Well could they?

Probably, considering the Abrams platform is almost 40 years old

but can they beat a single us marein?

They already are even T72 mods.
Hell abrams can be destroyed by BMP-1

File: T-14 Armata.jpg (969KB, 2048x1362px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 2048x1362px

We'll probably never see them in action.

Unless Pootler send some to Assad.

>>74779183
>Hell abrams can be destroyed by BMP-1
???????????????????????????????????

most likly
all nato tanks are over 40 years old

T-90 tanks can go 300km/h and are able to shoot scalarweaponry.

They could take Washington in a day.

>>74779109

You're better off asking >>>/k/ about that.

>>74779526

>go to /k/
>Vatniks vs burgers argument
>thread derailed

You never been there i assume?

>>74779109
Wouldn't be surprised.

We've been due a new MBT for 20+ years at this point but they just keep slapping shit on the Abrams and calling it good.

>>74779526
into the trash it goes

>>74779424
ATGM in the turret gap, which is tiny af but it could still probably pop off the top if it manages to get in

Alternatively stuff the BMP with explosives and Eurobeat VIED the shit out of the Abrams

>>74779109
What are tanks good for these days anyway?

File: muss man wissen.jpg (79KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 400x400px

>>74779489

File: Challenger 2 tank.jpg (1MB, 3600x2346px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3600x2346px

>>74779673
>We've been due a new MBT for 20+ years

So have we, but I think they'll be extending the Challenger's life a bit further yet. It's still one of the best protected tanks in the world and has seen quite a bit of action.

>>74779768
>he doesn't want to blow shit up from a mile away
fucking leaf nigger

>>74779768
Nothing until the Army pulls its finger out and reforms doctrine

>>74779622

Don't go there very often but this thread hasn't exactly discussed much either.

>>74780206

I've seen some, all derailed by autism.

Probably. The Abrams tank platform is aging. Do they have enough of them to beat Abrams, Challengers, and Leopard tanks?

>>74779942
A shame it's maintainance is dogshit

>>74780548
>Does Russia have enough of [cool new thing they made]
The answer has always been no.

Xaxa ja pootin tank destroy 30+ burgertank cause pootinium, rt has confirmed it, all other sources are false.

That's basically it.

File: Britain protects Estonia35.jpg (122KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1200x630px

>>74781441
Dunno m8 but keep it down yeah, we've shipped loads off to Estonia to protect them.

>>74782216

We never seen in action tho.

>>74781571
Russia had more than enough AK47s

>>74779673
Aren't they scheduled to be in service till at least 2050?

>>74780548
The answer is always no. NATO has way more tanks than Russia does, which is understandable since Russia is just one country.