818505
No, unlike one of the real best tanks, the Challenger 2.

>>72827223
>120 mm rifled gun
>destroyed by 120 mm rifled gun

>>72818505

Yeah Turkish Leo's are getting BTFO'd in Syria.

>>72818612
Because Germany is was in danger of being invaded by the red army from 1945-1991 and Japan is an island

File: Challenger_2_main_battle_tank_on_Hohne_Ranges_Germany.jpg (2MB, 3600x2344px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2344px

>>72827688
>the only time a challenger 2 has been seriously damaged is when it was hit by another challenger 2

Not bad for the best protected tank in the world.

>>72827713
Because the poorly trained idiots are driving them in urban areas completely blind where an enemy fighter with an APILAS or similar can waltz right next to them and put a shell in the side at a 90 degree angle, or better yet through the roof or back.

Not a time to blame the tools.

>>72827688
only confirmed kill on a challenger by another challenger?
i think that's pretty good pham

>>72827819
its like you never learn
first the matilda now this
stupid bongs

File: Challenger_1MBT_Mk_3-5.jpg (2MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2000px

*blocks your path*

>>72827831
You think? Especially when chall.2 gun is one of the worst mbt guns today

>>72828076
>worst
>literally the most accurate gun on a tank ever
ok

>>72828114
>120 mm with shitty hesh
also
>accurate

>>72828114
Not the most accurate lecelrc has us on that senpai
>>72828076
What? How so? Because it's rifled?

>>72828545
>Small cal.
>Rifled
>Poor ammunition choise
>Shitty shells
>poor ballistics

File: Radpanzer_Pandur.jpg (3MB, 2810x1946px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2810x1946px

>>72818485
We make our own APC's iirc
Main battle tank is the Leopard though

File: Schützenpanzer_Ulan_SPz_3.jpg (1MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2848px

>>72828672

>>72828600
>poor ballistics
Proofs
>poor ammunition choice
How?
We use apdsfs and HESH
That's pretty standard apart from the HESH
>shitty shells
Proofs?
>poor ballistics
There is no data on ballistics you mupit
And a chally 1 with a shittyer gun (l11) got a kill at 5km

>>72828600
Oh yeah >small cal
Makes no fucking difference unless you are using HE-F or MPAT which we don't

>>72828804
>straight shot distance 1.5 km
>No HEAT
>Hesh is shit against t64 and higher gens
Kys, the only thing challenger can do decently is t55 killing

>>72828804
APFSDS needs to be stabilized when exiting a rifled barrel as a spinning rod is less accurate. You lose energy in the process. Same with HEAT. Only HESH gains anything from a rifled barrel, but HESH only has use against structures and light vehicles.

>shitty shells
You use two-piece ammo, limiting APFSDS rod length. Thus it's shitty, like in Russian autoloading tanks with two-piece ammo.

>>72818485

They'll soon be gifted to rufgees, anyways.

>>72818485
Leo 2 ain't a bad tank but it does have a bad weak spot on the lower hull in the hull ammo storage. All ammo should be stored in turret. This didn't matter as much when it was designed since they were always expected to engage from a hull-down position making the lower glacis invulnerable.

>>72819055
>Because Germany is known for breaking every treaty they sign.
We ewven broke the NATO treaty by not spending enough money

>>72828987
Both of those points are wrong senpai
APFSDS spins itself thus making rifleing redundant
2 piece ammo has no limitation on ammunition in fact it would mean in theory that the dart could be bigger as the shell wouldn't be as heavy since you are carrying it in 2 segments unlike that of the Abrams
The part about HESH is true but you forget it has a much better range than APFSDS

>>72828910
Why on earth would you use HEAT in a tank shell?
And HESH is fine for t-80s just not the B variants
Dunno what you are saying in your first point senpai

>>72829181
>APFSDS spins itself thus making rifleing redundant
What? APFSDS has stabilizing fins to prevent spin. Modern rounds designed for rifled barrels will have a separate spinning section and a stabilized interior, but those rounds cost more and still lose energy compared to an APFSDS round fired from a smoothbore barrel.
>2 piece ammo has no limitation on ammunition in fact it would mean in theory that the dart could be bigger as the shell wouldn't be as heavy since you are carrying it in 2 segments unlike that of the Abrams
It makes for a slower reload and the breech does not have unlimited size. The innovation of the "telescoping" rounds that the Ajax vehicles have could be used to solve this though.
>The part about HESH is true but you forget it has a much better range than APFSDS
You don't use APFSDS against non-tank targets as it's ineffective so they're not really comparable. HESH is like a weak HEAT round + HE.

File: IMG_2106.jpg (57KB, 298x326px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 298x326px

>>72829102

>>72829250
you're my favourite namefag on this board lad <3

>>72829277
>it makes for slow loading
That's bullshit senpai a core part of British tank doctrine is a "mad minute" where 10 shots are fired in a minute more than that of an Abrams can achieve
Also I could have sworn APFDS spins looking into it you are right and I see that it does effect range and accuracy
I still think HESH and our 2 piece ammo is much better especial considering a loader can have 1/2 the shell ready while the breach is closed unlike a full shell system

>>72829250
>Hesh is fine for t80
>Hesh is fine

>>72829522
HESH is neat but I don't think it's worth having a barrel that needs more replacements and has less energy on the rounds just for a specialty ammo. A tank's main job is still to kill other tanks and you want APFSDS or HEAT for that, thus why literally everyone else sticks to smoothbore.

File: IMG_1236.png (310KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 580x282px

>>72829534
HESH is fine
Stop bullying Ivan
Pls just let us be snowflakes ;-;

File: IMG_1237.jpg (2MB, 3024x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x3024px

>>72829534
Also Ivan do you have any idea what ABHE is?