Why was American cold war tank design so god awful? They had

while you have a LITTLE bit of a point here (i mean very little), i can just feel how bad of a thread this is going to be

File: 1471391297018.gif (3MB, 437x235px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 437x235px

>>31103173
Why are you such a homo?

>>31103173
What's bad about it? Honest question, tell me what arguments you have about them.

>>31103216

>M60
>introduced in 1961

>T62
>introduced in 1961

>T62 is a smaller target while having better armor (T62 102 mm front armor, M60 has 93 mm front armpr)
>T62 has 31mph road speed, M60 has 30mph road speed
>T62 armed with 115mm gun, M60 only has a 105mm

And that's just between the plain M60 and the T62

Don't get me started on the M60A1 vs. the T64 or the goddamn SLAUGHTER that the T72 would have against the M60A3

>>31103250
while i want to say the T-62 is a better tank than the first M60s, you are ignoring pretty much everything that makes a good tank. like 1mph road speed? and rememer that because the gun is bigger, does not mean its better.

>>31103280
maybe not but the T gun IS better than the M gun.

>>31103280
>and rememer that because the gun is bigger, does not mean its better.

If we were talking about the rifled cannons of WWII, sure.

But we're not. We're talking a smoothbore versus a rifled cannon

And the 115mm U-5TS was lightyears ahead of the 105mm L7

>>31103324
well, despite the accuracy issues, it probably was, yeah

File: 1452087189113.jpg (18KB, 240x602px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 240x602px

>>31103250
M60s hull has a better slope.

Comparing the armor is somewhat pointless between the two since HEAT is a thing.

The T62s gun may be a larger caliber but the M60s 105 could achieve a higher rate of fire while still going through the T62s armor.

T62s biggest advantage over the M60 is its stabilize.

The best tank to support your argument would be the T64.

the only time the soviets have a clear advantage in tanks is the 8 years gap between the T-72 and the m1 abrams being introduced

File: Challenger-2-in-Iraq-02.jpg (373KB, 2945x1642px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 2945x1642px

>>31103324
Rifled>smoothbore

HESH says hello to your crew and hopes they'll feel better in the afterlife.

>>31103412
I would argue that they've had advantage in M46/47 days as well(which is why they were quickly replaced by M48)

File: Leopard 2A4NO Viking.jpg (303KB, 1600x1295px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1600x1295px

>>31103436

Fuck off Britain, there's a reason literally everyone else in the world has switched to smoothbore

>>31103436
Go to bed papa UK, you're senile

>>31103436
>HESH
>even viable against modern composite and reactive armor
LMAO
Oh and I almost forgot you brits don't get HEATFS or APFSDS on your shitty tanks
Modern smoothbore guns can fire ATGMs as well, but brits just need that rifled gun (which costs more to manufacture and maintain) because
>muh increased effectivity of HESH
enjoy your outdated technology

>>31103475
>even viable against modern composite and reactive armor
It destroyed one Challenger 2 in Iraq in friendly-fire incident. Coincidentally it was the only one Challenger 2 British Army lost to other tanks.

>>31103475
Hesh wasn't even viable against anything with a spall liner.

>>31103456
Everybody else but us is retarded.

File: T-62 obr 1962 with infantry post 1973.jpg (396KB, 1279x1600px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1279x1600px

>>31103250
Count the slope nigga.

The M60 and T-62 are on par eachother.

Each have their strengths and weakness.

The T-62 got a slow reload, not because the shell ejector takes a shit ton of time since that is a lie but because the loader have it cramped vs the M60 loader and it takes time for the commande to find a target, the gunner estimate range to firing the gun and then the loader loading the gun.
4-5 rounds a minute for the average crew.
Video of shell ejector in action in vietnam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia-OjgZUirM

The T-62 gunner before a certain upgrade in 1972 was unable to observe how the round he fired impacted since his sight was slaved to the gun and thus followed it when the shell ejector got activated.

But the T-62 has a smoothbore gun and a good first round hit capability at 1500 meters with its APFSDS rounds. Also have a gun stabiliser which allows it to fire on the move effectively which is very vital in soviet doctrine.

>>31103482
That's because brits have ww2-tier armor

>>31103436
m8 I'm a stupidly patriotic bongistani and even I think you're retarded

>>31103324
Nyet tovarisch. I'm a total slavaboo and even i can admit the T-62 was utter trash. The Soviets even decided as such and put them all in storage. The gun couldn't hit dick at stupid short range.

>>31103475
>Oh and I almost forgot you brits don't get HEATFS or APFSDS on your shitty tanks
Actually you can use those with rifled guns. Dunno if Brits do it but you can. It looks like you'd put the round in sabot which had "rings" with ball-bearings attached to it. They take entire spin and as such the projectile behaves like it was fired from smoothbore. Dunno about performance.

>>31103524
With an autoloader the difference in reload time is far less

Also although the slope an important factor, ERA usually negates the need for a significant sloping

>>31103527
is that why the US bought Dorchester, Chobham and the rest for their own tanks?

>>31103548
>couldn't hit dick at short range
It had a gun stabilizer and a very high velocity round wth the APFSDS, what's not to love?

>>31103482
Trying to get a shell down the commanders hatch is not a very viable tactic if you want to actually kill anyone.

>>31103527
Better than the russians who think fucking sand is a good composite.

>>31103566
Yeah in theory it was a great tank. But making the barrels out of bored out t-55 barrels and doing it on the cheap and quick with poor tools with untrained mechanics made it horribly inaccurate with many of the line models having major barrel defects.

>>31103436
Even the Chally 2 is getting an upgrade to smoothbore you delusional paki

>>31103527
actually because the round hit a open hatch, the resulting internal damage killed the tank but its armor wasnt penetrated.

>>31103551
the brits do, performance is a little less than from a rheinmetal 120mm smoothbore, but enough to kill every hostile tank faced thus far.

File: m60_Mod.jpg (6KB, 322x157px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 322x157px

>>31103173

Because it was in essence the Pershing with a gorilla-ton of upgrades slapped onto it.

Underneath this you might find components that wouldn't be out of place in 1945.

Is a panzerfaust still able to destroy a modern tank?

>>31103250
T-62 and M-60 armors are barely relevant both pierced each other with no problems and both were pierced through front with fucking RPG-7. What is relevant is disaster of crew ergonomics in T-62.
>non visible for gunner tracers (goes good with soviet doctrine of commander not correcting fire from open hatch kek)
>loader on the right side of canon needs to work with left hand mostly (ding dong idiots ALL soviets are right handed)
>sight permanently connected to gun LOS and reloading gun at specific elevation angle (losing target during reload is communism)

>>31104531
That can be said about most things in use today. If it works, don't fix it.

>>31104544
Panzerfaust 3 maybe.

>>31103324
Bore diameter says nothing about working pressure or projectile geometry

File: 99.jpg (183KB, 665x1269px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 665x1269px

>>31103636
T-62 gun itself was fine.

>>31103250
Reliability, ease of maintenance, crew ergonomics etc.

A big gun might win an engagement, but a tank you can fix easily will win you the campaign.

>>31103566
Gun stabilizer didn't work and the gunsight was beyond garbage.

Mechanical accuracy was okay (not great, just okay). The ability of the crew to spot, lead, and hit targets with it was nonexistent.

>>31104592
>>sight permanently connected to gun LOS and reloading gun at specific elevation angle (losing target during reload is communism)
This was fixed in 1972

Tho the T-62 started its service in 1962.

You should have mentiond the difference in driving a T-62 and a M60.

>>31104544
The PF3 might maybe have a chance with an ass shot.

The PF2 and PF3 can score mobility kills, but then again most explosives >2kg can. As well as some rocks, branches, and bad luck.

>>31104771
>this was fixed a decade and 3 models later, after the T62 had been relegated to backline and reserve forces due to how badly it fucking sucked
FTFY

>>31104792
>3 models

I know of the T-62A which only 5 was produced

T-62 production run
T-62 obr 1967, only thing was a modification of the engine deck.
T-62 obr 1972 where they put the new sight in and also added a heavy machine gun on the loaders hatch and other things.


>after the T-62 had been relegated
Dont know about that, the T-62 made up 75% of the tanks in the GSFG. Tho mainly due to productions problems with the T-64 and other things. It was mainly in the 80's where it had been truly sent back to rear lines and replaced in force by T-64's, T-72's and T-80's but it still remained in the GSFG.

>>31104913
>the T-62 made up 75% of the tanks in the GSFG
in 1973*

>>31104913
>T62A
>T64
>T72

>>31105075
But anon, the T-72 did not see production or service until 1973.

Before that it was only a test.

>>31104771
>difference in driving a T-62 and a M60.
There is no really significant difference until you start jerking back and forth on the ramp, but soviets don't have words "reverse slope" and such in the doctrine so it doesn't matter.

>>31105264
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NffRGPIQ7s

File: T-62 Giat.jpg (60KB, 745x463px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 745x463px

>>31104649

Good battlesight range because of the high muzzle velocity of the APFSDS.

>>31104913

T-62 mod. 1972 got a thicker turret (242 mm)

>>31103487
Gunsights? antenna? Fuel tanks? ERA that sometimes does more damage to the tank than the defeated projectile would?
Or if its a slavistani tank who ever is human sandbag?

This thread is really making me want to buy Steel Armor Blaze of War. Though it mostly being third world proxy wars and not NATO vs. USSR is kind of putting a damper on that.

>>31103475

Several points you're wrong on there. The brits actively use APFSDS as their primary munition for dealing with MBTs. HEAT and even ATGMs can work fine with a rifled gun with a few tweaks- the Israli LAHAT was designed to be used from the L7 105mm rifled gun. Rifling the gun does not cost more to maintain, as the bore life on both a smoothbore Rh L55 and rifled RA L30 gun is about 1500 full charges.

Secondly, HESH is pretty good at dealing with explosive reactive armor, since that is intended to deal with HEAT rounds. HESH doesn't penetrate, so it will not trip the explosive component, allowing it to fuck up entire panels of ERA rather than single tiles as a focussed jet of or AP penetrator would do. It is also good at negating the effectiveness of slat armor since it isn't reliant on standoff, and has a delay-action fuse by design meaning the round will just punch right through the slat.

You are however correct in stating that it is almost useless against modern composites. But if you're using HESH (or HEAT for that matter) against composite protected targets, you already done fucked up. Thats what the KEP is for. HESH and HEAT MP are for dealing with soft skinned targets, entrenched positions (if ROE doesn't allow you to 'lay smoke' at it) or infantry.

>>31104673
I think the whole idea behind Soviet tank development and production centered around replacement not repair, if the tank malfunctioned they would make another tank.

Thread like this makes me want ro spend 20 mins installing and setting up WoT.

Only to delete it after remembering what a shitfest it's become.

>>31106269
Since it is such a fond topic of wargamers and simmers, why aren't there more BoW style games surrounding WW3 in the Cold War?

File: 12516371_10153811552398187_266434946_n.jpg (45KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 604x453px

>>31106354
>as the bore life on both a smoothbore Rh L55 and rifled RA L30 gun is about 1500 full charges.

The barrel life of the L30 is expected to be of the order of 500 EFC,

>>31106411
Makes me want to play War Thunder myself, pretty sure they even just added the M60A1 and T-62. But then I remember what a fucking p2grind slog it is and that I was still struggling through the stock M47 last time I was playing.

>>31106433
Can you just buy a T-54 or T62 in WT? I would seriously drop cash just to have a cold war tank, but I really don't wanna invest the 300 hours required to unlock them.

File: 800px-British_Chieftain_tanks.jpg (114KB, 800x523px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 800x523px

>>31106429
I don't get it either. Graviteam is hardly beyond making 'alternate' scenarios either so I don't really know why they haven't done the cold war gone hot. I'd buy it in a heartbeat if they had a 1970s-1980s Germany DLC.

>>31106456
I don't think so. In fact the closest you get to buy is a T-34 with a 100mm gun crammed into the turret.

>>31106432
I'll have to concede the point on that, since the source I got for my number doesn't include a reference.

>>31106494
>1970s-1980s Germany DLC

They already have the Soviets in Afghanistan done, so I would imagine that is a huge amount of work saved there, if necessary reskin some units and you have your Soviet Army mostly done.

It really would sell like hotcakes, if well done that is.

And somewhat related, are they gonna make another Wargame? not entirely realistic but fun in its own right.

>>31106550
Given how Act of Aggression fell flat on its face they'll probably end up going back to it. Last I checked they were doing paid DLC for RD now.

File: chiefy.jpg (77KB, 800x574px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x574px

>>31106456
If you're prepared to spend the money you should get a high rank premium vehicle, premium account time and golden eagles to convert RP.

I did that and went from rank 1 to the chieftain in less than a week.

Spent less than 100$ (whether or not that's worth it is up to you)

But end tier WT realistic battles can be a pain.

As the brits you only ever face either the Soviets or Germans, which means either a team of nothing but leopard 1 or a team of almost nothing but IT-1s.

Leopards aren't a huge deal but they can sometimes get into funky positions because of their mobility but IT-1s are fucking bullshit because their ammo racks never detonate.

>>31106627
>less than 100$
Oh damn I was thinking maybe 20 bucks or so. I wish they just made a WT game that starts out on the later era tanks.

>>31106627
>a team of almost nothing but IT-1s
I stopped playing before ATGMs got in, I don't even want to know how bullshit they are.

>>31106652
Armored Warfare was sort of that but I don't think it lasted long.

>>31106627
Best tier to play is simulator with Sherman 76s, Panthers and t-3485s.

But nobody plays simulator

HESH relies on having solid contact with main homogeneous armor, any sort of ERA, slats, screens or even utility boxes negates its effectiveness.

>>31106670
>>31106687
>HESH relies on having solid contact with main homogeneous armor, any sort of ERA, slats, screens or even utility boxes negates its effectiveness.

Wait so are you saying that HESH relies on having solid contact with main homogeneous armor, any sort of ERA, slats, screens or even utility boxes negates its effectiveness?

File: plswg.jpg (302KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1920x1080px

>>31106652
I just really really wanted the Chieftain, since WG delayed it after coming extremely close to adding it.

There's always armored warfare, the T-62 in that is only tier 3, granted the game is dead as fuck but there are still enough people playing to play the PVE.

>>31106664
The ATGMs aren't so bad most of the time unless it's a large open map, like I said before the big reason for me at least why the IT-1 is completely broken is because it's ammo rack never detonates so getting a 1 shot kill on one is rare.

Or at least it is for me with the Chieftain because it only gets APDS or HESH.

>>31106598
>no mod support
WHEN WILL THOSE FROGS LEARN.

File: slavtank flying.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>31103250
>>T62 is a smaller target while having better armor (T62 102 mm front armor, M60 has 93 mm front armpr)
>>T62 has 31mph road speed, M60 has 30mph road speed
>>T62 armed with 115mm gun, M60 only has a 105mm
All of which means jack shit if you can't even see the enemy let alone hit him.

Fucking useless slavshit is good on paper but s soon as it goes up against shit produces west of poland it gets absolutely BTFO

>>31106432

Source on number?

>>31106837
What are you talking about? The M-48/60 series is probably one the poorest tank design made after the ww2.

>>31103524
>infantry_armor.jpg

This thread is like watching a Blacktail video. Can I have my braincells back?

>>31106746
Pretty much, no one was killed when a Warrior IFV with the composite add on side armor took a friendly fire HESH.

The best use of HESH/HEP these days is a demolition round.

File: Type 74.webm (2MB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 852x480px

>M60
>T-62

Better tank coming through.

>>31106664
AW is still around, it's fun, but most of the guns and missiles are sadly UP, the game is really pretty though.

>>31107107
>The M-48/60 series is probably one the poorest tank design made after the ww2.
Did very well for the Israelis against Slavshit, with one conflict being a notable exception (and even then, it wasn't tanks killing them, it was man-portable AT systems), did well for the US in Desert Storm, Iran-Iraq was more or less a stalemate between NATO armor and slavshit (M46/47/48/60s and Chieftans without any factory/OEM support VS slavshit being operated by tactical retards on both sides), Operation Nasr going to slavshit primarily because of very poor tactical planning and execution on the part of the Iranians.

You can make an excellent argument for Pattons being mediocre at best overall, but certainly not the worst post-WWII tank design ever, considering just how many superlative candidates there are for that appellation.

>>31107354
Yeah, you made a point. Should have weighted my words a little. But I mean, his design is so inimaginative and classic.

However, if it was that bad, it wouldn't be still in use almost 50 years after his introduction. His record in Desert Storm is actually pretty good actually, 100:1

>>31107253

> IOC just 4 years before Leopard 2.
> Infinitely worse

File: Type 74 Kai.jpg (897KB, 2244x1567px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 2244x1567px

>>31107253

Ah yes, the Type 74

The BEST 2nd Gen tank that wasn't introduced until the 3rd Gen

>>31103412
Do you realize that the 72 was an export model an was inferior to the 64.

>>31106837
boy that engine sure didnt like freewheeling.

>>31103250
>Don't get me started on the M60A1 vs. the T64 or the goddamn SLAUGHTER that the T72 would have against the M60A3


In early February 1991, US Marines used 200 M60A1s of the 2nd Battalion drove north from Khafji, Saudi Arabia into Kuwait. In Kuwait, they encountered an Iraqi force of T-54/55, Type 69, and T-72 tanks at Kuwait City International Airport. The Marines won this battle, destroying some 100 Iraqi tanks with only one M60A1 lost.[42]

>>31103482
Mostly because the Chally 2 rarely saw other tanks.

>>31103173
American tanks were limited by the need to ship them across the Atlantic in the case that shit went down.
Also, in practical terms by the time the US would be able to bring the bulk of it's land forces to bear, the war would have already been decided: Either the Soviet advance was blunted and the entire situation degraded into a war of attrition, or the soviets had already thrown NATO into such disarray that their victory was assured.

>>31103250
Meanwhile in the real world fucking Shermans BTFO T-62s.

File: L11 AND L30 120 MM TANK GUN - Forecast International.jpg (392KB, 861x1291px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 861x1291px

>>31106975
>400 full charges for L30

Pretty bad, better than Soviet guns but far below 120mm smoothbores.

>>31106664
>Armored Warfare was sort of that but I don't think it lasted long.

AW hasn't even started advertising yet, the game 'launches' in patch 0.18

>>31103173
The M-60 is a great tank, anon.

>>31103456
But we have longest kill m8

>>31103475
WE HAVE HEAT AND SABOT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>31109601
He's referring to the non-updated models of Pattons, a fight between a T-72 and an M-60 of the same era sways toward the T-72.

>>31103250
Well the marines m60a3s did a pretty good job against Iraqi republican guard t72s take that as you will

>>31110776
>>31109601

Oh shit, nevermind, he says the updated model of the patton but not the model of T-72.

>>31108725
>what did he mean by this?
he clearly was comparing the SOVIET t-72 series.

>>31110776
Do you understand that a USMC M60A1 is not an updated Patton?

>>31110785
>Well the marines m60a3s
>a3

hijacking tank thread

https://imgur.com/gallery/6vEpQ

check this gallery out, saw a private tank collection.

>>31104419
I really hope Rheinmetal doesn't stop making cool shit. They don't have to since the L55 will kill anything on the planet.

>>31111195
>what is ammo

>>31111230
Yes, 3BM15 is 10 years newer than an M60A1.

>>31111266
And the M60A1 used M833 and M900 rounds, and these are 10, 15 years older then the T-72 versions used by the Iraqis.

>>31111345
M900 could not be fired from the M68 gun on Pattons, only the M68A1 on early Abrams and M68A2 on Stryker MGS could.

Furthermore M833 was only 4 years newer than the oldest T-72 variant Iraq had.

>>31109992
thats the L30 not L31A1
You can double charge the L30A1 to add an additional 60% velocity.

>>31111641
L30A1 rate of fire 6-10 Rounds per minute, because of two part ammunition allowing lap loading (which is also safer), and requires less physical input from loader to load rounds.

M256 cant over charge rounds, has a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute, less safe and more tiring on the loader so as the battle goes on the rate of fire goes down.

No to mention smoothbores get too hot too quickly, meaning under battle conditions you could well end up with a deformed barrel.

>>31105264
>There is no really significant difference until you start jerking back and forth on the ramp

The M60 was so easy to start up and drive that one could teach a jr high school kid to do it after a few basic lessons, it was so smooth and worry free. Soviet designs of the same era were infamous for being a pain in the ass to drive.

>>31103250
>>T62 armed with 115mm gun, M60 only has a 105mm

Judging by how many T62s got blown away by the L7/M68s guns that's a pretty shit point.

File: NEA.jpg (96KB, 1384x825px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1384x825px

>>31111654
6 rounds a minute is unacceptable and you would fail tank school if you could only manage that.

7 seconds is the time to make in training, experienced loaders are even faster.

Not that any of that even matters, the bottleneck in ROF is not loading the gun but actually finding/engaging a target.

>lap loading is safer

am I being memed on?

>>31112609
He seriously thinks that all you need to do to get a better round down range is shove more propellant bags into the breech.

Yes, you're being memed on, the 'getting too hot' thing cements it, particularly since the L30 series can't even handle 400 rounds before a barrel change is necessary.

>>31111641
>You can double charge the L30A1

This is the dumbest shit I have read on /k/ in a long while, even .50 cent would be embarrassed.

File: pftthaha.jpg (23KB, 225x252px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 225x252px

>>31103250
only slaughter the russki tank did was on their own crews

>>31103250
The T-62 was a massive pile of dogshit that only looked good on paper

>>31104544
Its got alot of different ammunitions... but we mainly used it as bunkerfaust (bunker killer) in which it really exceeds.. we trained on tank targets but i woulndt rely on it for very modern tanks ... you can however pull the fuze mechanism out which supposedly gives it a double heat charge against spaced armor ... but we never used that ... (only had old wreckage bmps ,btr and t64 as targets ..... those all had 0 chance ... not even when hit with a glancing shot)

>>31103436
>Rifled being better

Shut your stupid mouth. The two best tanks in Nato, and quite frankly around the world all use smoothbore. Even the Brits admitted during the Challenger upgrade program the German L44 was better than the rifled L30. Daily reminder CHARM 3 is less lethal then the German DM53 and M829, you know, rounds that actually matter.

>>31112609
I loaded HEAT in 2.08, fastest time I ever achieved. I have gotten non-timed load times during live engagements that felt like 2 seconds too. Consecutively I could do 3-4 second Sabots and 6 second heats. Almost Everytime.

>>31111654
>Lap loading is safer
>2 piece ammo is faster
>Muh tired loader meme

But that's wrong. It's not uncommon for flame back from unused propellant in the tube to fill the turret. While mostly harmless, it can set off ammo.

Also during a CALFX I emptied the entire ready rack of ammo. While beggining to feel weaker, overall load time had no significant impact. Two things why this is nothing more than a straw grab:

1. You slide a round off a shelf, flip it, and place in a cradle and slide in. It's not the physically exerting. Lifting 120lb track pads from ground to bustle, that's exhausting. Lifting road wheels, that's exhausting. Loading isn't relative to most tank tasks.

>>31111225
I really want to see the new 130mm statistics. Right now the L55/M256 is adequate, but the gap is closing and it's not too unreasonable to suspect generation 4+ and 5 level tanks will invalidate the guns. Ammo is about to plateau.

>>31113256
Sorry for shit composition/grammar I am on mobile

>>31103456
>there's a reason literally everyone else in the world has switched to smoothbore
Which is?

It's sure quite crazy that only Germany within the NATO understood armored warfare.

File: Leo1A2.jpg (181KB, 800x499px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 800x499px

>>31113348
Tactical and strategic mobility is overrated!

Better use tanks like moveable bunkers

>>31113332
Smooth bore guns are just as accurate but offer superior muzzle velocity and longevity.

File: angry.jpg (51KB, 743x760px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 743x760px

>>31103216
They were bad in Operation Flashpoint

>>31113348
This must be a joke, or someone so young and retardedly ignorant of history that they forgot about Korea and Desert Storm.

File: Challenger 2 L55 Smoothbore Hybrid Gun.jpg (67KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 960x720px

>>31113256

>Even the Brits admitted during the Challenger upgrade program the German L44 was better than the rifled L30.

Slightly incorrect. They tested the L55 with DM53 and found it was better, not the L44. Pic related.

L44 with a heavy round IS still undoubtedly better simply due to the single piece ammo, but it's not something they've said directly. Only official statement was with the L55.

>But that's wrong. It's not uncommon for flame back from unused propellant in the tube to fill the turret. While mostly harmless, it can set off ammo.

Not incorrect. However while the idiot you're replying to is also wrong, what many people mistake lap-loading for in the Challenger 2 is actually quite different. They lap load the KEP section, which is just inert metal and thus entirely safe. The charge is still taken from the normal bins, but because it's so much lighter, it improves the rate of fire a decent bit, as it removes the stage of taking the KEP from the bustle. Opinions differ within the British Army on whether it's still too clumsy with KEPs potentially falling around the turret, but on firing from a stationary position it's not an uncommon practice.

They sometimes do it in training though, with charge packs stored to the left of the gun, just in case you really want to take the risk, I suppose. Video related, change the [dot].

https://youtu[dot]be/IxQ4JQz-to8?t=84

You're not wrong to call him out on being an idiot, but just a couple of points from someone who's been a bit closer to the vehicle than that guy probably has.

>>31111641

What the actual fuck are you blathering on about? There's no such thing as the L31A1, not double charging. You're probably thinking of the newer supercharge ammo sections for the FINs.

>>31109992

Cheers, mate.

File: gallery-1464032421-2147994.jpg (87KB, 768x547px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 768x547px

goddamn tankfags

my karl gustav make sure all yall kids dont grow

>>31106837
>Fucking useless slavshit is good on paper but s soon as it goes up against shit produces west of poland it gets absolutely BTFO

Any engagement like this is mostly much more modern western stuff owning obsolete 3rd world armies, though. Maybe Israeli conflicts during the cold war?

>>31106501
Jesus christ, i dont think i've ever seen someone react this way when presented with a counter-argument on this site. It usually ends like the "V22/F35-carrier" thread thats on here.
Stay golden, anon

>>31114412
Look at the Battle of Kuwait International Airport from Desert Storm. USMC M60A1s VS T72s plus a grab bag of older Soviet tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kuwait_International_Airport
>On the way to their objective, the Kuwait International Airport, Task Force Ripper M-60A1 Patton tanks destroyed about 100 Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers, including about 50 top-of-the-line Soviet T-72 tanks, 1st Marine division commander Maj. Gen. J.M. Myatt said.

Also, you're right, several of the Israeli engagements from the 60's to 70's, although a lot of those have US tanks mixed in on both sides. Also, Iran (unsupported M46/47/48/60s and Chieftans with no OEM/manufacturer support or upgrades) VS the Iraqi grab bag of Soviet tanks, or the India-Pakistan conflicts, but both of those conflicts turn far more on the hilariously inept tactics and execution of the engagements on both sides rather than showcasing the strengths and weaknesses of the fighting platforms.

The problem with comparing tank vs tank usefulness based on combat record is that armor itself has never operated in a vacuum - its success is always tied to the effectiveness of armor-infantry tactics and support, not to mention artillery up to and during WWII, and rotary-wing and fixed wing combined arms support from Korea onward.

There is no effective way to definitively extrapolate meaningful combat efficiency data from an interlocking tactical picture like that in complex battles where the battle may turn on rotary wing attack asset support, fixed wing strike support, EW support, J-STARS support, C4SIR support/disruption, artillery support, the effectiveness of joint infantry tactics, etc. beyond the simple effectiveness of the armor platforms themselves.

Even in Desert Storm, when looking at things like 73 Easting, you have to account for the effects of total logistical and C4SIR disruption for the Iraqis, overwhelming air superiority, etc.

>>31114525

Not him, but facts be facts. I used to believe the L30 had a much higher rate too, then >>31109992
showed a pretty solid looking bit of proof that it's 400. Like I said above, "Cheers mate."

400 isn't as high...still better than slavshit though, which is what really matters.

It's the /thg/ thing coming out more. Part of the reason people try to argue so much isn't cos they are sore losers. Well, it is. But it's just as much down to the rest of /k/ being such sore winners too that makes people prefer an endless arguement to a LOL YOU ADMITTED IT YOUR THINK SUX KEK ending.

Hopefully, more on both sides can improve.

>>31114630
As a final note, despite what things look like on paper, it is fair to say that actual all-time combat numbers between NATO tanks and Soviet tanks show a marked advantage to NATO tank designs in overall combat Kill/Loss ratios. Again, here we have to discuss armor overall to account for phenomena like US Bradleys getting massive amounts of kills against Iraqi tanks during Desert Storm. Even when we include man-portable AT systems in the numbers to account for situations like the Egypt-Israeli Sinai actions, the NATO designs come out ahead.

Soviet fans will argue this, just like they argue modern fighter combat numbers, in which there is no Soviet jet fighter back to and including the MiG-15 which carries a positive kill/loss A2A ratio and has more than 6 total kills while no US fighter with the exception of the F-104 failed to achieve a positive Kill/Loss A2A ratio going back to before the F-86. There are extenuating circumstances, sure, and no conflict since Korea has featured significant Soviet VS US fighter on fighter engagements, and not conflict ever has featured Soviet VS US tank on tank engagements. But all available data currently points to a US doctrinal, tactical, training readiness and platform-by-platform overall qualitative advantage over the Soviets in large-scale conventional conflict. There are outliers and legitimate counter-arguments, but the historical weight of evidence weights significantly against Soviet systems.

>>31114697
>but the historical weight of evidence weights significantly against Soviet systems.
This includes naval systems as well, especially submarine and carrier platforms.

One last thought: in spite of better readiness levels, training and overall platform quality, any NATO victory in any given situation through the Cold War was NOT guaranteed. There are many, many situations throughout the Cold War in which the Soviets would have held local superiority in geographical advantages, overwhelming numerical advantages, heavy logistical challenges for NATO forces and short-term platform technologies advantages (SLBMs in the early 50s, HOBS IR missiles in WVR A2A combat in the late 80's, to name two).

Just because Soviet doctrine and R&D tracks were generally proved to be inferior to NATO equivalents does not mean that NATO carried a constant combat force level advantage through the entire Cold War. There were times when there were clear Soviet advantages in enough areas to give significant doubt to a large-scale conflict outcome.

>>31113348
>>31113361
It's quite interesting that the Leopard 1 was the only NATO tank which was supposed to do offensive operations.

>>31114773
>It's quite interesting that the Leopard 1 was the only NATO tank which was supposed to do offensive operations.
Considering the primary counter-force concern to NATO armor designers from 1945-1990, this is not surprising. The primary mission and purpose of NATO armor in this period was to engage numerically superior/overwhelming Soviet armor numbers in a tactically defensive orderly withdrawal across Germany until REFORGER could spool up and dump enough armor, infantry, artillery and air forces combat power into Europe to stop, turn back and begin advancing against Soviet forces. This is generally thought to be about three weeks.

Fighting hull-down and retreating from prepared position to prepared position is a very different logistical and design priority set compared to attacking these same positions across hundreds of miles of terrain.

That said, US/NATO attacking doctrine with armor was certainly proven efficient and very effective during Desert Storm, so I do not think it can be said NATO was completely ill-equipped for such operations.

>>31106501

>You have gained 500 reputation with /k/

I like you. We need more of you.

>>31114525
>It usually ends like the "V22/F35-carrier" thread thats on here.
Jesus christ, that's one of the more autistic naval threads I've seen here.

>>31114825
>Desert Storm
>comperable to the NATO doctrine in Europe at the time of the Cold War.

Desert Storm basically proved the Germans. Also see how the American doctrine became more and more offensive with the developement of the German-American tank project which later became the Leopard 2 and Abrams.

>>31114838
You haven't been here long, I take it:
>armored amphibious speed boat threads
>general BBfag threads
>carrier is obsolete threads
>submarine carrier threads
>VTOL fixed wing UAV fighters on destroyers means no more carriers thread
>"scenario stands" CMANOfag threads
etc, etc. That's just a sampling of the overwhelming autism in naval threads over the last 18 months.

>>31114932
>Desert Storm basically proved the Germans. Also see how the American doctrine became more and more offensive with the developement of the German-American tank project which later became the Leopard 2 and Abrams.
American doctrine can be considered to have very effective "offensive" options well prior to that. The USMC's fascination with Maneuver Warfare, for example, goes back to the 1960's. Making blanket statements like "the US didn't make effective offensive armor platforms or develop offensive armor tactics until the MBT-70" completely ignores US doctrine, tactics and overall armor philosophy in WWII and Korea. No one who looks at traditions and tactics rooted in campaigns run by Patton and the like should try to claim the US lacked any offensive armor strategy.

>>31114939
Is it just me, or has the BB-treads picked up a lot lately? I mean, summer is over and all that, so shouldnt the shitposting go down somewhat?
Also:
>"something something" HABBENIN treads>
>"I SAW A PLANE NEAR MY LOCAL AIRFORCE BASE IS IT HABBENIN BLACK CHOPPERS WHAAAAAA"-treads

File: listerinefag.png (1MB, 1902x9492px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1902x9492px

>>31115071
>has the BB-treads picked up a lot lately
I'm convinced there's one fucking autist (probably pic related) who gets stuck on one fucking idea and just shits up /k/ with at least one thread a day about it looking for attention or some such shit. When he finally gets bored with that one narrow subject, he does the next one. Every goddamn day.

>submarine carriers -> BB shit -> destroyer-basted VTOL UAV fighters -> armored amphibious ships -> BB shit -> carriers obsolete -> PT boats will replace all major combatants -> submarine UAVs will replace all SSN/SSBNs -> BB shit
etc. ad nauseum. I wish the fuckstick would just put a trip on so I can filter him.

>>31114932
>comperable to the NATO doctrine in Europe at the time of the Cold War.

Would you care to explain how Desert Storm didn't utilize AirLand Battle?

>>31114978
It's plain fact that the American doctrine in Europe lacked any offensive component until Active Defense in the 70s which was also basically just moving from one blocking position to another one in a still mainly static armored warfare.

The later more aggressive AirLand Battle doctrine was also influenced to a large extrent by German theoretical framework and practical experience in WW2.

>The Budneswehr's empashos on local counterattacks with the objective of seperating an enemy's spearheads from his follow-on forces by carefully timed operations against his flanks and rear contributed significantly to U.S. AirLand Battle doctrine. Both German and American thinking at that point owed much to concepts of fluid battle that developed on the Eastern Front in the final years of World War II

>>31115189

Im thinking about trolling with a seaskimming subsonic ASM that drops off a torpedo (like a MAKO) as a way to reliably bridge the 15 or so kilometer gap between radar horizan and when countermeasures can be used.

im not him, but i think it would be funny. Like an ASROC, but air launched.

>>31115399
>It's plain fact that the American doctrine in Europe lacked any offensive component until Active Defense in the 70s which was also basically just moving from one blocking position to another one in a still mainly static armored warfare.
>The later more aggressive AirLand Battle doctrine was also influenced to a large extrent by German theoretical framework and practical experience in WW2.
Anon, you keep repeating the same things, but you are completely ignoring anything in strategic or doctinal planning that happens three weeks after kickoff.

Also,
>The Budneswehr's empashos on local counterattacks with the objective of seperating an enemy's spearheads from his follow-on forces by carefully timed operations against his flanks and rear contributed significantly to U.S. AirLand Battle doctrine. Both German and American thinking at that point owed much to concepts of fluid battle that developed on the Eastern Front in the final years of World War II
flat proves that the US was not without insight and application of maneuver warfare before the Germans came along.

>>31115427
>Im thinking about trolling with a seaskimming subsonic ASM that drops off a torpedo (like a MAKO) as a way to reliably bridge the 15 or so kilometer gap between radar horizan and when countermeasures can be used.
This already exists in tactical application if not technical verisimilitude. It's called a P-3/P-8 launched Mk-54 MAKO.

>>31111203
>a3

>or the goddamn SLAUGHTER that the T72 would have against the M60A3

bruh

>>31115399
So your argument revolves around the US not having offensive armor doctrine between Korea (when they most certainly demonstrated offensive armor tactics and strategy) and the early-mid 1960's, when the US was working with the Germans on the MBT-70. Even if true (demonstrably not true, but whatever), that's only ten years out of the entire 45 year Cold War.

What are you even trying to say at this point?

>>31115427
I can see it now

>OVER THE HORIZON RADAR
>CHINKSHIT BTFO
>AMERICANSKI CANT INTO ASM!!!!
>F-35 IS SHIT
>BRING BACK BB WITH RAILGUNS AND ARMOUR REEEEE

Do it, anon

>>31115625
I don't argue anything.

The American doctrines at the time of the Cold War are available for all.

Tanks were supposed to be used in a static defence until AirLand Battle in the 80s (which also never got full applied because of silly differences between the old ones and the reformers).

There isn't anything to discuss about it anymore.

File: 56289264_p10.jpg (61KB, 400x343px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x343px

>dat American butthurt for no reason

File: 1450268160423.jpg (28KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 308x308px

>>31115660
You made the argument. Burden of proof is on you.

>Tanks were supposed to be used in a static defence until AirLand Battle in the 80s

You know nothing of how Active Defense worked.

>(which also never got full applied because of silly differences between the old ones and the reformers).

Prove it, because I can very easily point to other conflicts that prove it was adopted just fine.

>>31115660
>I don't argue anything.
You argue that the Germans were the only ones within NATO to actually understand and apply offensive armor tactical doctrines during the Cold War. Which is demonstrably and objectively ridiculous.

>The American doctrines at the time of the Cold War are available for all.
Yet you insist on either cherry picking very small portions of it and ignoring the rest while making blanket statements, or you are just shamefully ignorant of the overall picture.

>Tanks were supposed to be used in a static defence until AirLand Battle in the 80s
Korea, if nothing else (there there is a TON else) proves this to be ridiculous. Just look at any NATO warplan in Europe after the three-week mark when REFORGER is spun up.

>There isn't anything to discuss about it anymore.
You say this because you made a very under informed comment and have now been heavily corrected ITT. I don't know if you're a crypto-weiraboo or some sort of German doing a little dickwaving, but your argument was just silly.

>>31115673
>You know nothing of how Active Defense worked.

>Over the next few years, the U.S. Army heavily revised its doctrine into what became known as “Active Defense.” Active Defense envisioned funneling Soviet armored spearheads into semi-stationary blocking positions, where increasingly lethal precision-guided munitions would tear them to pieces.

It’s not entirely fair to characterize Active Defense as an attrition strategy, because it certainly included elements of maneuver (aspects of it recalled the development of elastic defenses on the Western Front in 1916 and 1917). However, many in the Army hated the perceived passivity of Active Defense. It promised to take advantage of the latest in military technology, but left the initiative wholly in the hands of the Soviets. The next iteration of Army doctrine, AirLand Battle, sought to restore maneuver to the battlefield.Although the Israelis eventually encircled the Egyptians, the conflict seemed to demonstrate that the balance of military technology had shifted to favor the tactical defense. Over the next few years, the U.S. Army heavily revised its doctrine into what became known as “Active Defense.” Active Defense envisioned funneling Soviet armored spearheads into semi-stationary blocking positions, where increasingly lethal precision-guided munitions would tear them to pieces.

It’s not entirely fair to characterize Active Defense as an attrition strategy, because it certainly included elements of maneuver (aspects of it recalled the development of elastic defenses on the Western Front in 1916 and 1917). However, many in the Army hated the perceived passivity of Active Defense. It promised to take advantage of the latest in military technology, but left the initiative wholly in the hands of the Soviets. The next iteration of Army doctrine, AirLand Battle, sought to restore maneuver to the battlefield.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/herbert.pdf

>>31115689
>You argue that the Germans were the only ones within NATO to actually understand and apply offensive armor tactical doctrines during the Cold War. Which is demonstrably and objectively ridiculous.

It's reality until the USA started to apply the AirLand Battle doctrine which was indeed influenced by Germany.

Hey, it only took four decades until the USA reached the level of Germany in the 30s.

>>31115694
>It’s not entirely fair to characterize Active Defense as an attrition strategy, because it certainly included elements of maneuver (aspects of it recalled the development of elastic defenses on the Western Front in 1916 and 1917). However, many in the Army hated the perceived passivity of Active Defense. It promised to take advantage of the latest in military technology, but left the initiative wholly in the hands of the Soviets.
This is a depiction of ActiveDef that simplifies it to the point of meaninglessness.

Also, again, you fail to note that ActiveDef was only the first phase of NATO land warfare doctrine in a large scale European conflict, one which is designed to counter the overwhelming numbers and heavy local superiority massings at breakthroughs of deep battle. Once this phase is complete, the battleplans all change drastically.

>>31115694
Congrats, you can copy paste.

Now care to point out the part that proves you right that "Tanks were supposed to be used in a static defence"?

>>31115728
>Hey, it only took four decades until the USA reached the level of Germany in the 30s.
So we'll just ignore all US armored doctrine during WWII or Korea? Ok.

>>31115743
Don't reply to shitposters, let them rot.

>but but Korea

Korea hasn't even seen a lot of tank action or something one could define as aggresive use of tanks.

Most important event in tank warfare at the time of the Cold war was the Yom Kippur War.

>>31115756
>Korea hasn't even seen a lot of tank action or something one could define as aggresive use of tanks.
Are you fucking kidding right now?

Due to Korean terrain, there were no massive brigade vs brigade tank formation battles, but there were constant and continued armor battles between patrols and company sized forces.

Just two examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Naktong_Bulge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Naktong_Bulge
ctrl+f tank, then look at how many of those engagements involved using armor as scouting, assault and breakthrough exploitation centerpieces.

Shit, just watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDDU0ZDYic8 for the basic historical overview you so desperately need.

>>31115557
>A1's slaughtered newer T-72's in Desert Storm

Bruh indeed.

>T-72M
>new
Fucking newfags, when will you learn that the T-72M and T-72M1 are identical to the T-72 and T-72A.

They were killing T-72's from the mid 1970's technologically wise. They were at best improved with a slight increase in hull armor to counter M111 rounds which the M833 exceds greatly in performance.