Why is the Abrams so bad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1

Curry nigger take your 50 cents and go already

A tank is only as good as its crew. Thats why Saudi M1s are getting ruined in Yemen. Thats also why, even though the K2 panther, Leopard 2. Arjun or Altay may be superior tanks on paper, none of it means a shit because they are either crewed by countries with little to no experience in armored warfare, or poo-in-loo shitters who are shit at everything even when trained.

File: image.jpg (51KB, 400x320px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x320px

He just jelly. He hate U.S. because he ain't U.S.

Funny how ALL of America's shit gets BTFO by allegedly inferior equipment, isn't it?

F-35? Loses to a 45 year old fighter.
Brand new SSN? Loses to a decades old diesel electric.

Isn't it odd?

But this time, we lost to a brand new MBT.

There's only one solution... our drones will blot out the sun.

>tank comparison
>a bunch of facts

tired of this meme, why do faggots compare tanks all the time, just fucking join the army/muhreenz and be a tanker or shut the fuck up

Blacktail is still making videos?

Given that the Indians are buying T-90s instead, I suspect that they know something you don't.

Probably the operational readiness rates.

>>28384217
That and a healthy dose of no factchecking.

>>28384390
The readiness rate is due to supply issues with foreign made parts.

File: 1278909670029.jpg (152KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 500x375px

>>28384217
I did.

Also, you're posting in a bait thread.

>>28384437
>blaming the foreigners
>for your indigenous design failing

>>28384695
So you are just shitposting out of ignorance.

File: 541254.png (9KB, 271x288px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 271x288px

>>28384159

No Abram have been lost in Yemen, only APCs and M60s.

File: Themannis.jpg (119KB, 364x457px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 364x457px

>>28384033
>blacktail mcsparky spark

Anon I...

File: noitdoesnot.jpg (28KB, 600x356px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x356px

>>28384368
Blacktail will not stop until he has addressed literally every single piece of US equipment and how fucking horrible it must be compared to everything else ever.

>>28384726
there are videos of abrams lost or abandoned in yemen

Anyways this is a bait thread so make sure to sage!

File: 1308700783989.png (7KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 429x410px

>>28384033
>>28384217
>>28384368
>>28384694
>>28384729

Just so everyone in this thread knows if they aren't already tracking, Black Tail Defense isn't a source of information. Its an example of opinions are greater than facts in his series.

>Cheap and flimsy depleted uranium armor
>not worth mentioning
>I am an expert on design

typical BTD styled argument.

>>28384726
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=420_1450058181
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=068_1446166649
For your viewing pleasure, friend.

>>28384796
Is this b8?

Cuz those are M60 Pattons.

>>28384793
everyone knows this but eurocucks are desperate to show their memegun L55 and shitty leopard derivatives aren't shit

>>28384796
>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=420_1450058181
That's a T series tank.

>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=068_1446166649
The only think you see is the concussive blast envelop the outside.

Does anyone have videos of the Abrams being destroyed?

>>28384890
they usually don't worst I've ever seen was one where fire came out the bottom the assumption being the Saudi's were doing the retarded iraqi tactic of jamming the blast doors open and keeping ammo in the ready racks that americans never use. can't seem to find the video though.

>>28384890
There was a WEBM I saw a week ago. Its quite close, an Abrams sitting with its hatches open and a tarp draped over the aerials as a sunshade. A konkurs or something hits it in the side and the whole thing is aflame in seconds. One guy bails out just before a big pillar of flame starts gushing out the loaders hatch.
If someone has it and would post it, thatd be great.

File: What Mike Sparks actually believes2.jpg (291KB, 695x596px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 695x596px

>>28384033
>mike sparks

File: bait.jpg (12KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 255x255px

I like this thread.

>>28384203
>our

Fuck off Eurotrash, you're not fooling anyone

>>28384890
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0nDHV_mkiY
looks p dead to me

>>28384726
>No Abram have been lost in Yemen
I am pretty sure some Abrams' have gotten wrekt in Yemen by now(video is out there)
>only APCs and M60s.
You forgot the AMX 30s. There at least one video of an AMX 30 getting toasted by ATGM fire.

It doesn't suck but it can be improved. Moving the engine to the front so turretless versions can be used in place of APC's would be a good start.

File: 1396498271182.jpg (296KB, 2263x1500px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 2263x1500px

>>28384740
>Blacktail will not stop until he has addressed literally every single piece of US equipment and how fucking horrible it must be compared to everything else ever.
Is there a name for this behavior?

Like all the F-35 haters, or the people who argue X is obsolete because anti-X exists. Or those that keep arguing their emotionally gripping gun carrier(A-10, BBs, muh armored gunboats guy) is needed instead of all those boring missile carriers.

>>28385025
>Going the Namer route
Being able to cross bridges and be air-portable is far more important than raw survivability. Israel is a primarily defensive operation, what works for them wont necessarily work for everyone.

>>28385005
We should ask the crew how they are doing, since they are probably still alive.

>>28385025
Abrams-based APC/IFVs have been considered and rejected already. There are a few engineering vehicles based on it though. There's not that many of the USMC M1 ABV and the other more specialized engy variants(Army) are pretty rare.

>>28385076
>that conjecture
suit yourself desu

>>28384033
I only skimmed through it, but I'm pretty sure the Abrams has ERA and that the only offensive advantage that thing could have would be the ability to fire ARGMs from its gun. HESH is the only reason anyone still uses rifled barrels over the far superior smoothbore guns.

>>28384948
It was a Metis, and the flames were the blowout panels doing their job.

>>28385005
I think it's funny that every version of this video I've seen recently cuts out the part where, before the ammo cooks off and the blowout panels pop, the whole crew scuttles the tank.

It's the same situation in basically every single one of these videos where retarded sand monkeys that don't know how to tank get hit.

>>28385048
>people who argue X is obsolete because anti-X exists
>proceeds to imply X is obsolete

>>28385107
Except firing AGTMs from your gun is retarded and a waste of time and money. The Abrams actually has the capability to do it we just don't because it is worthless.

File: xm1111.jpg (18KB, 600x152px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x152px

>>28385107
India was dissatisfied with LAHAT missiles.

>>28385160
'we don't do it so it is shit' is a rather immature and ignorant statement, especially when we have developed guided rounds in the last decade

>>28385081
>Abrams-based APC/IFVs
There's literally almost no way you can make that work. The only space you have to work with is several cubic meters of where the turret basket resides and thats it.

>>28385123
I never noticed that. Sneaky bastards.

>>28385051
We should get a Namer. Then again right now I am mtoe'd inside a M113A3, anything is better.

>>28385216
An Abrams APC was a 'real' thing, its in an old Armor magazine issue.

>>28385201
>immature and ignorant
Except it's true.
American organization places Bradley's with TOW missiles in Tank formations for a reason. You get the capabilities of the infantry and missile support. To utilize barrel fired missiles would be a waste of the capabilities of the tank when all of their short comings are made up by their use of KE and the unit's attachments.

>>28385201
>is a rather immature and ignorant statement, especially when we have developed guided rounds in the last decade

The Army would rather pay 8000 dollars on a shell that can kill at the same ranges as your 80000 dollar shell can anyway. Its an exorbitantly over priced technology when what we got does basically the same thing.

>>28385248
You completely ignored the second part of my post.

Though I did like the implication that a tank only needs KE rounds, it reinforces the ignorant/immature thing.

>>28384033

>Using Mikey Sparks/Gavinbox as a source

>>28385265
I assume you are aware that M829A3 and A4 are far more expensive than $8k per cartridge.

>>28385280
I know we've developed great rounds like STAFF,X-Rod, TERM, and MRM and I explained to you why we don't use them. Good try though.

>>28385280
You completely ignored my post.

> I did like the implication that a tank only needs KE rounds
Non-retard here. That's not what he said, he said investing in ATGM ability for tanks is pointless, as far as American armor doctrine is concearned.

And yes the Abrams doesn't need ATGMs or smart shells beyond the MPAT.

And no KE rounds are not the only rounds in the tank.

File: USAF_M113_APC_at_Camp_Bucca,_Iraq.jpg (2MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3008x2000px

>>28384033

Wow, what a shit tank. If only we had built more of these and given them low profile turrets with 90mm guns.

>>28385316
>I explained to you why we don't use them

STAFF and X-Rod/TERM/MRM were cancelled due to budget cuts, not lack of ability.

>>28385317
>And yes the Abrams doesn't need ATGMs or smart shells beyond the MPAT.

So you can explain why the AMP is an actual smart shell, and not something with just an RF proximity fuse?

>>28385317
>You completely ignored my post.

You owned up to posting with two trips.

>>28385383
>Budget cuts.
They decided those roles (along with many other specialized and useless things from the Future Combat Systems) could be fulfilled without dumping massive amounts of something that does the same job. That's generally what happens to most of the things proposed.
If the Army really wanted them we could have had them. They where just much higher on the chopping block because they weren't really needed.

>>28385436
Yeah I am also TankSgt, cause I need to BTFO people on two accounts and not one.

>>28385383
>So you can explain why the AMP is an actual smart shell, and not something with just an RF proximity fuse?

Can you explain to me why its not in service in any tank in the US Military? Answer: Your jack of all trades munition can't out perform other shells we got.

>>28385521
I'm much better looking than you. There's no way we could be the same person.

The abrams tanks given to our "allies" are M1s. They don't have depleted uranium armor. And the armored door covering the ammo and blow out panels on the top of the tank should have prevented this kind of cook off. Unless the stupid sand monkeys left it open.

>>28385647
M1A1s actually, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have M1A2s.

It's true they don't get the same armor package or the same ammunition.

>>28385048
The billions spent on the EFV concept for the marines clearly shows armored gunboats are needed

>>28385051
You arent going to be building worthwhile tanks that are air portable.
It's also a flagrant waste of tax payer dollars to fly tanks around in c-17's.

>>28384033
RIDF pls leave

http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113a3.htm

> Appliqué armor kits that protect against 14.5-mm, 23-mm, and 30-mm rounds are offered by BAe, though none are fielded by the US military.
God forbid they demonstrate that a tracked vehicle can be better armored than their fancy all wheeled divisions

Maybe when the army starts making the AMPV they'll realize, hey we can just buy 100,000 of them and replace all our vehicles with em.

>>28386628
You have to explain why the army should buy armor kits for third line utility vehicles.

AMPVs are going to go to ABCTs.

>>28386658
First you tell me why they bought armor kits for thier humvees.

>>28385483
>They where just much higher on the chopping block because they weren't really needed.

Hey you do get it, "peace in our time" of the 90's and insurgents of the sandbox do not equate spending money on developing new types of anti-tank ammunition.

>>28386665
Humvees are actually meant for combat, unlike M113s.

>>28386682
So they have people going around getting killed in lighter vehicles, rather than applying the armor upgrades to existing M113's, and using them... makes sense to me.

>>28386697
By your logic anything less than a Namer is just having people going around getting killed.

>>28386722
Theres a world of difference between a humvee that'll be killed by RPG's or small cannon
And a light tank which would shrug off such hits.

>>28386767

>light tank
>shrugging off hits from RPGs and small cannons

>>28386828
just, shrugs, them, off

>>28384183
Underage detected

>>28387019
Dirty foreigner detected.

>>28386697
>>28386665
>>28386697
You missed the counterargument in the middle. Not every vehicle has the same role, the 113 doesn't fill any of the mission set the humvee does, so your analogy is bad, and you're missing the point. Same thing applies for the rest of the argument.

>>28385647

^^^

All the Abrams we export are bastard variants as this guy mentioned. The Russians have done the same with their armor for decades.

Companies don't like losing trade secrets, and armies especially.

File: m1_abrams_20_of_20.jpg (1MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2000px

M1A2 SEP confirmed cuck tank

>>28387225
You posted a picture of an M1A1.

File: 1361413998514.jpg (51KB, 505x449px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 505x449px

>>28387225
>M1a2 SEP
>No CITV

File: DSC08881.jpg (123KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 750x563px

>>28387473
APU is the biggest give away

>>28387495
But modern A1 variants like the M1A1(HC) and M1A1 AIM, have the same EAPU as the M1A2

The fact it has the M2HB on a Commander's Weapon Station shows that it's definitely an A1.

A2 has a simple pintle mount for the M2HB (or CROWS on the SEP v2)

>>28387552
As far as the Army is concerned they only have a VCSU in the bustle. So this isn't an A2, all I am getting at.

File: crap bait.png (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

>>28384033

>>28384033
What's /k/'s fascination with India lately?

>>28385265
>8k for a round
Jesus fuck. Why are they so expensive?

File: 1449409005725.png (231KB, 471x354px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 471x354px

>>28386682
>Humvees are actually meant for combat

>>28387633
Some curry peoples got butthurt over a naval officer exchange q&a where an American was posted on India's flagship. His report included lack of safety equipment, poor training, low readiness levels and a actual slaves living near the bilge. Toilets actually worked half the time, so that bullet was dodged.

>>28385160
I still don't understand claims that an e.g. 125mm HEAT warhead with a rocket motor on the back has greater penetration than a 125mm warhead without one.

Stuff like the AT-8, not top-attack munitions.

File: AIFV_07_zpsfa26b30a[1].jpg (92KB, 1024x809px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x809px

>>28385629
Egypt has yet to become a world power. If only they had gone with a 90mm gun.

>>28387633
There are actually a lot of Indians on the English-speaking Internet and their numbers are growing.

>>28386866
I don't think having a hole in the side counts as "shrugging it off," but that's just me.

>>28387662
High quality giant bullets ain't cheap...or maybe they are when I remember my DS telling us that claymore mines were about $3000 each or something like that.

File: Back deck A6.jpg (929KB, 1685x1264px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 1685x1264px

>>28384033
>Why is the Abrams so bad?
The engine.

Armor, gun and suspension are acceptable. Layout is mixed given the placement of main ammo stores in an unarmored area but acceptable.

The engine is smaller per unit of power but in turn uses more fuel creating an overall larger volume dedicated to engine/fuel. This also makes them more hungry for fuel that lowers the overall mission efficiency, and gives them a noticeably shorter range/maneuver time. They were considered to be quieter, but this is in comparison to the M60s that were unusually loud.

The proof of the mismatch engine is best show by the need for a more fuel efficient APU to power the tank when it's stopped and waiting, rather than being able to startup to charge it batteries.

It's performance isn't any better than any other 1500hp + tank on the market. Top speed is a function of suspension and the sensitivity of the transmission for steering, rather than a limit by engine power in most cases.

The export versions' conventional diesel engine is a superior power pack that should be the standard rather than variant.

The Leo 2 offers everything the Abrams does with a superior power pack. (pic related)

>>28385265
>The Army would rather pay 8000 dollars on a shell that can kill at the same ranges as your 80000 dollar shell can anyway. Its an exorbitantly over priced technology when what we got does basically the same thing.
unguided rounds are only accurate against moving targets at up to 3km at most.
You purport to be a tanker yet you don't know this...
>>28387662
>Jesus fuck. Why are they so expensive?
the sabot petals used are pretty novel technology. That and the usual DoD prices.

>>28387982
>I still don't understand claims that an e.g. 125mm HEAT warhead with a rocket motor on the back has greater penetration than a 125mm warhead without one.
>Stuff like the AT-8, not top-attack munitions.
9M119/M has tandem warheads and conventional HEAT rounds have lots of empty space in them that you could fill with solid rocket fuel and the small guidance electronics plus the tail fin assembly that you could replace with directional control surfaces and beam riding assembly.

>>28388110

So, basically, replace whatever armor the Leo 2A6 onwards uses with state-of-the-art Chobham derivative composite including depleted uranium and you've got the best tank in the world?

>>28388174
>So, basically, replace whatever armor the Leo 2A6 onwards uses with state-of-the-art Chobham derivative composite including depleted uranium and you've got the best tank in the world?
There is nothing that suggests the "state-of-the-art Chobham derivative composite including depleted uranium" armor as used by the very latest of Abrams is better than those used by the Leo 2A6.
>>28385025
>It doesn't suck but it can be improved. Moving the engine to the front so turretless versions can be used in place of APC's would be a good start.
The frontal hull armor arrangement doesn't really make a powerpack in the front Abrams workable. The powerpack would be much taller than the LFP so you would have to extend it further and thicken up the UFP that it converges into a beak a la T-15.

>>28387982
I never claimed it did.

>>28388110
>autism.
The Leo2 pack is bigger, louder and lacks the multi-fuel ability the turbine does.
The Abrams doesn't need an APU. In fact no SEP v2's even have APUs. They just put more batteries in them.
We have had the capability to put a Diesel in the Abrams for a long time but the trade offs don't really warrant it.

>>28388126
You do realize you will probabaly never see something over 3km away that you would have the opportunity to shoot at with an ATGM and if you did Combine Arms Battalions have the capabilities available to them to shoot it without sacrificing the effectiveness of the Tanks.

>>28388110
Nothing you listed makes the Abrams "bad" everything you listed is either negligibly different from the Challenger or Leopard. In some instances the Abrams has the upperhand, to include the Abrams enhanced lethality over either of the other two tanks. You are also wrong on several claims. Like the Diesel engine being quieter than the Turbine, which is false. Also the implication the Abrams can't work without being on, or that the Abrams is severally hampered by its fuel consumption, when it carries more fuel than other tanks. Or in general when you continue to repeat how diesel engines are better, when they aren't.

>>28388126
>are only accurate against moving targets at up to 3km at most
Which is also false, for starters its not hard to judge range as you press a button and it tells you. It will even calculate the lead for you. This isn't the 70s anymore.

>novel technology.
They are pretty disposable. I have some both in my room here in Korea, and at Ft Hood.

>>28388208
>There is nothing that suggests
Except Britain and America's sooner introduction of said Chobhom over Germany's retarded perforated armor concept. And later advancement of Britbong's Dorchester and America's Silicon Carbide advancements.
TLDR there's a lot of negligible differences between the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard, and nothing listed yet even remotely supports the Abrams being "bad". Inversely the Abrams one ups the latter tanks in several areas.

>>28388268
>Sabot Petals
Sabot petals also cost a fuckton and when you're like me and fill a duffel bag full of them and sell them cause they're aircraft grade aluminium you make a ton of monies.

>>28388268
>to include the Abrams enhanced lethality over either of the other two tanks
Except for the fact that the L2 has a better gun than the Abrams, if not the same gun.

And they've done enough tests to know that the ballistic capabilities of a DU round are only a little better than a Tungsten round.

>>28388268
Also...
>the Abrams doesn't have fuel consumption problems
>because it carries more fuel than other tanks
Yes, because it's a gas-guzzling whore.

>>28388317
>L2 has a better gun than the Abrams
The gun is only part of the weapon system. There are other parts like optics, ammo, ballistic computer, and all the parts that make up the Fire Control System.

To hopefully negate 20 shit posts, I'll just say it even though it has to be brought up in every thread, Germany uses the DM53 which is a softer tungsten penetrator then the Abrams' M829 Depleted Uranium one. Even if the Leopard has a longer gun its ammunition underpowers that of the former.

>>28384033
arjunk or abrahunk

>>28388322
Seeing how that doesn't change that the Abrams mission capability isn't limited by it your reply is still meaningless.

>>28388339
The L55 isn't just a longer gun, it fires shells that use a higher powder charge than the L44 used on the Abrams. The L55 is also capable of using the smaller L44 shells, as an added flexibility feature.

>>28388229
>You do realize you will probabaly never see something over 3km away that you would have the opportunity to shoot at with an ATGM and if you did Combine Arms Battalions have the capabilities available to them to shoot it without sacrificing the effectiveness of the Tanks.
Lots of flat expanses of terrain across the world that disagrees with you. And you do realize you are at a disadvantage if all you have to return extended range atgm fire are Bradleys which have armor not worth jack against such. Also its just an additional round- I dont see the tanks giving up any effectiveness when using it. Its not like these are the shit-tier Shillylag that needs a horribly compromised gun to launch from.
>>28388268
>Which is also false, for starters its not hard to judge range as you press a button and it tells you. It will even calculate the lead for you. This isn't the 70s anymore.
Travel time for the round to reach 3 km is 2 s. Against a target that has cooperative driver it would hit, but not so much against competent ones that change direction and speed every so often- esp. if he got an idea where likely fires will come.
>>28388268
>They are pretty disposable. I have some both in my room here in Korea, and at Ft Hood.
they are very expensive carbon composites but are unrecyclable AFAIK unlike metal alloys.
>>28388268
>Except Britain and America's sooner introduction of said Chobhom over Germany's retarded perforated armor concept.
wrong. Leo 2's main armor array is also a derivative of the original British Burlington armor
tthat gave rise to Chobham and Dorchester. the NERA beak wasn't added until much later into the 2A5.

>>28388356
It fires the same ammunition.

>>28388356
Literally the only difference between the 44 and 55 is barrel length. There were zero changes made to the chamber or breach. Why are you making up bullshit?

>>28388110
>Layout is mixed given the placement of main ammo stores in an unarmored area but acceptable.

It's in a better armored location than the Leo2.

>>28388356
>The L55 isn't just a longer gun, it fires shells that use a higher powder charge than the L44 used on the Abrams. The L55 is also capable of using the smaller L44 shells, as an added flexibility feature.
false. it uses the same exact rounds as the L/44 can shoot.
>>28388339
>Germany uses the DM53 which is a softer tungsten penetrator then the Abrams' M829 Depleted Uranium one. Even if the Leopard has a longer gun its ammunition underpowers that of the former.
I dont even...
>>28388355
>Seeing how that doesn't change that the Abrams mission capability isn't limited by it your reply is still meaningless.
The additional fuel consumption necessitates a lot more fuel trucks to deliver fuel or lesser number of tanks would operate with the same fuel supply.

>>28388364
>Flat earth means I can shoot things.
That's basically all wrong. I don't think you understand how ATGMs work. Most of the engagements done by ATGMs are done sub 4000 meters in order for it to actually be guided on with any accuracy. Which makes it a rather moot point.

A good example is the Russian barrel fired ATGMs. In order for them to shoot they need to get a good lase from their LRF which limits itself to 5550 meters and at that range cannot maintain a ballistic solution for lead. So while it is feasible to shoot something 8k away, it's not reliable.

Now mind you the Abrams is Capable of firing these rounds still and has been tested shooting them, but in what situation would it be face where it would actually need them?

>>28388410
>That's basically all wrong. I don't think you understand how ATGMs work. Most of the engagements done by ATGMs are done sub 4000 meters in order for it to actually be guided on with any accuracy. Which makes it a rather moot point.
wrong. most engagements dont reach that far because most targets are seen sub 4 km. nothing to do with accuracy.
>>28388410
>A good example is the Russian barrel fired ATGMs. In order for them to shoot they need to get a good lase from their LRF which limits itself to 5550 meters and at that range cannot maintain a ballistic solution for lead. So while it is feasible to shoot something 8k away, it's not reliable.
[confirmed for not knowing what he's talking about]
GLATGMs dont need "lead"- they constantly update their position relative to the target as they travel to it. the missiles are guided by a 4 "color" laser from the missile guidance box that contains commands which the receiver at the butt end of the missile recieves. The limit of 5 km range is all kinematics.

>>28388356
> a higher powder charge
You mean the stick propellant is in the M829 is more powerful than that of the DM53. FTFY.
>The L55 is also capable of using the smaller L44 shells
And the shells for America's M256 are 100% compatible with the L44/55, and German rounds can be fired out of the M256. You brought up literally nothing I didn't already know. But not only is the 829 more powerful its heavier, giving it less of a bleedoff of velocity at long ranges.

>>28388364
>Lots of flat expanses of terrain across the world that disagrees with you.
Desert storm disagrees with you. Its almost like the US tested its doctrine and totally BTFO the enemy using it. On Totally flat terrain as well.

> change direction and speed every so often
you're not changing your speed and direction every 2 seconds, on any battlefield ever. This isn't World of Tanks.
>competent
A competent drives will hold the formation he's in, regardless of what you brought up. The only "evasive" driving that means anything in doctrine, is for taking indirect, or when receiving ATGM fire.

> very expensive carbon composites but are unrecyclable
They are still pretty disposable

.>main armor array is also a derivative
Which came later. And still incorporates its spaced armor technique as well.

>>28388394
>I dont even...
If you ain't first you're last. The DM53 is a good round but not the best by more than a small margin.

>a lot more fuel trucks
Don't overstate the issue at hand. And a 5000 gallon tanker of JP8 can keep a company of Abrams fueled for at least a couple days. If the fuel was transported in small quantities your argument would be relevant.

In Desert storm it started becoming an issue, as there were so many tanks. But in Desert Storm II: Electric Boogaloo it wasn't as they didn't throw the entirety of the armored force into the fight. They applied it more tactically. And they steam rolled everything in front of them.

>>28388472
>You mean the stick propellant is in the M829 is more powerful than that of the DM53. FTFY.
BS. the Germans use some of the latest propellants around for their own rounds. In fact they transferred tech to Americans so that the uber powerful propellants they use don't eat up the barrel like a fat kid on churros.
>Desert storm disagrees with you. Its almost like the US tested its doctrine and totally BTFO the enemy using it. On Totally flat terrain as well.
The Iranians did WWI style of warfare against the Iraqis and managed a stalemate...
>A competent drives will hold the formation he's in, regardless of what you brought up. The only "evasive" driving that means anything in doctrine, is for taking indirect, or when receiving ATGM fire.
You only change your speed and direction as frequently as you could when you are caught out in the open and direct fires are incoming... preferably you dash from cover to cover.
>Don't overstate the issue at hand. And a 5000 gallon tanker of JP8 can keep a company of Abrams fueled for at least a couple days. If the fuel was transported in small quantities your argument would be relevant.
and the same tanker could keep a company of Leos fueled for a couple days more.

>>28388553
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/atk-signs-strategic-agreement-with-rheinmetall-nitrochemie-for-advanced-propellant-technologies-62078617.html

>Posting Mike Sparks
>Thinking he knows shit about anything

File: Saudi M60 ATGM hit border-regions, catastrophic internal explosion.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>28384796
>>28384890
>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=420_1450058181

It's a M-60

>>28388466
Literally zero mention of "lead" in the part you're responding to.

Do not make straw men to argue against.

>>28388579
>Literally zero mention of "lead" in the part you're responding to.
>>28388410
>In order for them to shoot they need to get a good lase from their LRF which limits itself to 5550 meters and at that range cannot maintain a ballistic solution for lead.
lookup the meaning of the word literally then come back to me.

File: M60 M60A1 turret.jpg (112KB, 672x784px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 672x784px

>>28388575

>>28388466
You googling how ATGMs work doesn't really help you. from launch they generate a ballistic solution the laser as you said determines where it as to go in relation to that, this is the lead. Without the initial solution there would be no source for the tracking.

>>28388557
The DM53 doesn't use that propellant yet though. In fact I don't think their newer replacement rounds do either.

>>28388553
>Germans use some of the latest propellants
Because America isn't allowed to be better right? Ok then explain to me why the M829A3 out performs the DM53, since your so fixated that its better. This isn't new news, its been known for a while. In fact, the M829A2 was on par with it, but the A2 was a rushed round meant to defeat Russia's Kontac-5, Germany made a bigger gun, America made a better round. The A3 is a "propper" improvement to the M829 series of ammunition, and is in the realm of 25% better than its predecessor. When people want to say the Leopard II is more lethal than the Abrams I have to laugh at that. Cause that's a fallacy.

>>28388643
meant for >>28388553

>>28388622
From what I've read its (DM63?) not even a capabilities increase its meant to allow a more even burn through different temperature ranges, and thats all it delivers on.

>>28388622
>You googling how ATGMs work doesn't really help you. from launch they generate a ballistic solution the laser as you said determines where it as to go in relation to that, this is the lead. Without the initial solution there would be no source for the tracking.
again, stop digging your hole. the guidance channel just needs a clear LOS to the target to issue commands to the missile to stay on course.
>The DM53 doesn't use that propellant yet though. In fact I don't think their newer replacement rounds do either.
its called the DM63.

>>28384033
Because that turd of a Star Wars movie he directed.

>>28388661
>a clear LOS
Which becomes less clear with more range.

>>28388472
>Desert storm disagrees with you. Its almost like the US tested its doctrine and totally BTFO the enemy using it. On Totally flat terrain as well.
>Thinks the Iraqi's had T-72's with the ability to fire barrel launched ATGM.

>>28388696
>thinks Saddam had no ATGMs at all

>>28388661
Yes, I know that and you know that. Do you know Why do ground targeting systems even have an LRF? Because you clearly don't.

>>28388657
>>28388661
The DM63 doesn't you the same propellant as the DM53. It uses a Temperature-independent propellant powder that is still not as good as RPD-380 stick from an M829A3. The New propellant that Reinmetal is giving ATK is a SCDB that TACOM keeps trying to block because it's cheaper to continue to use Stick propellants

>>28388663
TRAITOR

File: 1436234379408.jpg (84KB, 716x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 716x600px

>>28384033
>blacktail
Aaaaand discarded, you should go

>>28388553
>In fact they transferred tech to Americans so that the uber powerful propellants they use don't eat up the barrel like a fat kid on churros.

It's that Greek anon who pulled this load of bullshit.

poo

File: tmp_2050-Lakota-Helicopter-Lakota-Dancer-742755422.jpg (59KB, 576x276px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 576x276px

>>28385048
as someone whose spent a fair amount of time in a veritable hive of autists, it's autism.

>>28388643

M829A3 is depleted uranium, DM63 is tungsten. Simple as that.

>>28385364

>Nig-rigging claymores to APCs

Neat

>>28390785
They should have done that in Ferguson

in

>>28385048
>Is there a name for this behavior?

Autism.

the

>>28388268
>or that the Abrams is severally hampered by its fuel consumption, when it carries more fuel than other tanks.
What is mile per gallon?

The only plus a M1A2 has over the Leopard 2A6 is that the US army uses DU munitions. Wich they can fire form an 2A6 as well as the canon is almost identical to that of an M1A2.
Although when you would shoot it from an 2A6 the velocity would be higher because it uses the L55 barrel instead of the L44 as the M1A2 has.

So the 2A6 has the ability to be more lethal.
Saying an Abrams is more lethal because the country who uses the the most (USA) uses DU is a fallacy. There are lots of countries using Abrams not using DU.

loo

>>28392287
The only plus the Leopard 2A6 has over the M1A2 is a more fuel efficient engine.

>>28393031
>ergo: +100km's more of operational range
And the L55

>>28393265

Stop shilling the L55 meme gun.

File: 1446074567824.jpg (123KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 960x720px

>>28388268
>Nothing you listed makes the Abrams "bad" everything you listed is either negligibly different from the Challenger or Leopard. In some instances the Abrams has the upperhand, to include the Abrams enhanced lethality over either of the other two tanks. You are also wrong on several claims. Like the Diesel engine being quieter than the Turbine, which is false. Also the implication the Abrams can't work without being on, or that the Abrams is severally hampered by its fuel consumption, when it carries more fuel than other tanks. Or in general when you continue to repeat how diesel engines are better, when they aren't.

You fail at reading comprehension.

The loudness difference between the turbine and conventional diesel is there and the diesel is louder, But not that much louder, unlike the M60 which was replaced which was unusually loud for a tank engine. That's how the meme of the Abrams being quite started.

The Leo2A6+ is more lethal than any Abrams version due to it's longer and more powerful gun.

I never said the engine needed to be on for the vehicle to operate. I said it needed an APU to charge implying the turbine wastes too much fuel.

The Abrams combat range is 140km+ shorter than a L2, and it carries more fuel; lose lose.

The weak point is the engine. It's a bad match for the platform, offering no offsetting advantages.

>>28384033
This thread: Spergs arguing vigorously over which tank they will never drive - let alone touch - would win in a hypothetical battle that will never happen on a Bulgarian bottle cap collection forum on new years day.

When you look at your life, do you see one that is worth living? Do you see the kind of life that you can look back on with pride, at the art and glory, and say to yourself, "Wow! What I wouldn't give to do that again!". Put a gun in your mouth and pull the fucking trigger.

File: 4871.jpg (77KB, 735x501px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 735x501px

>>28394096

>The Leo2A6+ is more lethal than any Abrams version due to it's longer and more powerful gun.

None of the projectiles used by any of the Leopard 2's operators use depleted uranium.

>>28393265
The actual operational range is similar, and the L/55 is only an advantage if you use tungsten APFSDS.

>>28388229
>The Leo2 pack is bigger, louder and lacks the multi-fuel ability the turbine does.
The L2 has a multi fuel engine. It's engine is larger which I stated. However, the overall size when including fuel is slightly smaller. The L2 has less fuel but longer range and endurance because it has a better engine.

The size difference of pack to pack (engine + transmission) is less useful than the total internal volume of the engine compartment.

>>28394146
Here is your reply.

>>28394096
>But not that much louder,

confirmed for never having been in joint ops

>The Leo2A6+ is more lethal than any Abrams version due to it's longer and more powerful gun.

Demonstrably wrong, ammunition is what matters more than an extra ton of barrel.

>>28394096
>The loudness difference between the turbine and conventional diesel is there and the diesel is louder, But not that much louder, unlike the M60 which was replaced which was unusually loud for a tank engine. That's how the meme of the Abrams being quite started.

https://youtu.be/Jocn_kqvZsI?t=3m45s

And this isn't getting into high vs low pitch travel distance.

>>28388339
>Germany uses the DM53
Germany uses the DM63C.

And tungsten carbide is harder than DU.
2500 vs 2600 on the Vickers scale.

>>28393975
>Stop shilling the L55 meme gun.
It extends the killing range for tank on tank combat from 1000m to 1500m.

>>28394280
BTFO
T
F
O

File: 1448857050346756.jpg (323KB, 784x1209px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 784x1209px

Look kids it's this thread again.

>>28394280
What the fuck. Is the Abrams electric now

>>28394150
>None of the projectiles used by any of the Leopard 2's operators use depleted uranium.
You are right they use tungsten carbide, and with the extra 1.3m of barrel length throw it much harder.

>>28394179
>The actual operational range is similar, and the L/55 is only an advantage if you use tungsten APFSDS.
Any KE weapon will be more effective if fired from a more powerful gun.

>>28394385
Neither of those numbers are correct.

File: 1436292120-depleted-uranium-vs-tungsten-penetrators-impact-velocity-and-penetration.jpg (97KB, 602x507px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 602x507px

>>28394451
>Any KE weapon will be more effective if fired from a more powerful gun.

Not true. Composition is the primary factor. Notably DU perrforms significantly better at lower velocities/longer ranges than WHA.

>>28394451
>Any KE weapon will be more effective if fired from a more powerful gun.

That is not an absolute, different materials behave differently at different speeds, that is why M829A3 from an L/44 outperforms a DM63 from a L/55.

>>28394280
Oh look microphone tech doesn't pick up different pitches of sound the same. The lower pitch (closer) to human speech levels sounds are picked up better by a microphone system designed for recording human speech. Shocking.

What you hear from a tank when not behind it in the direct line of propagation of exhaust noise is the squeak of track. You will hear the track before you hear the engine unless you have a good reflective surface behind the tank, like a wall or rock face.

The actual difference between the two is negligible, and any good tank is working with support of other armored and motorized vehicles as part of a combined arms effort if on the move. So now we need to account for the 'advantage' of the Abrams slightly quieter engine in the context that you are only as quiet as the loudest thing you move with.

>>28394466
They are correct for sabot rounds head on, that are the mainstay of the tank on tank killing power.

File: get out of here.png (54KB, 212x248px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 212x248px

>>28394519
>being this mad that you have to bullshit this hard.

Just let it go.

>>28394498
>That is not an absolute, different materials behave differently at different speeds, that is why M829A3 from an L/44 outperforms a DM63 from a L/55.

And would a M829A3 perform better or worse if fired from a L55? That the actual question.

>>28394531
They are numbers you pulled out of your ass.

File: Old King Tut.gif (1MB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 207x207px

>>28384033
>A manual gearbox gives it points for better mobility.

>>28394555
M829A3 is optimized for L/44, just as DM53 is.

DM53A1 and DM63 are optimized for L/55.

>>28394591
>Maybe if keep claiming that Germany has great ammo and guns maybe it will be better
That doesn't make it better, Germany caught up to what we been doing for a decade already. The M256 and M829A3 is the most lethal setup to ever be put into a tank. The kicker is, the A4 version of the APFSDS is expected to begin service as soon as this year, with a 25% increase on performance over the A3. Step up your game germany.

>>28394885
Who are you quoting?

>>28394441
It's called a gas turbine engine. Soldiers have been calling the Abrams the "Whispering Death" ever since it first saw service in the Cold War.

>>28387982

Umm, the deal with gun-launched ATGMs is you can accurately hit targets at 5 km, beyond the gun engagement range of your enemy.

>>28384159

This.

People think the Tiger was an amazing tank, it really wasn't that amazing other than the gun, it's highly trained crews are what made it legendary.

>>28394542
Anon isn't necessarily wrong about the tracks though, they are fairly loud.

File: 1450943002222.jpg (141KB, 1357x1599px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1357x1599px

>>28394146

>>28395366
>you can accurately hit targets at 5 km
You can fire rounds that far, that doesn't mean you're going to hit anything. Even with a full broadside stationary shot, the chances of you missing at that range is likely. With anything in a turret down position its basically certain.

> beyond the gun engagement range of your enemy.
And in the 20 minutes you're riding your rocket in you're also presenting yourself as a target. Considering how KE projectiles fly significantly faster that's not something you want to play with. Also the Abrams LRF will return ranges beyond 5000 meters, just so you're tracking.