Whats the best tank and why is it the Leopard 2A7

That's a shy Leopard 2 tank.

>>30967031
Loving that multispectral camo.
Does the Leo still not have any APS on it?

File: 2a7_2.jpg (743KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 1600x1066px

>>30967031
At least post an actual 2A7 and not a demonstrator.

>waiting for M1A3 to come out so I can sperg all over it
JUST FUCKING MAKE IT ALREADY

>>30967064
It's got smoke launchers, and that's it. I don't get why more countries aren't getting the Trophy APS system.

>>30967265
It doesn't work

>>30967265
Because APS doesn't work on a battlefield with several friendly tanks and IFVs around you.

File: 0_10267c_1f362b47_XXL.jpg (218KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1024x683px

ANNIHILATING

>>30967329
uh

>>30967031
>Requires a doctorate in mechanical engineering to drive it
>Best tank

Nah

>>30967329
But it does.

Tanks are redundant. A single missile is enough to knock it out.

>>30967401
It doesn't really.

The not working FoE detection is the reason we aren't seeing APS in a large scale.

>>30967414
ATGMs are redundant. A single infantryman can kill the team and destroy the launcher.

>>30967463
Infantries are redundant. A single nuke can kill them all.

>>30967443
What is Gaza 2014 then?

>>30967483
Nukes are redundant, time and the elements can destroy the silo.

>>30967485
Time and elements are redundant. A massive black hole with enough gravitational force can destroy and distort them.

>>30967489
Massive black holes are redundant. The universe as we know it will eventually collapse in on itself.

>>30967484
You mean the fact that tanks and infantry aren't capable of operating together anymore?

>>30967505
I fucked your mom.

>>30967510
What thell makes you think that

File: 1462489994100.jpg (60KB, 704x476px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 704x476px

>>30967510
>infantry needs to stand next to tanks for it to be combined operations
Mechanized infantry has APCs for that.

File: main_battle_tank_t_90am_by_psycho102-d7finft.jpg (98KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x522px

>>30967414

Yeah but they look cool

>passive armor so effective against HEAT that no anti-tank missiles can penetrate modern tank armor.
>we need an expensive, accident-sensitive and own infantry killing active active protection system!

>>30967581
The joke about the Trophy system is that it doesn't even have 360 coverage so the back and top are still potential weakpoints.

>>30967581
top attack will still kill you
most top attack missiles dont use dive profile so aps is fine against them

>>30967594
You don't know that. Now you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

>>30967643
This is correct though.

>>30967740
Prove it then.

>>30967394
Why do you say that?

>Becouse it's true = not an acceptable answer

>>30967311
Yes it does, you arab.
>>30967505
The universe is redundant, when we could all accept the love, from our lord and saviour, Jesus Christ, who saved us from death and gave us eternal life.

>>30967581
>Almost 100% effective

Arabs being jealous and butthurt again.
Success indeed breeds jealousy.
>>30967763
>>30967740
>>30967643
>>30967631
>Implying Israel haters could actually provide proper information.

>>30967031
if leopard 2A7 is the best tank then how come no major military power is using it? honest question

>>30967064
>Does the Leo still not have any APS on it?

It had that for several years, AMAP-ADS.

>>30967031
Because it's not a fat monster like the Abrams.

File: Challenger 2 Kosovo.jpg (2MB, 3600x2384px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2384px

>>30967031
This is now a sexy tank picture posting thread.

I am going to join in first with my bong tank folder.

>>30967924
In the same sense that the US 'has' Quick Kill. They have the system, they haven't deployed it in any way.

>>30967031
I know that vehicles are seen as female but is Germany so cucked that it's tanks need to wear burqas just to be seen in public?

2010-2014:
>Trophy doesn't work

2014:
>Israel proceeds to use tanks with Trophy in combined arms effort with infantry in a highly urban environment with (so far) 100% success rate, bot against RPG's and ATGM's.

Current year +1
>It doesn't work, I don't need evidence to back up whatever I say lalalalala

the sad state of what's supposed to be a military forum.

>>30967379
i have seen a lot of people saying this tank is the best

>>30967257

Dat autoloader

I'm wondering if any augments to hull/turret shape and armor will be presented.

>>30967299
Git out joo

what is that bulge in the middle of a tanks main gun?

>>30967214
just no

>>30969568
A knot

>>30969568
Shoulder thing that goes up

>>30967031
>tfw the Germans didn't move into Ukraine in 2014 so Leopard 2s will never see action against the Russians
>tfw we're never going to see a good old fashioned European ground war again, are we?

>>30969630
Leopards driving over some Erdogan supporters isn't good enough for you?

>>30969630

I don't think we will ever see a proper big conventional war again. The advent of drones has changed everything.

>>30969568

Fume extractor, to make sure the crew doesn't choke on propellant gasses.

File: Leopard+2+A5.jpg (280KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1680x1050px

>>30969568
Fume extractor

>>30967551
What do those red things do? Sensors or something?

>>30969694
I kind of figure that once we get small enough pin point lasers (think field gun size) air power and drones will take a big step back do their natural fragility. It doesn't take a lot to kersplode most of them since their fuel is super reactive and hidden behind very thin skins.

>>30969852

They're a part of the Shtora-1 soft-kill APS. They're a pair of 'dazzlers' that basically make the missile being guided towards it go 'derp'

>>30967414
Nimitz -class aircraft carriers are redundant, a single nuke-tipped torpedo can sink it

File: 1466275113979.jpg (666KB, 2400x1594px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 2400x1594px

>>30968995
>cherrypicking one out of 32 unique ID's

File: 1448926050198.webm (2MB, 451x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 451x360px

>>30969852
>>30970297
SACLOS missiles typically have an IR lamp on the rear so that the launcher unit can track the missile. IR dazzlers try to trick the launcher unit into thinking they are the missile, leading to the launcher unit trying to steer the dazzlers sending the missile off course.

The countermeasure is having the IR lamp strobe in a pattern controlled by the launcher unit so it knows what to look for.

>>30967329
Replace tanks and AFVs with infantry and you might have a point.

>>30969593
how come? the kikes have a beast tank, with that Aps in 2014 none was damaged beyond repair or destroyed

>>30970297
>>30971455
That looks pretty neat
Thanks!

>>30969955
>advent of lasers
>the return of Cold War-era combined arms
>rifles have now gone full Spess Muhreen
>MBTs and APCs now 60% more Orkky with thick insulative armor and high-output engines for the addition weight
>planes either follow suit or continue down their current path of higher tech + lighter & stealthier materials
>due to shifting balances of power worldwide, get to witness laser vs slugthrower, speed vs strength, and tech vs skill
>/tg/ and /k/ have a simultaneous 18-month-long orgasm at the sheer spectacle
I need this.

File: 300px-Leopardo_2E._zaragoza_1.jpg (19KB, 300x216px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x216px

>>30967031
Spanish Leopard 2E best Leopard version. Prove wrong fags.

>>30967299
>>30967311
Yeah no, I have no doubt it performs well against a t-72M (when its a mark 3) but against any 3rd generation American European MBT be a different story I imagine

File: Bolo_Mark_XXXIII.png (438KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 800x600px

>>30969955
>we BOLO now
can we get hell-bores too?

File: Leo2_PSO_front.jpg (737KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 2048x1536px

why dont more tanks have a dozer blade like the PSO version of the leotard? i think it would be great to have on every 3'rd tank or so, just if it becomes useful at some point

>>30967299
Isolate your ammo from the crew compartment and we'll talk

>>30969955
The laws of optics say that lasers will forever be stuck in short-range applications

>>30967031
Here we see a tank abiding the sharia rule

File: 11462429634_942a518678_b.jpg (563KB, 1024x642px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1024x642px

>>30973246

>>30971455
>The countermeasure is having the IR lamp strobe in a pattern controlled by the launcher unit so it knows what to look for.

SACLOS missiles have been doing this for a long time (since the original TOW missiles, IIRC). Shtora (and systems like it) still work against this.
You counter Shtora-style countermeasures by using beam-riding missiles, like the Kornet. In that situation the sensor is in the rear of the missile, looking back at the launcher's laser.
At the moment, there is no soft-kill method against beam riders, other than making the operator miss by deploying smoke, or detecting the launch and returning fire.

It's something that's puzzled me quite a lot, why we haven't developed smaller, lighter, beam-riding ATGMs to replace our TOW missiles?
The TOW is absolutely gigantic,it's heavy and bulky compared to the much smaller Kornet.
I know the Javelin exists, but it doesn't quite fit the same role as a SACLOS system. As I see it, Javelins are more for enhancing a unit's AT capability, without having to be a full-fledged ATGM unit.

>>30967324
I think the multi piece ammo and obsession with a rifled gun and HESH rounds is stupid but they make the best looking tank.

>>30975195
>multi piece ammo

It actually allows them to load faster than standard ammunition, since they can lap load and the bag charge is very light.
The projectiles are stored freely in the turret (if you take a hit bad enough to set off modern HE rounds, you're long dead).
Bag charges are stored in a wet storage, armoured bin, as propellant fire is the biggest threat to the crew.

You're right about the gun and HESH though, they're outdated holdovers from the Cold War era.
Modern fin-stabilised, programmable ammunition would be better.

>>30974857
>have on every third tank
>increase costs for rarely used piece of equipment
>rarely use it
OR
>have plows in stock
>"Recon says X leg of patrol route is blocked."
>"Ok."
>equip plow, use, put back in storage until needed again
Also:
>O NOES, WE NEED PLOW BUT DON'T HAVE PLOW RIGHT NOW
>attach object and tow/push through/roll over because it's a fucking tank

>>30967505
Not before the Heat Death.

>>30975131
>It's something that's puzzled me quite a lot, why we haven't developed smaller, lighter, beam-riding ATGMs to replace our TOW missiles?

Because the TOW's niche is being big; not being SACLOS. That is what makes it cheap with a powerful warhead.

The modern update to SACLOS is IIR, as seen on the Javelin.

>>30975451
ya know, there is an awful lot of debris in warfare, clearing roads of debris for other vehicles would be rather useful. it would also save the cost of having some engineering vehicles, saving costs on making and transporting them

File: 1442685186194.gif (3MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x180px

>>30968995
How new are you?

The rhetoric here is that if the US is not using it, it's bad.

In 10 years when they adopt trophy watch the americucks laud it as their latest superweapon

File: image.jpg (110KB, 750x672px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 750x672px

>>30967031
I mean if you're looking for a final solution to the armor problem it might be for you.

>>30975131
Jav's (and SRAW) are advanced as fuck to give an infantry platoon/company a fighting chance against a tank platoon. It's also why we are seeing higher caliber non-guided reloadables being taken seriously again by the army, like Carl G

TOW's don't need to be, they can stay SACLOS - it's a heavy ATGM, it's short lived light infantry dismounted role was phased out decades ago with Dragon, plus back before Dragon infantry units had access to MCLOS and lighter ENTAC systems. TOW is used in the defense, and on vehicles.

Also the Kornet isn't that small - it too is a heavy ATGM, Russia keeps building lighter and smaller long range heavy ATGM's because they want to retain that anti tank capability independent of their IFV's, while NATO forces lean towards smaller and shorter ranged but more advanced and expensive platoon level ATGM's like Jav, Spike, Eryx, etc

>>30976896
Wait- like for reals? they don't have A/C?
Say goodbye to your electronics after hours of use then unless its winter...
>>30975636
>Because the TOW's niche is being big; not being SACLOS.
nigga TOW is SACLOS: you just point the crosshair where you want the missile to connect and the guidance system takes care of issuing corrections to the missile, the S- semiautomoatic in SACLOS.
>>30975294
>It actually allows them to load faster than standard ammunition, since they can lap load and the bag charge is very light.
If you are using an AL, multi-part rounds can be as fast or faster than unitary ones being shoved in, not the opposite. Also lap loading is fucking retarded as hell; in case of penetration you have a bagged charge sitting exposed to hot sparks from the penetration effects. That shit catches any of that its boom time.
>>30975131
>It's something that's puzzled me quite a lot, why we haven't developed smaller, lighter, beam-riding ATGMs to replace our TOW missiles?
You made 650,000 TOW missiles. Gotta eat up a huge fraction of those before you get to order again.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 526x788px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 526x788px

>>30969852
>>30970297

>>30975131
>SACLOS missiles have been doing this for a long time (since the original TOW missiles, IIRC). Shtora (and systems like it) still work against this.

No, they haven't. And no, Shtora doesn't work on newer missiles.

>You counter Shtora-style countermeasures by using beam-riding missiles, like the Kornet.

The .webm was a beam riding missile.

>In that situation the sensor is in the rear of the missile, looking back at the launcher's laser.
>At the moment, there is no soft-kill method against beam riders, other than making the operator miss by deploying smoke, or detecting the launch and returning fire.

Beam riders still need a method to track their own missile. And beam riders also alert anything with a laser warning receiver.

>It's something that's puzzled me quite a lot, why we haven't developed smaller, lighter, beam-riding ATGMs to replace our TOW missiles?

Because HEAT warhead penetration is heavily influenced by its diameter, missiles like Kornet and TOW are 152mm whereas Javelins are 127mm.

>The TOW is absolutely gigantic,it's heavy and bulky compared to the much smaller Kornet.

Kornet and TOW missiles are nearly identical in size.

>>30976101
Still pushing that myth you need to validate your victim complex?

The new Worst Korea tank. It has fire control radar.

>>30978382
Only Challengers use a gun with bagged charges.

File: uprising explains woman.jpg (1MB, 1478x6221px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1478x6221px

If i where to create/design a tank, what should i know about? What are it's most important parts?

>>30978774
Crew comfort

>>30978774
Mobility. I can just bypass enemy strongpoints and fuck their rear. With no supplies a modern army grinds to a halt quickly.

>>30976896
>look I made an image of my bullshit claims! That will easily increase the "has a point" factor!

>>30968978
>brits used rifled barrel specifically to keep firing HESH
>the only tiime Chally 2 was killed by another tank was in FF incident when other Chally's HESH fucked it up

Like pottery.

>>30978785
>no a/c
>crew comfort

File: female privilege.png (529KB, 765x990px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 765x990px

>>30978785
>>30978994

So, a limo?

>>30967581
Shitposting again, are we?

File: FCcndAgpWk-2.png (6KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x250px

>>30968995
>/k/
>military forum

>>30979184
Point out what is wrong

>>30978382

I think he meant that the inert projectile is lap loaded; the loader can do this while he waits for the blast door to retract for the bag charge, time which the loader on an Abrams is using to literally just sit there jacking off for a second, and then the bag charge itself is also lighter and faster/easier to load.

ok guys, new/k/ommer here, i got a question about t-72 vs leopard2

i know leopard cannon have longer range, so leo have big advantage if they were to face off, but is it true that direct hit from a t-72 with its tungsten rod ammo will still penetrate any more modern tank like leo2 or abrams?

>>30979719
No.

The autoloader of the T-72 tank limites the max penetrator length, which means that the T-72 has no change of penetrating the frontal armor of any modern NATO tank anymore.

>>30979749
i heard stories that one abrams got knocked out by saddam's t-72 which got covered up and presented to the media as "friendly fire", and even many more abrams during the first gulf war.

>>30979719
>i know leopard cannon have longer range, so leo have big advantage if they were to face off, but is it true that direct hit from a t-72 with its tungsten rod ammo will still penetrate any more modern tank like leo2 or abrams?
T-72s actually hold the advantage in long range(>2km) duels simply because the GLATGM is pretty much an assured hit, and a HEAT round of such calibre packs enough explosive punch to basically damage something necessary for optimum operation of the tank like the sights, the commander(NATO doctrine is open hatch), the tracks, etc.
Regarding APFSDS sure, latest Russian ammo available for the T-72/90 could pen. Leo 2A4s which are the most common model even from the front, especially the DU ones. It only gets iffy with the Leo 2A5 that introduced the NERA as well as updated armor package: for those you need the projectile cassette to be lengthened or better yet switch to a Burlak/obj.640 style turret bustle AL that would then free you to use the monster Vacuum-1/2 rounds for the T-14, but that would necessitate a switch to the nwer 2A82 gun as well.
tl;dr: Leo 2A4s: it could pen, but later models you would have to invest in an overall firepower suite upgrade- and since the Russians have pretty much placed most of their chips on the T-14 we'd likely not see it done.

>>30979793
>since the Russians have pretty much placed most of their chips on the T-14 we'd likely not see it done.
they should though, they have massive amount of t-72 in storage, and the armatas are not yet combat proven

>>30979790
Sure, you heard such stories.

>>30979816
Russia is not the Soviet Union. They can't afford to update their legacy tank park to close near parity levels whilst procuring next gen tanks. Look to China instead: those guys are standardizing on their own high-tier T-72 model equivalent, the Type-96B. Since it would be the backbone of their armored force it would likely recieve the necessary firepower upgrades I've outlined above than the T-72 in Russian service.

File: image.jpg (55KB, 740x414px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 740x414px

Tanks are literally usless in modern warfare and cost our military an arm and a leg only to get blown up by a single person with a rpg or mine. There is plenty of better alternatives today but because of people like you in this pathetic thread they have been forced to keep them around so guys can live out their sad fantasy and play commander during times of war. War isn't a joke and peoples are risking their lives for our freedom and if the tank is outdated and the money can be used towards things and supplies that can actually make a difference I'm all for it. Tanks are a joke and so is this thread.

>>30979852
>infantry are outdated because bullets will kill them

>>30979857
You're an idiot.

>>30979870
>is the one claiming armor is outdated

File: image.jpg (136KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1280x720px

>>30979880
Okay listen. I realize I might have hurt your feeling so ill explain. I don't think tanks should be destroyed and banished forever or anything. If old men or the government want to collect tanks and use them for reenactment battles of have them in museums I'm fine with that as they are quite a sight to see but using these machines in modern warfare is not only stupid financially but it's stupid in general. The people in the tank are in more danger than ever before in history and there is simply no need for it. I realize you think tanks are cool and you have your tank commander fantasies but it's just not sustainable anymore.

>>30979909
>there exist countermeasures, therefore are outdated
>APS exists, therefore ATGMs are literally useless in modern warfare

I have little emotional attachment to armor.

>>30967265
Because the Leopard 2 is not intended to ever see combat.

>>30979913
You do realize how pathetic you sound right? You know that's not the same thing. I honestly feel bad for you.

>>30979931
>smug anime posting until no counterargument

Bye.

>>30979944
Some dedication you have. It's probably because you know I'm right.

>>30979793
>T-72s actually hold the advantage in long range(>2km) duels simply because the GLATGM is pretty much an assured hit

`What? are you retarded? It's a SACLOS missile that has got to have painted target throughout the whole flight; the smoke launcher alone is enough to defeat it.

Also Leos are compatible with LAHAT.
T72 are worse in almost all aspects:
-worse armor
-worse sensor package (big factor)
-worse gun
-worse ammo storage design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBUmFq7RLPY

Why isn't the US fielding any boss SPAAGs?
Would be pretty useful against drones these days.

>>30978721
>Beam riders still need a method to track their own missile. And beam riders also alert anything with a laser warning receiver.

I don't think they do. The missile will try to stay in the center of the beam. It knows the direction to apply corrective commands to, based on the way the laser illuminates its sensor.

>>30979790
lucky hit?

File: Challenger_Main_Battle_Tank_with_Improved_Armour_MOD_45149015.jpg (2MB, 1966x1276px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1966x1276px

All other tanks are cunts.

>>30979966
hey look guys some nerd just got memed on lel

>>30967483
Nukes are redundant. A single Brit can shut down the atoms.

>>30980038
>`What? are you retarded? It's a SACLOS missile that has got to have painted target throughout the whole flight; the smoke launcher alone is enough to defeat it.
Except laser beam riders are impossible to detect from the guidance laser alone; since the laser receiver sits at the butt end of the missile staring back at the launch platform the laser can be made orders of magnitude weaker than what can be detected by any and I mean any laser warning receiver. (The sensitivity needed means even diffracted rays from lasers pointed 100m away from the tank would trigger it.)
You would need dedicated radar or optical sensors to detect the GLATGM.
>>30980038
>Also Leos are compatible with LAHAT.
LAHAT guidance is different; the guidance receiver is at front end so it means the laser has to be bounced off the target itself, which means insta-detection from LWRs.

>-worse armor
Debatable. Simple ERA update is enough to render it competitive against latest NATO rounds.

>-worse gun
agreed. But its not like teh Russians can't do something about it.

>-worse ammo storage design
Only if the T-72 crew utilizes the loose stowage, otherwise the hull ammo AL is pretty hard to hit being literally on the hull floor of the vehicle where its unlikeliest to be hit. In comparison the Leopard 2's hull ammo sits behind the glacis that afaik isnt' upgraded, so its very much a viable target that can kill the tank.
>-worse sensor package (big factor)
Depends on which model. The Tank biathlon T-72B3M is pretty much up there with the latest Leo 2 models- it actually has HK in multichannel sensors.

>>30980193
dear god, that pollacks posts in /sg/ really immortalized now eh?

>>30980113
>rifling

>>30980080
>I don't think they do. The missile will try to stay in the center of the beam. It knows the direction to apply corrective commands to, based on the way the laser illuminates its sensor.
This. Take a look at this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUJSaeE3EKY
Basically teh laser beam is divided into 4 "colors"(well they are not really colors since they are invisible to teh naked eye but you get the point); each color corresponds to a quadrant. The missile will want to veer its course so that all the four colors are seen at the same time; if only sees yellow that means the missile has to shift down and to the right, and so on. It(as in teh guidance laser system) doesn't need to know where the missile is- its simplex comms.

>dat T-72fag

>>30978382
>nigga TOW is SACLOS: you just point the crosshair where you want the missile to connect and the guidance system takes care of issuing corrections to the missile, the S- semiautomoatic in SACLOS.

No shit. I'm saying that being cheap and big is why the TOW is still around; not SACLOS. SACLOS is a shitty substitute for IIR that's still used on the TOW because it's cheaper for blowing up hadjis and mud huts than putting QWIP IIR on every missile like a Javelin.

SACLOS alerts laser warning receivers, which tend to "jam" the missile by spewing 7.62 and main gun ammunition all over the stationary guidance unit and its operators.

IIR, by contrast, counters IR jammers with the simple technique of a rotating notch filter.

>>30979909

How are they in danger so much? More than ever before they can see threats coming and deal with them. The awareness a tank crew has has increased incredibly. A tank can outrun infantry threats, and can see and shoot dead any armored threat that's not a tank. Tanks are only seriously threatened by air power and city fighting.

On the offensive side a tank has a fully stabilised cannon, far larger than any other direct fire weapon in most arsenals.

It's often said that a tank is a combination of mobility, firepower and protection. The first two are undeniably effective. Some countries develloped tanks with poor armor, believing that HEAT would make armor useless. Every manufacturer of tanks today believes this was wrong, and every country I know except the Netherlands thinks you're wrong. Even the Netherlands has wisened up to the fact that tanks are good, after we sold them all.

File: image.jpg (79KB, 497x503px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 497x503px

>>30978518

>>30980330

SALH and LBR alert laser warning receivers, since they shoot out a beam to guide the missile. SACLOS doesn't radiate anything, so it doesn't warn the target unless they see the missile itself.

BTW Beam-riding does have a pretty big disadvantage. Beam riding platforms are notoriously hard to stabilize, and if the launch platform is moving at a high angular velocity to the target, the missile can fall off the beam.

This is why the US uses SALH on their missiles instead of laser beam riding.

File: Strv 103 traverse elevation and entrenchment.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

S-tank is best tank.

>>30980515
>Cored end to end by an APFSDS from a T-72

File: strv 103 hull down.jpg (71KB, 500x328px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x328px

>>30980557
Try it, ryssjävel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw

>>30980228
>Except laser beam riders are impossible to detect from the guidance laser alone

If the guidance laser can be picked up by the missile it can be picked by by a warning reciever.

>>30980080
>>30980287
And yet we have a webm of a beam rider being diverted in a test of Shtora on a BMP-3 in Russia.

File: merkava destroyed 1.jpg (154KB, 970x797px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 970x797px

>>30971628
wew

File: 1024px-VT1-2_Bild3.jpg (114KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x768px

>>30980431
what does /k/ have against chechens??

a friend of mine is from russia (and hes a guy you dont wanna fuck with) and he says: chechens are causing only trouble and are really dangerous people. because of his experience, but was is the problem of this board with those people?

>>30967882
jew pls go

>>30980764
an arab will always post outdate shit ,
in the pic it's a mk1, not mk4 with aps
>>30980781
again cant face the facts.

File: 1470162250721.jpg (37KB, 321x333px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 321x333px

>>30967031
Why is leopard wearing blanket is leopard cold

>>30979039
>3 branches stuck onto tank
>you see vladimir you cant see it now lets go rest and eat

>>30980734
Its actually of a Konkurs test.
http://ftp.kurganmash.ru/public/createmovie.php?titlebrouser=Shtora-1+Protection+system+against+high-precision+weapons&title=Misleading+of+ATGM+guidance&uri=machines/bmp3u/protection/shtora&file=shtora_optic.html
>>30980727
>If the guidance laser can be picked up by the missile it can be picked by by a warning reciever.
Except they don't, since in practice the sensitivity required for such a task means the tank gets easily triggered by errant laser beams from external sources or even the tank's own rangefinder.

>>30980862
The guidance laser doesn't just dissapear past the missile, if the laser is strong enough for the missile to recieve it then the target will also be illuminated, and a warning reciever would pick it up.

>>30980862
>konkurs
>spiral flight

http://youtu.be/zopwVY9L6mA

>>30980926
Do you not understand how coherent light works?

>>30981028
I don't think you do if you are arguing the beam simply dissappears after a distance.

>>30980968
The Webm missile has strobes or flares at the butt end. Beam riders don't have em.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVC23xifhd8
>>30980926
The sensor at the back of the missile is made to be much more sensitive to laser radiation than any LWR simply because they aren't exposed to other sources of radiation apart from the laser guidance channel in their short flight time.
>>30981028
The laser beam is much, much larger than the missile, otherwise it won't catch it in the first place.

File: Das-ist-Deutschlands-Panzer-Zukunft-1200x800-3c0b7f15f27f0254.jpg (283KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1200x800px

>>30980228
>Except laser beam riders are impossible to detect from the guidance laser alone; since the laser receiver sits at the butt end of the missile staring back at the launch platform the laser can be made orders of magnitude weaker than what can be detected by any and I mean any laser warning receiver. (The sensitivity needed means even diffracted rays from lasers pointed 100m away from the tank would trigger it.)
>You would need dedicated radar or optical sensors to detect the GLATGM.


What class in elementary did you drop out of?

>LAHAT guidance is different; the guidance receiver is at front end so it means the laser has to be bounced off the target itself, which means insta-detection from LWRs.

Strawman. I've only mentioned LAHAT due to the supposed range advantage a T-72 would have with its missile compared to a Leo2.

>agreed. But its not like teh Russians can't do something about it.

Holy shit, maybe Germany will cover its tanks in unobtainium, doesn't matter *right now*

>Only if the T-72 crew utilizes the loose stowage, otherwise the hull ammo AL is pretty hard to hit being literally on the hull floor of the vehicle where its unlikeliest to be hit. In comparison the Leopard 2's hull ammo sits behind the glacis that afaik isnt' upgraded, so its very much a viable target that can kill the tank.

The autoloader proved time and again to be the Achilles heel, whereas the Leos 2 hull ammo storage is in addition (behind the thick frontal armor) to the turret armor that has a blow-off shield.

>Depends on which model. The Tank biathlon T-72B3M is pretty much up there with the latest Leo 2 models- it actually has HK in multichannel sensors.

The targeting computer seems to be the original judging from some of the performances we've seen.
The 72B3M is so snowflake rare, it's about as viable as a comparison as the prototype from Rheinmetall (pic related)

>>30981238
>The sensor at the back of the missile is made to be much more sensitive to laser radiation than any LWR simply because they aren't exposed to other sources of radiation apart from the laser guidance channel in their short flight time.

Dude, it's a camera sensor, literally. If the missle sensor, sitting next to the rocket enginen can see the laser, so can a laser warnin receiver.

>hey aren't exposed to other sources of radiation apart from the laser guidance channel in their short flight time.

What sort of radiation? Do you think radio somehow interferes with light?

>>30981238
>The sensor at the back of the missile is made to be much more sensitive to laser radiation than any LWR simply because they aren't exposed to other sources of radiation apart from the laser guidance channel in their short flight time

Do you have any measure of the sensitivity of the sensor on the missile and a given LWR?

>>30981282

>whereas the Leos 2 hull ammo storage is in addition (behind the thick frontal armor) to the turret armor that has a blow-off shield.

It is still hull ammo thou, and doesn't have blowoff. A round that hits the hull from the side still has a good chance to hit the ammo stowage and blow the turret off the tank.

To my knowledge, only Abrams, Leclerc, K1, and K2 does entirely bustle storage.

File: 14kk6OX.jpg (108KB, 1006x758px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1006x758px

>>30981443
IM explosives do make it safer, although that might not comfort a crew when the propellant cooks off.

File: k1ammo3.jpg (121KB, 608x1080px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 608x1080px

>>30981443
The K1 has no ammunition in its bustle by the way.

This is in front of the loaders position, to the left of the gun.

File: leopard2A6ammo.jpg (333KB, 800x1732px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 800x1732px

>>30981282
>What class in elementary did you drop out of?
Someone's triggered 8)

>Strawman. I've only mentioned LAHAT due to the supposed range advantage a T-72 would have with its missile compared to a Leo2.
But you also mentioned something about T-72 GLATGMs being susceptible to smoke, which it isn't when you can't detect the launch btw. Who's strawmanning now?

>Holy shit, maybe Germany will cover its tanks in unobtainium, doesn't matter *right now*
They are welcome to do so. The Russians have unicorn horn APFSDS ammo just in case...
>The autoloader proved time and again to be the Achilles heel
LOL. Its only at least likely area to be hit on a tank apart from the wheels on an already short tank. Plus it has an inch thick steel cover on top acting as a false floor so hot metal particulates and sparks won't ignite the propellant stored under anytime soon.
>blow-off shield.
No it doesn't. And even worse as I've said the armor in the glacis is significantly weaker than the turret which has the NERA.

>The targeting computer seems to be the original judging from some of the performances we've seen.
They aren't allowed to use automatic FCS in the biathlon afaik, otherwise there is the nifty lock-on the T-72B3s could have used for firing on the move which would have made things a lot easier.

>The 72B3M is so snowflake rare, it's about as viable as a comparison as the prototype from Rheinmetall (pic related)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-72b4.htm

File: k1ammo1.jpg (118KB, 608x1080px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 608x1080px

>>30981563
And this is what the driver gets to look at.

And yes I meant K1A1, although the K1 stores its 105mm ammunition in the same locations.

>>30981352
>Dude, it's a camera sensor, literally. If the missle sensor, sitting next to the rocket enginen can see the laser, so can a laser warnin receiver.
The rocket exhausts are at the middle of the missile, only the main warhead and the receiver section are at the back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k_wHDleXio
And its not a camera. It doesn't capture images, it just senses the different wavelengths of IR(I think) laser beam(the 4 colored quadrants).
>What sort of radiation? Do you think radio somehow interferes with light?
You know what I meant.
>>30981370
I don't have system schematics, no.

>>30981577
>nifty lock-on the T-72B3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9uM3yKqKWg

>>30981728
I didn't ask for schematics, I asked for numbers to back up your claim that a LWR cannot pick up the guide laser.

>>30981776
Which I also don't have. This shit's OPSEC if you mind. Still doesn't take a genius to realize what I've just outlined above.

>>30981776
Wait. Source just responded. The guidance doesn't collimate the missile with the target until the last moment before it hits. And yes I concede that point.

>>30967174
junk tank

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (32KB, 600x374px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x374px

>>30967031
This is embarassing, but can I ask you what are the new things in modern tanks? What are all these sensors and shits?
I get stuck in WWII tanks, and now I'm outdated. Are new tanks totally different or are they just "upgraded" versions?

File: 1469819618940.jpg (22KB, 480x712px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x712px

> mfw there are people out there that honestly the MBT is obsolete in modern war

Technically speaking the UK makes the best tanks and we always have.

Germany is probably second, and the Yanks are maybe third.

>>30974857
>Makes the tank heavier, especially towards the front.
>Extra costs for no real reason
In every tank troop (normally 4 or so tanks), one of them will be carrying a dozer/mine rollers anyways.

>>30982916
They're bigger, heavier, faster, more reliable, they have much more effective armour made out of different materials, they fire different ammunition etc. The sensors are periscopes/cameras for the crew inside. Thermal cameras included. And laser rangefinders. And advanced ballistic computers.

>>30983050
>>extra cost for no reason

>>30983106
You only need one tank to plow a trail through an obstacle like a minefield. Anything else (forests, buildings, smaller AT ditches can be navigated as is.

>>30983140
then why do bulldozers exsit

>>30983190
For construction when the threat of being killed isn't imminent?

>>30983204
not construction, clearing the way for other tanks when in combat in a city etc as there WILL be debris in the way

>>30967031
The best tank is any modern MBT with the best crew.

Period, end of story.

>>30983263
Except tanks can already do this by themselves, let alone with a dozer attachment on one of the callsigns.

>>30983273
wrong

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (48KB, 900x545px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 900x545px

>>30983094
Thank you anon! I was reading about the new IR lamps to divert enemy non-laser guided missiles too. Are there more defensive dispositives like that?

>>30983050
>tank troop (normally 4 or so tanks)
Commonwealth go away REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>30979067
Source?

>>30983354
Tanks work on a first shot kill method these days. Crew skill is definitely the biggest factor on tank v tank battles.

>>30983378
:^))))

>>30983354
It's absolutely right. Put an Abrams, Challenger 2, Leclerc, a Type 10, a K2, etc up against each other and the one with the best crew wins 99% of the time.

>>30982876
cool

>>30983390
>Crew skill is definitely the biggest factor
dead wrong

>>30983393
it's childishly wrong, like something some cowadooty player would spout

>>30983406
Here's your (You).

File: rachel-corrie-caterpillar-i2063.jpg (35KB, 500x362px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x362px

>>30983204
>when the threat of being killed isn't imminent?
Tell that to the Israelis. And don't other western forces field armored dozers?

>>30983406
Listen you illiterate nigger, you're saying something that has been proven wrong for decades on end through actual, observable results.

Only a complete and utter fucking cunt of a child would think that, among modern MBTs of the same generation, crew skill isn't the most important factor.

>>30983418
as long as you stop posting nonsense

>>30983423
see
>>30983282

>>30983354
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

>>30983426
>you're saying something that has been proven wrong for decades
show me one objective study

i'll wait

>>30983446
Every notable ground war in the past 40 years.

>>30983426
Crew skill isn't the most important factor. Where are you even getting that, xxxSepirothxxx?

>>30983457
>logical fallacy
2/10

when you want to be serious i'll be monitoring the thread

>>30983446
Cite one study showing that a rookie/inexperienced crew in any modern MBT consistently beating an experienced crew in any other modern MBT.

I'll wait.

>>30983479
You haven't provided a single piece of evidence whatsoever to support your plainly outlandish claims.

>>30983480
>cite anecdotal nonsense

because...?

>>30983497
i didn't make the plainly outlandish claims, i've been pointing that they are wrong. try to keep up.

>>30983446
The Yom Kippur War. Israelis severely outnumbered and both sides had tanks of the same vintage and yet the Israeli tanks fared far better and suffered far fewer losses than the tanks of the Arab nations.

>>30983509
>>30983479
> whining about logical fallacy
> hasn't supported his own argument in any way, shape, or form

Either cite something or kill yourself. Either way.

>>30983510
how were most tanks in that war lost?

>>30981577
>No it doesn't. And even worse as I've said the armor in the glacis is significantly weaker than the turret which has the NERA.


You misunderstood me, the turret storage has blow-off shields. Not the hull.
The argument behind the hull storage having no blow off is, that if a round penetrates that far, the crew is dead this way or another.
I agree though that the abrams solution is much better.

>LOL. Its only at least likely area to be hit on a tank apart from the wheels on an already short tank. Plus it has an inch thick steel cover on top acting as a false floor so hot metal particulates and sparks won't ignite the propellant stored under anytime soon.

So that's why every 2nd picture of a t-72 features the turret being thrown off...

>>30983522
so you can't actually cite your claim, you can only get mad at it being pointed out that you're wrong and you need to back your assertion up?

classy.

>>30983509
You haven't explained why they are wrong. And you're not going to because you're incapable of doing so.

>>30981728
>And its not a camera. It doesn't capture images, it just senses the different wavelengths of IR(I think) laser beam(the 4 colored quadrants).

You realize that this is basically what a camera does...it's a light sensor with an incredibly low resolution.

>>What sort of radiation? Do you think radio somehow interferes with light?
>You know what I meant.

It doesn't make a difference, there's no way the laser sensor of the rocket is any better than those of a laser warning system, or that the laser is so weak that it won't be picked up by a warning receiver. If the beam is strong enough to illuminate the rocket, it's strong enough to illuminate the warning receiver.

>>30983541
> so you can't actually cite your claim, you can only get mad at it being pointed out that you're wrong and you need to back your assertion up?

> classy.

That is literally the exact thing you're doing. You know it. I know it. Every person in this thread knows it.

>>30981577


>The 72B3M is so snowflake rare, it's about as viable as a comparison as the prototype from Rheinmetall (pic related)
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-72b4.htm

>The first shipment of 32 tanks will be delivered to the military in 2016

I guess you sorta proved my point.

>>30983354
You're the kind of person who thinks an Su-27 beats an F-15 in a dogfight every time (or vice versa) and that pilot skill plays no meaningful role in the outcome.

Or worse yet, you think that an F-15 manufactured in 1995 will beat an F-15 manufactured in 1994 every time.

>>30983390
>Tanks work on a first shot kill method these days.
Didn't that hold true during WWII as well? IIRC like ~70% of engagements ended with the tank the fired first as the victor.

>>30969368
Leopard 1?

>>30983832
I've never heard of that.

With the optics and ballistic computer of today, you're essentially guaranteed a first round hit every time. Only reason you would miss is due to the human factor.

>>30983376
Israel has fielded and successfully used active protection systems, that literally shoot down incoming missiles. Explosive Reactive Armour is an innovation after WW2 as well.

>>30983832
No?

Rarely were any tanks from any side penetrated on the first hit in WW2, Korea, or Vietnam.

In the post-Vietnam era the only times tanks have consistently gotten first round deaded by other tanks have been when theres been a significant generation gap (Gulf War Abrams vs monkey T72s, Iraqi T72s vs Iranian T54s, etc).

And with APS the odds of a tank 1shotting any other tank in the modern era are very slim.

>>30983376
look up: "hardkill systems" and "softkill systems"

there are lots of this stuff

>>30979852
>>30979909
I agree. Drones and Lav is the future.

>Leopard
>Not the Challenger

>>30985598
They are both expensive.

I want top see how the Armata does in actual combat, so the Slavboos can shut the fuck up about it

>>30985627
A drone can take out many tanks and targets in general with far less chance of injury to the crew and money.

>>30985636
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh-Ory1VIBo

>>30985636
>I have absolutely no idea what jungles, infrastructure and obstructions mean for thermal vision

M U H D R O N E S

>>30985760
>tanks
>jungle

Nice laugh.

>>30986043
>not knowing the huge successes of armor in the Vietnam War

>>30983526
>The argument behind the hull storage having no blow off is, that if a round penetrates that far, the crew is dead this way or another.
Then its the same for the T-72 taht stores all its ammo in the carousel AL.

>I agree though that the abrams solution is much better.
Only in the context of Asymmetric conflicts. In a real peer war having most of your ammo up top where its likelier to be hit would mean lots of firepower kills that didn't have to be if it was otherwise.

>So that's why every 2nd picture of a t-72 features the turret being thrown off...
Most users don't quite appreciate better practices regarding usage of their equipment. But the combat record with the practice speaks for itself- in the 2nd round of Grozny, apart from better tactics of relegating the tanks as FSVs providing overwatch to the the infantry, the lack of ammo in the loose stowage greatly increased the survivability of the T-72s. This is against Chechens that know where to aim at the tank to get at the ammo btw, not your average Abu Hajar. Speaking of which, has the Leopard 2 even encountered decent opposition yet? I'm not talking about ragtag bands of peasants armed with half-a-century old rifles for the most part but real battle-hardened, trained, and well-equipped fighting forces. What's that? crickets chirping I hear?...

File: 1471065295911.jpg (465KB, 633x973px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 633x973px

>>30967257
I'm glad to find out I'm not the only who feels this way

>>30988131
In a real peer war hits to the turret rear will result in crew kills on a T-72/T-90.

>>30967257
Ditto, familia.

>>30988415
>In a real peer war hits to the turret rear will result in crew kills on a T-72/T-90.
I'm not talking about getting a clear shot in at the turret rear itself, I'm talking about the huge size of the turret bustle that makes it a viable target when the turret is turned to the side even for a few degrees within the 30 degree on either side safe maneuvering angle. The obliqued special armor helps against it, but its still not enough for the real heavy threats like tank fired sabot round that actually penetrates more sloped armor than one that's not, and large-caliber HEAT. In fact we've seen this in Yemen with one Saudi Abrams getting its bustle shot at even from the front with a Kornet. Others say the Kornet cored the frontal armor itself but I'd rather believe it hit through the side armor since the crew survived as a piercing hit through the crew compartment into the blast door spewing high pressure fires wouldn't allow that.

>>30984354

The research came from a survey of all tank-on-tank engagements on the western front after D-day.

The survey found that the side that spotted the enemy first, and fired the first shot, won the fight 70% of the time, regardless of the quality of the tank.

The conclusion after interviewing crew members that the very act of getting hit by a high velocity round, even if it did not penetrate, is a huge hamper on crew effectiveness. This is doubly so if the enemy had not been spotted at the time. While the crew is panicked looking around and trying to do their jobs without shitting themselves, the enemy crew is calmly reloading and firing the second shot, and being much more combat effective.

The study found that after a tank has been hit more than a couple times, crews start bailing out even if the tank has not been penetrated.

>>30969411
If I were head of a country that still uses the M60, the very first thing Id do would be removing the fuckhuge commander cupola and replace it with an Urdan to lower the ridiculously high shape of the M60

>>30988804
>I'm not talking about getting a clear shot in at the turret rear itself

Yes, you are in this context.

>The obliqued special armor helps against it, but its still not enough for the real heavy threats like tank fired sabot round that actually penetrates more sloped armor than one that's not,

Modern tank ammunition does not penetrate more if the armor is sloped, sloped armor typically is thinner and sloping is somewhat negated by modern ammunition unless it is an extreme angle.

The stacked spaced plates along the bustle sides are the same armor arrangement and composition as the turret front, the cavity line of sight depth becomes comparable when you are going down the sides at a sub 45 degree angle.

The Soviet clamshell is a weight saving design, not a protection increasing design.

>and large-caliber HEAT. In fact we've seen this in Yemen with one Saudi Abrams getting its bustle shot at even from the front with a Kornet. In fact we've seen this in Yemen with one Saudi Abrams getting its bustle shot at even from the front with a Kornet. Others say the Kornet cored the frontal armor itself but I'd rather believe it hit through the side armor since the crew survived as a piercing hit through the crew compartment into the blast door spewing high pressure fires wouldn't allow that.

The infamous pyrotechnic Saudi Abrams you are referring to was a hit from the 7-8 o'clock direction.

>>30989097
>Yes, you are in this context.
No. A clear shot on those two tanks that hits the crew directly is pretty much a flank shot.

>Modern tank ammunition does not penetrate more if the armor is sloped
Yes it does. Apart from normalizing to the plane of the armor plate it penetrates more too, something like 12-16% from that Russian study. Something to do with the lack of metal behind (there's a pic of it somewhere) at the lower end(assuming a rising slope) that makes it more likely to just fail and let the stub breach.

>The stacked spaced plates along the bustle sides are the same armor arrangement and composition as the turret front
This is the first I heard of it so would you mind a sauce? Even DU plates?

>the cavity line of sight depth becomes comparable
There's still only a couple of plates and the overall package is thinner- NERA plates don't magically become more effective at greater obliquities of striking as they become "spent" for that area- you need more plates.

>The infamous pyrotechnic Saudi Abrams you are referring to was a hit from the 7-8 o'clock direction.
got my dune coons mixed up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTi09YUJQo

File: M1A1HA_turretside_bustle.jpg (562KB, 2552x2180px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 2552x2180px

>>30989777
>This is the first I heard of it so would you mind a sauce? Even DU plates?

image related

>>30988804
i was told by some anon on k it wasnt kornet but fagot or some older atgm

File: 1397832060790.png (2MB, 689x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 689x800px

>>30989958
for comparison the turret face of a T-72B

File: 1424593972945.png (1MB, 1024x982px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x982px

>>30989982
and a Merkava

>>30967924
>"Having" AMAP
>literally installed on 0 combat tanks
>literally used 0 times
>literally nonexistent
>literally

face it, the leopard is a meh tank with a good gun and nothing else going for it. The Russians can fire ATGMs and their tanks cost half as much, the Americans has better FCS and APS, and the British have thicker armor with tea-kettles installed inside.

>>30989777
>got my dune coons mixed up.

That Iraqi Abrams was hit on the side of the turret which was turned at a nearly 90 degree angle.

>>30990019
Keep in mind the FCS of most Western tanks can accurately calculate a shot at distances GL-ATGM's are capable of being fired.

>>30989958
Wouldnt the front armor be thicker LOS?

Maybe the same comp, but its clearly thicker.

>>30975131
Thought TOWs were wire guided

>>30990072
The frontal cavity is a thicker LOS when the turret is faced forwards, at 30 degree's the LOS of the side armor is substantial.

>>30990093
Yes, i was assumeing 0 degree head on impact both ways.

All abrams to date that have been exported lack DU anyways.

>>30990059
FCS of most western tanks can accurately calculate at distances up to 2,5km or so which you can see from any statistics you want, there are "some" unconfirmed reports about kills at larger distances but it's make believe. Russian/Soviet bore-launched ATGM's have effective range from 100m to 4km.

Regardless of it all, modern HEAT rounds aren't going to penetrate modern tanks with active protection while kinetic penetrators and ranges higher than 2km or so don't really compute for obvious reasons.

>>30990075
TOW's were wire guided, the wire is how the launcher unit sends commands to the missile, current production TOW's have switched to being wireless.

>>30990118
I dont think current tows are wireless. I thought it was a prototype that never made it.

>>30990107
>FCS of most western tanks can accurately calculate at distances up to 2,5km

Over 4km, on moving targets.

File: atgm.jpg (211KB, 1050x800px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1050x800px

>>30990126
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/tow_family/

>>30990139
I know the AERO has a wireless version, i just have never seen it stated that its in active service. Just like the TOW 2N, i think its just offered.

>>30990165
http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsraytheon-supply-wireless-tow-missiles-us-army

File: 216.jpg (122KB, 640x433px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x433px

>>30990132
Bolt-action rifles used to have sights allowing them to fire at 2km and more as well. Doesn't mean people fired and hit each other at those ranges.

There really wasn't a situation where you've had crews repeatedly hitting things at those ranges static or moving in combat situation which makes me doubt that claim.

Pic unrelated.

>>30990196
The wireless TOW's also have a new motor.

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsraytheon-field-tests-new-tow-missile-propulsion-system

>>30990204
Desert Storm was 25 years ago, and bolt action rifles didn't have a computer calculating shots giving you a high probability of a hit on the first round.

If your argument is the lack of opportunity to have shots at that distance, then I would agree.

>>30990165
>TOW 2N
>N

>>30980594
>Tests against 1960's 105mm short sabots and 90mm HEAT

Why are you referring to comparative pea shooters when he said T-72.. which is a 125mm gun.

>>30990317
Keeping in mind the 3BM22 round shot at the Strv103 was 20 years newer.

>>30969608
This

>>30967505
The universal collapse is redundant. It'll just expand in another big bang.

>>30969529
Leopard 1?

>>30969033
Unlikely, expect major rewiring (switching to fiber optic), new computers and new electrical systems plus a permanent APS. It's not likely that there will be any serious structural changes, the army is interested in making the transition as smooth as possible.

>>30980059
Because Amerika has the two largest air force's in the world by a large margin.
Also MANPADs.

>>30990619
There's the new rotary APU. I think it's for the M1A3, although it could be for SEP v3

>>30990107
Several M-1s hit targets at over 3km in Desert Storm, and I believe a Challenger hit one at 4km+. With the ballistic computers in a modern FCS, normal rounds have the advantage over GL-ATGMs in that they get to the target faster.

While Russian GL-ATGMs do help make up for deficiencies in their 125s, they only provide an actual range advantage in the very rare conditions where terrain does not block LOS for well beyond 4km; in which case, their tanks would be easy targets for aviation long before US tanks got within range.

>>30990126
I read some time back that they're being forced to switch to the wireless completely because the only manufacturer of the wires went out of business, or something.

>>30982931
OK bong

>>30990702
That, and smoke blocks a GLATM, but wont stop a round.

>>30990702
>Several M-1s hit targets at over 3km in Desert Storm, and I believe a Challenger hit one at 4km+. With the ballistic computers in a modern FCS, normal rounds have the advantage over GL-ATGMs in that they get to the target faster.
Against stationary targets. Moving targets, the 2 sec flight time minimum means they can pretty much reduce the chances of a hit especially with the stop and start, stop and start nature of tanks shooting as well as the much lower profile of the Russian tanks.

>While Russian GL-ATGMs do help make up for deficiencies in their 125s, they only provide an actual range advantage in the very rare conditions where terrain does not block LOS for well beyond 4km;
They can very well use it less in less than 4km ranges, especially if its an ambush situation. The very small firing signature as well as pointing the guidance laser on the target only at the last moment before hit means you get a retardedly high percentage of assured first round hits, and that means you've won 70% of such engagements. The HEAT warhead is no slouch either, easily having the explosive punch of a HEAT-MP and that is one nasty mofo of a round that could disable an M1 from the front if it hasn't penetrated it.

>their tanks would be easy targets for aviation long before US tanks got within range.
Open terrain also means air defence vehicles get unobstructed LOS.

>>30990139
i thought the new TOW has this new warhead to hit the target from above as seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1VWPOpYbQI

>>30990139
>>30991392
fuck now i saw it

i keep mymouth shut

File: 1381298093562.jpg (93KB, 625x438px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 625x438px

>>30967031
why is it wearing a burkha? I thought it's a German tank?

File: leopard_2_mbt_revolution_v1_by_siregar3d-d611qxr.jpg (132KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1280x720px

>>30967394
what? just because because you have accelerate to drive a curve?
that doesnt require much

>>30967031
>German tank wears hijab

>>30989958
>>30989982
>>30990003

so how exactly does the spaced armory work on kinetic perpetrators?

is it like an evolution of sloping, where a shell would hit a 20mm/30mm ceramic alloy sheet legnthways, and they're set up to crumple and deflect into other sheets?

i understand how the spaces make the armor lighter and defeat HEAT

>>30989096
if you were head of a country that still uses the m60 i'd think you would have more pressing issues than how tall your tanks are.

>>30967365
I keep forgetting.

Is it this Chinese tank where the wheels fall off or is that the other one?