Tanks

File: 1371923932223.jpg (451KB, 1400x1000px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1400x1000px

>>31386983
The A-10 is better.

/thread

>>31386983
T-90. The 105mm on the M1 Abrams isn't getting through frontally, period. And 125mm ammunition has advanced from the 80s.

M1.

The T-90 is a T-72 with a fancier turret with newer sensors on it.

The one with ATGMs, APS, ERA, diesel engine and proper loading mechanism.

>>31386983
The sun is going to win this one.


Those dumb fucking marines don't have a chance.

This should be a tread filled with calm arguments un-biased opinions and good, valid citations. Just watch.

>>31386997
As well as a revised glacis, changes in the turret armor composition, and new ERA modules.

I agree that the T-90 is probably inferior. However, fuck off, ignoramus. You have no clue what you are talking about.

>>31386996
dis

>>31386996
>implying a sabot from an Abrams won't completely ignore the T-90's outdated armor

>>31386994
F-16 is better than the A-10 at the same jobs.

/thread

>>31387047
>I agree
>However, fuck off

So I know what I'm talking about but you feel driven to insult anyway

>>31387047
I can hear your Fedora m8

>>31387064
Explain the current open source theory about how M829A3 works to prove that you have some clue about this topic.

>>31387030
>un-biased opinions and good, valid citations
Not gonna happen until intelligence/knowledge about these tanks is made public.

Because of the short penetrator the T90 can't penetrate any modern Western tank.

>>31387064
It's a meme, you dip.

The M1 didn't get the 120mm until the A1 in 1986. It's a joke about OP not specifying which Abrams model, since just M1 often refers to the 105mm armed tanks produced between '79 and '85

>>31387064

Said sabot can't even penetrate the Abrams itself.

A 1993 "T-90" has the advantage over a 1980 "M1".

>>31386983
>It's a Hooahs vs Vatniks vs BRRRRRRTfags vs Muh Air Force thread

So when will the M1A1/chobham in general armour composition be made nonclassified anyways??

>>31386983
Does anyone still use the base model M1?

>>31386983
T-80U

>>31387188
I use them in WarGame

>>31387177
When the US replace the M1 abrams.

I think that if you look really hard you might discover the armor structure of M1 abrams before 1980 or so. Some of that stuff might get declassifed soon.

File: 1344715335950.jpg (81KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x534px

Leclerc is better.

More penetration and accuracy than both because it has an L52 gun (Abrams only has a short L44). Its faster and hasn't been knocked out yet.

It also has GALIX APS that intercepts missiles and uses an autoloader to fire faster than both.

>>31387161
pretty much this:

A 1993 "T-90" has the advantage over a 1980 "M1".

A 1993 "T-90" has a severe disadvantage to a 1985 "M1A1".

A modern T-90 has a severe disadvantage to a 1986 "M1A2"

The T-90 was outmatched when it was first produced, it is hopelessly outclassed now. Seriously even in the Russian arsenal the T-72B3 is a better tank then the most modern T-90's.

It really comes down to the crews manning them, though if you took two completely equal crews, in my OPINION the M1 is coming out on top.

Honestly, it's really whoever can land the first shot on the other.

>>31387188
Don't the Marines?
Or are they all M1A1 at least?

>>31387828
All M1A1. Pretty sure all the M1s were either upgraded or placed into long-term storage.

>>31387693
Never had a loss because it has 1 forward gear and 4 in reverse. Fucking frenchies.

File: maxresdefault (3).jpg (307KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1920x1200px

>>31387758
>Seriously even in the Russian arsenal the T-72B3 is a better tank then the most modern T-90's.
Nope.

>>31387828
If any still exist they are sitting in the desert in the American southewst.

>>31387873
He said in Russia's arsenal.

>>31386996
/thread

File: 14584715697190.jpg (146KB, 1080x810px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1080x810px

>>31387758
2005 M1A2 Abrams operated by Saudi get BTFO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0nDHV_mkiY
2000 M1A1 Abrams opertated by Irag get BTFO
1993 T-90 operated by Syria survived TOW 2 hit

1993 T-90 is superior to any modern Abrams

>>31387941
>Iraq and Saudi tanks hit from the rear
>T-90 mission killed by a frontal hit

>>31387889
He said bullshit anyway, B3 is nowhere near T-90, it is itself pretty much a poor man's T-90 with shitty cast turret and pig disgusting ERA coverage.

>>31387985
>Russian tank
>turret stay in turret ring
>it is killed anon
are you a retard?

>>31386983
Depends on who is inside don't ya think?

>>31387997
A T-72B3 is a T-90 with older armor and no Shtora.

>>31388036
It has increased network capabilities over old T-90.

File: kolpak.jpg (127KB, 800x387px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x387px

>>31388036
With a completely different turret, yes. Thats what i said.

File: -KN2IDebC0lNjydHBpCk.jpg (4MB, 3448x2487px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3448x2487px

>>31387997
you are mostly true
though Russian are upgrading their T-72B3 to B3M standard
B3M is superior to current T-90A
but they just make a contract to upgrade T-90A to T-90M standard which is Russian domistic of version of the T-90SM

>>31388036
fault, T-72B3 use T-72B commander sight, T-90A use T-80U commander sight

>>31388059
>T-90A turret

>>31388154
Yes, what? T-72B3 has cast turret, this one is obviously not a cast turret.

>>31388171
Why do Russians still use cast turrets?

File: t-72b-armor-article_jmo_may2002_2.jpg (3MB, 2406x3234px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2406x3234px

>>31388183
there nothing wrong with cast turret
and they are old soviet froduction tank

>>31387872

>Can't prove wrong about Leclerc being better than Abram
>Resorts to butthurt jokes

>>31387089
I think he might have been sarcastic, dude

>>31388218
B3 is not soviet production
Cast armor is inferior to welded armor in terms of protection.

>>31388171
T-90's have a cast turret like T-72's, T-90A's have a welded turret.

>>31388245
>B3 is not soviet production
B3 are Soviet B updated to B3

>>31388245
Russia uses welded turrets because they lost the ability to make cast turrets when the USSR broke up.

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

3MB, 1280x720px

>>31388236
>>Can't prove wrong about Leclerc being better than Abram
Leclerc has autoloader. That's already enough.

File: 1422910556870.jpg (1MB, 1536x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1536x2560px

>>31388274
also Leclerc TC is sexier than Abrams TC

>>31388274
>inferior ammunition
>no BMS
>poor side armor
>numerous/large frontal weakspots
>no hard kill APS prospects

>>31388270
No, russia welded turrets because welded turret is better than cast turret. And what you said is complete bullshit, since Russia inherited 3 out of 4 places where turrets were casted.

File: 14678955379841.jpg (152KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1000x667px

>>31388270
nope
there nothing wrong with casted but welded turret have better armor layout

T-90A turret was a copy of the object 187 turret from the Soviet time

picrelated is a Oplot turret

>>31388274
Leclerc is aesthetic af

>>31388324
>Poor side armour

Why are you facing your side to the threat in the first place :^)

File: 14615899319270.jpg (163KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1200x800px

>>31388341

>>31388331
Can you name the 4 locations where cast turrets were made?

File: Abrams side armour plating.png (439KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 500x375px

>>31388324
>poor side armor
implying Abrams side is godlike thick

>>31388346
>Why are you facing your side to the threat in the first place :^)
well, you don't show your side the threat when retreating obviously

>>31388341
>nope
>there nothing wrong with casted but welded turret
Yep, rolled armor is 10-15 percent better than cast armor, add much easier composite installation and much better accuracy that casting cannot match by default.
>T-90A turret was a copy of the object 187 turret from the Soviet time
So what?

>>31388346
This might be a shock to you, but not all combat consists of 1v1 head on duels in an open field.

>>31388376
Kharkiv, Omsk, Leningrad, Nizny Tagil.

>>31388423
>add much easier composite installation and much better accuracy that casting cannot match by default.
>So what?
so what wrong with cast again? you only listing advantage of welded turret. and that is exactly why they stop making casted turret, not because they don't know how to cast turret

>>31388001
Unfortunately all mission kills/kills on t series tanks do not result in a jack in the box.

Depressing, i know.

File: Frenchfag scrolling.jpg (340KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 720x540px

>>31387872

Tell that to Frenchfag

>>31388485
>exactly why they stop making casted turret, not because they don't know how to cast turret
Thats what i said. Here. >>31388331

>>31388384
>implying Abrams side is godlike thick

It is in comparison, especially when you include skirts and turret sides.

>you don't show your side the threat when retreating obviously

Or when the opponent is 30+ degrees to your side?

>>31388510
Implying Leclerc somehow does not have skirts and turret sides.

>>31388442
I said where the turrets were cast, not vague mentions of cities where assembly plants are.

File: 12204794_10153664538828187_972544564_n-675x600.jpg (205KB, 675x600px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 675x600px

>>31388510
>especially when you include skirts and turret sides.
Leclerc skirts consisted of three thick NERA plate and then thinner plate

Abrams skirt are just some hard RHA plate

File: Leclerc.jpg (212KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1280x851px

>>31388324

>inferior ammunition

Leclerc has an L52 gun, Abram only has L44. That means more veloty on the ammo for more penetration than a shorter gun like on the Abram.

>poor side armor
>numerous/large frontal weakspots

Never been knocked out. Abrams has.

>no hard kill APS prospects

Has GALIX APS that stops missiles from hitting.

>>31388510

Leclerc is fast it will be flanking them

>>31388538
Kirov plant, Omsktransmash (not sure they actually cast turrets, but they definitely had all of the documentation), Uralvagonzavod, Malyshev plant. What the fuck, nigger?

>>31388526
The Leclerc has armored skirts over the front of the tank where ammo is stored, and no armor cavities on the turret sides like the Abrams and Leo 2 have.

File: 1471278101864.jpg (275KB, 2000x1331px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 2000x1331px

>>31388588
>Leclerc is fast it will be flanking them
true
Chinese Type-96Btank in Sensha-do with knock off France transmission was out maneuvering lighter more power full Russian Tank
too bad one road wheel fell off

>>31387872
>Hurt durr frogs can't into war...
This meme needs to die.

File: 1940 05 Francia Char B1 capturado.jpg (277KB, 996x900px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 996x900px

>>31388674
it will never die

>>31388560
They consist of a single NERA plate under a thin shell.

>>31386983

The T-90 because again, the 105 mm is a little dated in taking on a T-72B behind Kontakt-5. The M1 has a thermal camera while T-90 does not, so the advantage in first shot surprise goes to the M1.

>>31387758
>Seriously even in the Russian arsenal the T-72B3 is a better tank then the most modern T-90's.

Well this is true. That's why they haven't bought a T--90A since 2011 and are focusing on bringing as many T-72B3s online as possible. Much better decision IMO.

>>31387997

The B3 is just as good as the T-90, with the addition of a new carousel for long-rod DU ammo.

The B3M which is coming online is way better than a T-90A because it has an independent commander's thermal sight giving it hunter killer capability.

>>31388331

Not true at all.

The lost the last turret casting facility in the late 90s which forced them to use a welded turret from the Object 187 prototypes.

>>31388898
>The B3 is just as good as the T-90
>hurpadurp
Fuck, it is basically new gun, new radio and new sight, everything else is the same 30-ish year old T-72B.
>>31388935
>The lost the last turret casting facility in the late 90s
So, which turret casting facility did they loose? Stop talking out of your ass please.

>>31388898
>The B3M which is coming online is way better than a T-90A
Call me when they do it, i wonder what comes faster - B3 to B3M or T-90A to T-90AM.

>>31388493
Merci FrenchFag

>>31388674
>canceled their second carrier
>are reducing their cruise missile stocks
>only 2 Horizons
>reduced Fremm purchases as well

No one to blame but themselves.

>>31388991
>stop talking out your ass
>welded turrets are better because...

>>31389435
Because >>31388423 , learn to read. Also, apparently they "lost" casting technology quite a while earlier than USSR collapse, since pretty much all of the prototypes had welded turrets.
So, which turret casting facility did they loose?

>>31389029

There's already nearly 1,000 B3s in service, in addition to the B3Ms coming online this year.

I don't think they're upgrading B3s to B3M, they're overhauling ancient, surplus T-72Bs all the way up to the B3M standard, with a general overhaul of the automotive parts and engine.

>So, which turret casting facility did they loose? Stop talking out of your ass please.

Azovstal in Mariupol, Ukraine. They wanted to use cast turrets on the T-90A as well, but the dissolution of Azovstal forced to dig out the welded prototypes. This came up with the first Indian contract.

So please, take a fork, and eat your words.

>Fuck, it is basically new gun, new radio and new sight, everything else is the same 30-ish year old T-72B.

Entirely new FCS coupled with new main gun drives and stabilizers. That alone brings the T-72B3 up to Leopard 2A4 lethality and accuracy, which is plenty for the threats Russians anticipate.

>>31389451
>Because >>31388423 , learn to read.

That is not an absolute truth, and not reflective of the armor cavities.

>since pretty much all of the prototypes had welded turrets

And yet production vehicles started with cast turrets.

>>31388588
Saying its never been knocked out means absolutely nothing, the reason its never been knocked out is because its seen little to no action in comparison to the Abrams or even the Challenger.

Its also foolish to accept that you will over come a disadvantage by assuming you will always be in a position of superior maneuverability.

>>31389539

The Leclerc has seen plenty of action, arguably more than a Challenger.

It is in fact the most modern of all Western MBTs and solves a lot of their faults. It's automation is unmatched, it had a battlefield network when no one else did at the time, it has a 3 man crew and a higher performance gun and some of the best FCS deployed.

Where it may be worse is in overall armor protection, that turret just doesn't seem like it has a lot of armor.

>>31389496
>Azovstal in Mariupol, Ukraine.
Which has something to do with cast turret where?
> They wanted to use cast turrets on the T-90A as well
No they did not. Both 187 and 188 had welded turrets. 477 had welded turret, 490 had welded turret, 490A had welded turret... because welded turret is better, ffs.

>>31389554
>It is in fact the most modern of all Western MBTs

That would be the M1A2 SEPv2 and Leopard 2A7

>it had a battlefield network when no one else did at the time

The coming Scorpion upgrade is the first time the Leclerc will have a BMS.

>>31389518
>That is not an absolute truth, and not reflective of the armor cavities.
Armor cavities can be identical, but in welded turret they are massively more precise. Rolled steel is ALWAYS better than cast steel. Always.

>>31389604
You have yet to explain why production T-90's had a cast turret.

>>31389621
>Rolled steel is ALWAYS better than cast steel. Always.

myth

>>31389554

>The Leclerc has seen plenty of action, arguably more than a Challenger.

Not even close. At most, 70 of them deployed vs insurgents for a few months.

Over 120 Challengers went to Iraq for the better part of 6 years, against conventional and insurgent infantry, along with enemy tanks and other vehicles, including heavy urban combat.

>and a higher performance gun

L55 Smoothbore on the Leo 2 would like a word. As would the M829A3 on the Abrams. The Leclerc's ammo isn't that modern either for KEP. They've never really prioritised that thanks to the "wheel mafia" of light intervention focus.

>>31389632
Apparently because they lost the technology, and produced T-90 with fake cast turret. Or because they acquired technologies to mass produce quality welded turrets and stopped producing shitty cast turrets.

>>31389653
Only profit of cast steel is ability to differentiate thickness. Everything else is shit.

>>31389674
Or they produced as many T-90's with cast turrets as they had supplies for, then were forced to switch to welded turrets.

>>31388355
>also oplot turret
I love oplot my friend

>>31389720
Or they switched to welded turrets because they are better. According to Pavlov they are, so piss off with your fairy tales please.

>>31389750
>so piss off with your fairy tales please.

Says the guy who thinks turrets are made at the 4 major assembly plants.

>>31389792
Says the guy who thinks that all turrets were made at Azovstal. Retard, they casted T-34.

>>31389811
T-90 cast turrets were produced there and only there.

M1 has a better crew, sensor package, and fire control system. It will see first, shoot first, and not even bother to slow down from 60 mph.

>>31389833
T-80 turrets were produced there. And it has absolutely nothing to do with welded being better than cast.

File: 1457308812119.jpg (32KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x332px

>>31389792
>>31389811

Tanks are cool but sometimes I think maybe the people who like tanks aren't as cool.

>>31389604
>Which has something to do with cast turret where?

It was the only source for cast T-72B turrets.

File: 1456656422609.jpg (42KB, 1024x408px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1024x408px

>>31389604

>No they did not. Both 187 and 188 had welded turrets.

Gosh, you're stupid.

The 188 IS the T-90 with a cast turret.

Jesus Christ, go fucking read the Wiki page before you waste any more of anyone's time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

>>31389615
>That would be the M1A2 SEPv2 and Leopard 2A7

Those are antiquated 70s designs with a bunch of shit strapped onto them to make them look modern.

IF the Americans decide to develop a new MBT, I guarantee it will resemble little of the M1.

>>31389750
>Or they switched to welded turrets because they are better.

Negative, they switched to welded because they ran out of cast and had no means to start new production.

And that topic is now closed.

>>31389811

I'm the guy who said they're made in Azovstal, you're dealing with more than one person, you Vatnik, and we're both better informed on the topic than you, as proven in the discussion.

>>31389866

Are we talking about the T-80 all of a sudden?

File: 1420926856952.jpg (941KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 3264x2448px

>>31388839
>>31388560

>>31390637
They are "antiquated" in service designs that are still more technologically advanced than the Leclerc.

File: 1465573654617.jpg (236KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1200x675px

>>31390931
Although the Leclerc will catch back up after the Scorpion program.

>>31387758
>A 1993 "T-90" has a severe disadvantage to a 1985 "M1A1".
Never been far from the truth. The original M1A1's KE protection is pathetic and GLATGMs skirt its HEAT protection. They only came to with the M1A1HA upgrade which is around the same time as the original cast turret T-90,

>A modern T-90 has a severe disadvantage to a 1986 "M1A2"
A modern T-90- the T-90MS has all the amenities the very latest M1A2 SEP V3 has as well. In terms of hard parameters it compares very well, easily solving two of the problems the T-90 had in terms of protection by upgrading the base armor and replacing the ERA with a thrice more effective Relikt than K-5(export only twice that) and relaxing the projectile length limits to DM-53 levels.
In terms of serial M1A2s vs serial T-90As, the T-90 has slight inferiority in most aspects, a consequence of not bothering to update the thing while waiting for then Object 195 to mature then now the T-14.

>>31388588
A UAE Leclerc was penetrated frontally by an ATGM not long ago.

Driver was killed I believe but the tank sustained minimal damage, you could have put another driver in and it would have functioned fine.

But even so it was penetrated and the minimal damage was more due to shot placement and luck.

>>31387872
>autoloader
>better
pick one and only one

>>31390672
>I'm the guy who said they're made in Azovstal
But not all turrets were made in Azovstal. UVZ and LKZ has in-house turret and hull casting (and now welding) facilities precisely because they are independent tank factories of their own. In fact, the only reason the Azovstal in Ukraine became the sole manufacturer of cast turrets is that LKZ(and UVZ) made quite a bit of cast turrets during Soviet times that with anemic tank orders eventualy lead to outright retiring of the production line and UVZ switching to welded turret production in preparation for the Object 187 before the collapse of the SU.

>>31391492
>and relaxing the projectile length limits to DM-53 levels

Only the T-14 is capable of firing projectiles of a comparable penetrator length to DM53/63 and M829A3/A4.

>>31391492

I really, really doubt the T-90MS has the same resolution thermal optics as the M1A2 SEP V3.

You know how US tanks btfo Iraqi T-72s? Night combat and T-72s turning on their fucking IR illuminatiors and still not being able to see the M1s.

>>31391777
Not a slavshill, but the Iraqi T-72s were in no way able to compare to the M1A1HAs that were fighting against

>>31391968

I am just explaining why thermals are critical by providing a historic example. "Monkey models" is actually a valid argument a lot of the time, but nonetheless, Russians haven't caught up on thermals even on the latest slavshit.

>>31387068
>>31387079
samefaggot

File: ItsAnotherNakba.png (410KB, 543x352px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 543x352px

Lots of T-90s have been lost in Syria. Pic related was captured by FSA when the crew abandoned their vehicle in terror

>>31387856

A number of M1's were refurbished into M1A1M's and sold to Iraq.

Some more were refurbished into M1A2S and sold to the Saudis.

Since it costs only slightly more to turn a M1 and a M1A1 HA, whenever the army wants newer tanks, it refurbishes old M1's so it retains the capability of the newer tanks.

>>31391649
>But not all turrets were made in Azovstal. UVZ and LKZ has in-house turret and hull casting (and now welding) facilities precisely because they are independent tank factories of their own.


Apparently not because when the Indian contract came up, they ran out of cast turrets and had to scramble to do welded.

I haven't ever heard your other statements corroborated in print or literature. What is your source?

File: LZ29i24.jpg (450KB, 3000x1996px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 3000x1996px

>>31391736
length of the round =/= length of projectile (the thing that flies)
The projectile for the DM-53 is 3/4 of the total length of the round itself which is close to the 740 mm projectile length of the latest rounds for the T-90. Also the T-14 fires much longer projectiles(1.1m long, penetrator itself 900mm afaik) than even western 120 mm unitary, a consequence of using a vertical autoloader.

>>31391777
>I really, really doubt the T-90MS has the same resolution thermal optics as the M1A2 SEP V3.
Both use third gen thermals afaik.

File: tfw.jpg (26KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x300px

>>31386996
>Forgetting that the M1 has a 120mm gun

2/10 made me reply

>>31387693
Of course it hasn't been knocked out yet, it hasn't been in a fucking war.

>>31393473
>I know nothing about tanks

>>31393332
>Apparently not because when the Indian contract came up, they ran out of cast turrets and had to scramble to do welded.
LKZ does cast turrets for T-80 which has quite a bit of difference in comparison the the T-90's, namely the armor is thinner so they can't use those. UVZ's problem is that they had retooled for the production of welded turrets long before (as ive said in preparation for the Object 187 which got cockblocked by the cheaper 188 anyway) which meant that with the closure of the mariupol factory the cast turret production for the T-72BM/90 is dead. A happy accident, in a way, since the welded turrets are much better than the old cast ones which were only bought because they were much cheaper.

>I haven't ever heard your other statements corroborated in print or literature.
You should read more then.

>What is your source?
There was a post-coldwar tank industry discussion on Otvaga2k4. I'm too lazy to dig a link (just drop in and ask there in english, most know it) or rather google is shitty with specific searches on rooskie sites for some reason.

>>31393338
>The projectile for the DM-53 is 3/4 of the total length of the round itself which is close to the 740 mm projectile length of the latest rounds for the T-90.

If you are talking about "Lead", then it is a round that most T-90's cannot use.

>Also the T-14 fires much longer projectiles(1.1m long, penetrator itself 900mm afaik) than even western 120 mm unitary, a consequence of using a vertical autoloader.

The entire flight body of "Vacuum" is ~900mm, which is comparable to an M829A3.

>>31391736
But M829A3/A4 is a fatter DU round with an alloy nose which serves to detonate heavy ERA while keeping the DU tip intact

>>31393769
According to a German blogger, based on a patent for an export tungsten round.

>>31393748
>The entire flight body of "Vacuum" is ~900mm, which is comparable to an M829A3.
The penetrator rod itself is supposedly ~900mm, and the projectile assembly therefore much longer at about ~1.1m, all according to a release on ria that was supposedly scrubbed quickly right after. The Object 195's AL patent details projectiles 1.2m long and in scaling with typical Russian projectiles and their penetrators should give a ~1m long penetrator, and with the T-14's AL basically the same only made for a smaller calibre I don't see any reason why the projectile itself would be that short.
But anyway all we have is words and conjectures until we see the round itself; even a supposed press release that only a few saw could be a figment of imagination for all we knew. But if I'm a betting man I'd say the Russians would go for the longest projectile they can make it within the confines of the hull, which is 1.2m. Its more than adequately future-proofed and also means they only have to go down a calibre from their 152 mm designs and they have a new round without much fuss.

File: 1432990830757.jpg (28KB, 502x417px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 502x417px

>>31387941
>these """""""people""""""" buy these weapons from us to kill each other.

Why are they incapable of creating their own state of the art weaponry to blow themselves away? I know the answer, but why do we associate with them and provide them with such materials rather than treat them like the savages they are? Money isn't an excuse.

>>31394019
>1.1
*1.2
>>31393800
Going by precedence then, only the material for the penetrator is substituted

>>31393748
>If you are talking about "Lead", then it is a round that most T-90's cannot use.
The T-90As have the longer projectile tray with a bigger projectile limit like the T-72B3s coming into service.

File: 1474101516672.jpg (92KB, 1600x533px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1600x533px

Pretty good thread /k/. Apparently summer is over.

>>31388442
You forget about Chelyabinsk aka Tankograd

>>31386983

Probably the worst place to ask this question

But I've got more kills in a T-90 than an M1 in BF4 so I'd say the former.

>>31394033
>Money isn't an excuse.
See, that's where you're wrong, boss.

File: 14742873551590.jpg (237KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1280x960px

>>31386983
a T-80U with 152mm

>>31386996
>1 0 5
>0
>5

File: f8c482acaede864257da7a106295175d.jpg (96KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x480px

>>31395678
This is an M1, it has a 105mm gun.

>>31394033
>money isn't an excuse
You're either underage or just stupidly naive

>>31393583
>implying OP knows anything about tanks and didn't state the full nomenclature

ffs he posted a T72 and an M1A1

File: 1474067167401.jpg (59KB, 960x685px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 960x685px

>>31386983

>>31392640
This, the Army recycles hulls and turrets like crazy. If you were to stop into an M1A2 SEP V3 that rolled off the lot though, you will find that everything in it is new.

Its like the DMC Delorean, they haven't been made in forever, but theres parts floating around never used that are taken to make new Deloreans. The military has 8000 some tanks, under 6000 some are in a mothball status and either used for parts, to create new inventory, or to sell to allies after refurbishing. Its a niffty thing, as if WW3 kicks off its easier to dust these off and fix them up, then it is to open a tank plant and make the same number of tanks.

>>31393338
>Both use third gen thermals afaik.
The Abrams uses GEN 2 Block 1

T90 uses backwards engineered gen 1 optics from the french.

File: FFemirat22.jpg (169KB, 1329x344px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1329x344px

>>31387693
> Its faster and hasn't been knocked out yet.
> KNOCKED OUT YET.
> What is Yemen war?

File: Jp9S9RB.jpg (32KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 800x554px

>>31395830

>>31389539
Agreed, that's the line of thinking that got Shermans wrecked by Panzers. Maneuverability doesn't always mean as much as people like to think.

>>31387693
>More penetration
Uses a shitty copy of the DM43, while germany uses the DM53, a superior APFSDS, US uses the M829A4 which is better than both

>accuracy
haha no, but its possible. I don't really care for the leclerc, but its got the offensive ability of a potato.

> Its faster
I read this is, it still uses a shitty slow diesel engine. There is a reason the Abrams has a turbine, and its not to make the tank slower.

>hasn't been knocked out yet
it also has 5 mins of combat experience, no shit.

>APS
APS is expensive and does not work 100% of the time. The tried and true method of giving your tank armor that's thicker then paper is the best solution. APS just provides added security. If you have good modern armor this is less of a concearn.

>uses an autoloader to fire faster than both
Autoloaders are not faster.

>>31395876
>>31387693
GALIX is a smoke grenade launcher, there are no sensors for it to function as an APS.

>>31386983
Thats a T-72 buddy.

>>31392640
I thought they were still building brand new Abrams like crazy?

>>31388588
Lol the US ammo males up for the l44's length still. Europe btfo

File: OFL NG.jpg (52KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x960px

>>31395876
>Uses a shitty copy of the DM43, while germany uses the DM53, a superior APFSDS, US uses the M829A4 which is better than both

The OFL 120 F1 isn't what you would call a "shitty copy", the DM 43/LKE I/OFL 120 F1 whatever you call it was the result of a French-German research project.

>haha no, but its possible. I don't really care for the leclerc, but its got the offensive ability of a potato.

It does not make any sense.

>I read this is, it still uses a shitty slow diesel engine. There is a reason the Abrams has a turbine, and its not to make the tank slower.

The V8X1500 Hyperbar isn't a mere diesel engine, the Leclerc can go from 0 to 32 Km/h in 5 seconds, almost two seconds quicker than the Abrams.

>it also has 5 mins of combat experience, no shit.

>>31395830

>Autoloaders are not faster.

Maybe, but they ensure a cyclic loading rate in whatever condition or orientation the tank is in.

File: t-72 unknown.png (2MB, 689x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 689x800px

>>31387941
export versions sold to Saudi Arabia and Iraq M1A1M. plus the only reason the 1993 t-90 survived is because we supplied the Syrians with old stock of the TOW 2 system mostly for killing t-72V and t-80's of the 80's ERA, we are not sending the latest and greatest TOW to Syria just for the Russians. plus the m1a2 sep 2 would outclass the export model

>>31387113
autism

>>31386996
/thread

>>31395782
>>he posted a T72
Because you'd be hard pressed to find a picture of an Abrams beside a non sandistan T-72/55

Also
>>Picture of a T-72
>Yfw the basic T-90 is literally a T-72B3

>>31396240
IIRC there hasn't been a completely new Abrams made for the US military since 1993, when an old M1 is taken apart and rebuilt as a M1A2 SEPv2 it is considered a new tank.

>>31388493
>object 187
mercy frogfrag

>>31386983
T-90, since the M1 is some MBT-70 abortion with a 105mm gun.

>>31396650
>The V8X1500 Hyperbar isn't a mere diesel engine, the Leclerc can go from 0 to 32 Km/h in 5 seconds, almost two seconds quicker than the Abrams.
>quicker
except that's wrong

>>31396650
>they ensure a cyclic loading rate in whatever condition or orientation the tank is in
this is also wrong. An autoloader cannot reload a gun with it max or min elevated. Also the "loader getting tired" implication you're going to make is misleading. The loader would get tired but after the ready rack of ammo has been used up 2 or 3 times.

>>31399142
yes, the hulls and turrets are sandblasted to bare bones, all moving pieces removed, and its built from new equipment. In the case of armor upgrades, its removed and fitted with new armor.

>>31388506
fun fact: when bethlehem steel closed we lost our ability to cast armor like tank turrets

File: M1 nasty.jpg (338KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1024x1024px

>>31395782

>Full nomenclature

"M1" is the full nomenclature for the M1

>>31402805
Some people also call the M&P15 an AR15. or the M1A2 SEPV2 the M1. Or here's my favorite, the Mark 48 Mod 1 Block 0...... if I said M1 was a contraction for M1A2 and OP used in this sense, will you feel smarter than OP?

Otherwise take your retardation and go.

File: 1040419710.jpg (861KB, 3270x2047px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 3270x2047px

>>31386983
How about we compare something that's a bit more relevant. T-14 Armata vs M1.. Also, any comments regarding its engine and failure is invalid, the thing was still a prototype and barely ready to roll. By now, it may just be ready.

>>31403091

>People can be retards, so I should be allowed to as well!

>>31403151
>How about we compare something that's a bit more relevant. T-14 Armata vs M1
M1A2 SEP v3 gets raped so hard by the T-14 its not even funny senpai.

>Also, any comments regarding its engine and failure is invalid
You're right, its human error ayyy.

>>31403317
Is this bait or do you actually believe that? Do you have anything to back this up?

>>31403415
>Is this bait or do you actually believe that? Do you have anything to back this up?
>Reality is now bait

>>31403434
You know, this isn't the first time your point has been argued. I just thought you would have something to counter the overwhelming evidence that's stacked against the fairy tale you are living in the T14 is better.

>>31403786
Now someone is projecting hard. Don't worry, abrams are still good to go for gate guard duty, the only posting it won't get horribly wrecked against T-14.

>>31403855
Considering how the T14 can't penetrate an M1, you're really boring the question.

>>31403938
>Considering how the T14 can't penetrate an M1, you're really boring the question.
>900mm penetrator fired at 1900m/s, and comes in Tungsten and DU flavors
>can't penetrate a 900mm Rhae armor
gr8 b8 m8.

>>31387023
>forgetting the Army has them too

>>31403995
>900mm Rhae armor
>M1

gr8 b8 indeed

Next you'll tell me the T90 has more armor.

>>31403317
>M1A2 SEP v3 gets raped so hard by the T-14 its not even funny senpai.


but anon they've never been up against each other so how is that possible

>>31404072
>but anon they've never been up against each other so how is that possible
In the same way we know Shermans and T-34s would be wrecked against T-72s- uptimer advantages.

File: armata bingo.jpg (773KB, 1363x1685px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 1363x1685px

>>31405583
Except this implies the T14 is like the modern Tiger. For this to be true (which for starters its misleading as hell) requires the T14 to be better, its not. If you wanna talk about technological advantages, lets talk about how the T14 is 5-10 years behind the west in tank development. The T14 is realistically a 7th rate tank or so.

>>31387066
THE F16 HAS NO BRRRRRRRRRT

>>31404009
>Next you'll tell me the T90 has more armor.
Just slightly below it. The wiki entry on armor for the T-90 and others is laughably way overblown. A good rule of thumb is LOS thickness of the armor equals the rhae for KE, and that's for the really good armors with volumetric efficiencies approaching pure rha steel. Composites provide very good protection for their mass but at the same time are not very dense or particularly space efficient.

>>31405628
actually it has an m61 20mm vulcan cannon

>>31386983
Long-range? Abrams
Why? Because NATO side has insane optics on them, and would spot T-90 first.

>>31386996
>>31387057
>>31387933
>>31398768

expert troll.

>>31405606
>le shitty bingo forced meme
opinion [into the trash]

>>31386997
M1A2SEP2 is an M1 with the same turret and newer sensors on it.

>>31405606
but that's just like your opinion man. The abrams would do its best shart in mart impression when it faces of against a T-14.

>>31388270
Not this shitty bait again.

File: 1461929131808.png (245KB, 1380x1600px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1380x1600px

>>31405653
>>31405682
T14 has an umanned turret.

-cannot clear jams
-cannot reload machine guns
-cannot provide situational awareness
-poor C2

-Reliant on APS to protect its shitty armor
-reliant on ERA to protect its shitty armor when APS doesn't work
-APS can intercept 600m/s missiles but not 1500m/s kinetic rounds that are 1/3rd the size.

-autoloader
-crew is dependent on tv screens with no manual aiming
-no manual firing devices
-is a sitting duck when its powerpack is offline, unlike western tanks

-russia cannot into APFSDS
-gun is less accurate the western contemprary ones
-have yet to see it offer stabilization while moving

-too exspensive for Russia to fix
-if they do fix it, to exspensive for russia to ever field 2000 of.

this is off the top of my head. Anyone who thinks the T14 is "muh worlds best tank" is an idiot. The bingo chart brings up several handicaps the T14 has other tanks do not. The only one I think is false is the periscope one. if you don't like it cool, go prove it wrong.

>>31405779
>-APS can intercept 600m/s missiles but not 1500m/s kinetic rounds that are 1/3rd the size.

Reminder, countries like the US have had kinetic penetrators that can punch a whole behind ERA for about 20 years now.

File: i just don't care anymore.png (35KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 625x626px

>>31389496
>They wanted to use cast turrets on the T-90A as well
No, they did not, imbecile troll. They wanted to make a next step upgrade of T-72B from obr.1988 to Object 188 using T-80U electronics. It was called "T-72B Improved". At the same time they developed top notch beast called Object 187. Then the country collapsed and Object 188 as it is was never adopted, but a couple of years later they upgraded its electronics once again and called it T-90. It was adopted for service and produced in the 90s. In early 00s India bought some and in a few years they made an upgraded version using Object 187's turret and some modern electronics.

>>31405779
But all of those are false. And I'm not even going to dignify all the time you wasted with a proper reply. Seethe in butthurt until then.

File: unsuccessful-troll.jpg (63KB, 686x572px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 686x572px

>>31405779
>Here, talk to this pasta

>>31393583
So me mentioning the fact the M1 had a gun upgrade later in life means I don't know anything?

1/10 made me reply again.

File: 1460973735292.jpg (34KB, 580x426px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 580x426px

>>31405798
yea because YOU FUCKING CAN'T you vodka drunken child molesting fuck. Your only rebuttal is that the 2A82M can fire over 8km and that Vacuum 125mm ammo can penetrate 2000mm of RHA. Everything you think you have on your side, deceives you. You lost the argument before you began it.

>>31395754
It's also not an American M1, and we know that the export Abrams doesn't count because it's pure shit.

>>31405821
I'm calling 911, we got a terminal case of butthurt here.

>>31405789
Reminder that the US could only achieve penetration on 1985 K-5 after 8 years of development, in 1993. Reminder that ERA evolved since 1985.

File: 1462278176529.png (114KB, 599x491px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 599x491px

>>31405808
Please, go find a single link to that and I will an hero. Oh wait, you can't, I just typed that. I have more knowledge on tanks in my pinky finger then you have reading RT News and Wikipedia. I've been there, I've worked with tanks. You're some faggot fudd in his mom's basement.

You can at least try to refute [literally anything]

>>31386983
According to War thunder everything Russian will win. Stalininium win everytime.

>>31405833
>Reminder that ERA evolved since 1985.
And APFSDS has improved as well. germany even built a new gun to level the playing field.

>>31405821
>SHARTS-IN-INCOHERENT-AND-IMPOTENT-RAGE

>>31405830
Seeing as you hold the burden of truth and cannot post a counter-argument, being butthurt or not doesn't matter. The T14 is an inferior tank, and its proved mathematically.

>>31405854
You know, for a simple container filled with explosives the Russians got you good there, forcing you to get a new gun and on top of that new rounds as well.

>>31404009
T-80U, T-72B1988 and T-90 are all armoured better than M1A1. T-80U and T-90 are armoured better than M1A1HA.

>>31405867
>forcing you to get a new gun and on top of that new rounds as well.
America didn't make a new gun. They made new ammo. Ironically, since something like the M829A3/4 will penetrate Kontact 5 and Rekilt, you should be a little more humble in your posts.

>>31405842
>Please, talk to my pasta
Kek.

>>31405866
>The T14 is an inferior tank, and its proved mathematically.
Common core math you mean. Meanwhile the rest of the planet knows the abrams is shit compared to proper western tanks like the Leopard 2 and Leclerc and absolute dogshit compared to the god emperor of tanks, T-14.

>Seeing as you hold the burden of truth and cannot post a counter-argument
Seething butthurt on your part is all the proof I need. The abrams sucks and even you know it, which is why you seethe, indeed.

>>31405876
>are all armoured better than M1A1
Which we don't use

>M1A1HA.
Which we also don't use

I don't see how comparing modern tanks to tanks that were last relevant in the 90s is a good defense to the ideology Russia has an upper hand in tank design/advances.

>>31405854
>And APFSDS has improved as well
Yes, they did. It's a sword and shield type of thing.

>>31405888
This is bait. But the Abrams is better then the Leopard. To include, having a better gun+ammo.

>>31405877
>Ironically, since something like the M829A3/4 will penetrate Kontact 5 and Rekilt, you should be a little more humble in your posts.
then they just make another metal box with explosives. Or better yet go one step into APS.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2016-09-21T06-11-54.120Z.png (7KB, 515x158px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 515x158px

>>31405895
>Which we don't use
Right.
>I don't see how comparing
The comparison between M1 and T-90 was implied by you. Next time think twice before posting bullshit.

>>31405911
Shitty bait. Any Leopard 2 is head and shoulders above your pitiful excuse of a tank. Call us when you don't have Rheinmetall semen on your lips.

>>31405887
go ahead I am waiting
>>31405900
Yea, and russia can talk a lot of shop but doesn't offer any actual quality behind their shield.
>>31405888
nope, inferior gun, armor, and plauged with a massive handicap by trapping the crew in a platoon, you can use basic logic and reason to why a tank without an unmanned turret is better.
>>31405855
you sure proved me wrong

lists of facts offered by the opposing side: none
case is shut boys, I guess the t14 is better.

File: t-72b2 (1).jpg (235KB, 1200x789px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1200x789px

>>31405877
>something like the M829A3/4 will penetrate Kontact 5 and Rekilt
A3 can't penetrate Relikt. A4 will probably be able to. But Relikt is a 00s thing.

>>31405939
>lists of facts offered by the opposing side: none
Better than posting outright lies.
>case is shut boys, I guess the t14 is better.
nah, your tank is just shittier.

File: 3p08nh.jpg (49KB, 529x352px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 529x352px

>>31405939
>P-please, talk to me, take my bait!
This is getting rather pathetic.

>>31405925
>Right.
Undeniably.

Those 4300 tanks are mostly warstock that will never see combat. Same with with the M1A2 baselines. If the Army forced its hand right now, you would not fight a single M1A1 or A2 tank.

In addition, "M1A1" is misleading. There are A1 Hulls, A1 stock, and A1 AIMs that are in circulation. The Marine corp and certain national gaurd units operate M1A1 AIM V2s which are almost identical to the M1A2 SEP V2. Primary difference being lack of a CITV.

In the event of WW3 the 90s tier boneyard of tanks you just listed would be converted by GDLS into SEP V3 models. As oppossed of course, to having to create new inventory from scratch, why the tank plant has been shut down for a couple decades. It takes as little as a month to bring a hull, to operational status. I've seen it done.

Next time before posting, know what you're talking about. Go read something more in depth then wikipedia.

>>31405950
M829A2 was the answer to K5. A3 is the super A2, kind of the M855/SS109 5.56mm cartridge to xm193. Its a super glorified round that offers a lot more then its predecessor. There's little reason to believe an A3 wouldn't penetrate Rekilt. Unless, the boastful russian's weren't lying for once, like they did about K5. Also get this, the majority of Russia's tank force doesn't even use K5. This is a retarded argument, half you fucks need to shut up already.

>>31405965
>>31405956
>calling facts bait
then prove it wrong if its just "bait"

File: L55 is less accurate.png (13KB, 670x509px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 670x509px

>>31405931
>Any Leopard 2
no, not even the A7

> pitiful excuse of a tank
Actually the M1A2 SEP V2 is the best on the planet currently. Followed closely by the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2. Then you have a sizeable gap before you get tanks like T14 Aramata and T90MS.

>Call us when you don't have Rheinmetall semen on your lips.
As I said, the Abrams is a more deadly tank the the Leopard. The Germans use a tungsten round, fired out of a bigger barrel, but that has its own draw backs. Pic related, accuracy.

The American's designed a bigger heavier round out of depleted uranium, that offers superior penetration. Even though the M256 (a domestic copy of the L44) is shorter then the L55, the ammunition difference is just enough to pull the leopard behind the Abrams. But that's not the only disadvantage. For instance, they lack C4ISR, among other things.

>>31405810
>implying you knew the gun was originally a 105mm

>>31405998
>Its a super glorified round that offers a lot more then its predecessor.
Namely the 4 inches of sacrificial steel tip.

>There's little reason to believe an A3 wouldn't penetrate Rekilt.
Oh it would penetrate it, no doubt. The question is will the penetrator be relatively intact to go up against the main armor then.

>Also get this, the majority of Russia's tank force doesn't even use K5
if the seperatist VSN were able to nigger-rig K-5 on their tanks a proper army could in short order. Also Relikt reactive elements are almost undistinguishable from K-5 ones so we don't know which tanks really only have K-5 or Relikt.

>>31391492
>T-90MS
Nobody has this

>>31406005
but that would be taking the bait now wouldn't it?
besides, you've yet to prove your supposed "facts" are even true; actually scratch that, even a cursory glance tells me they are lies.

>>31405979
>The Marine corp and certain national gaurd units operate M1A1 AIM V2
I'm sure they do, which is a tiny bit of all tanks the US operates. Sure frontline tanks are M1A2. But the majority is still M1A1.
>In the event of WW3 the 90s tier boneyard of tanks you just listed would be converted by GDLS into SEP V3 models
That's essentially what Russia is doing at this very moment by converting its T-72B's to T-72B3's at the rate of a couple of hundreds per year.

>>31406041
you answered your question in point 2 with what you said in point 1.

As for point 3 given Russia's tedious and timely procurement process, lets just assume their entire tank force is Rekilt. Because if it was K5 we would already have a counter for it, by what we agree with.

>>31406031
>He doesn't know counterweights.
Next time suggest that they tie you up on the breech, retard you might be but you still have body mass going for you.

>>31406041
>Namely the 4 inches of sacrificial steel tip.

quoting a German blogger who was attempting to prove DM53/63 was not inferior

>if the seperatist VSN were able to nigger-rig K-5 on their tanks a proper army could in short order.

T-72B3's supplied by Russia are not tanks with nigger rigged ERA

>Also Relikt reactive elements are almost undistinguishable from K-5 ones so we don't know which tanks really only have K-5 or Relikt.

when Russia actually procures Relikt in any quantity, sure

>>31406057
>Sure frontline tanks are M1A2. But the majority is still M1A1.
I brought this up, but I will say it again. You won't fight those tanks. Its like saying the US Deployed M60s to take down Saddam in 1991. They where there, but that wasn't the reason they were there. You won't fight anything that isn't a AIM or SEP. Its just not going to happen unless WW3 kicks off. Its doubtful they would even make the effort to ship anitquated stock. We have modernized versions just sitting in Europe, Kuwait, and the Pacific just waiting to be forward deployed to anywhere. These are also under the care of civilians, not your regular combined arms battalion. To further exclaim why this is retarded, the US Army has at any given second a brigade sized element of M1A2 SEP V2s just ready to deploy from the states to any part of the world.

>>31406057
>That's essentially what Russia is doing at this very moment by converting its T-72B's to T-72B3's at the rate of a couple of hundreds per year.

Actually that would be more like digging M60A3's out of depots and converting them into Sabra.

>>31406057
The Majority of Russia's tank force is T72B and lesser tanks, no one cares about them because they aren't going to push in Ukrian, Syrias, or literally anyones shit before B3+ and 90 models do.

>>31405998
There's little reason to believe an A3 would penetrate Rekilt.
>like they did about K5
And how did they lie about K-5?
>the majority of Russia's tank force doesn't even use K5
And the majority of American tank force doesn't even use M1A2, so what? Russia is upgrading their T-72B's with K-5 and since some time ago Relikt too. They currently have 1000 T-72B3 in service alone, not counting T-80U, T-72BA, T-72obr.1988, T-90 and T-90A.
>we don't know which tanks really only have K-5 or Relikt
Relikt is only installed on modified T-90 versions none of which are operational and T-72B3 since this year.

>>31406078
Counter weights can't fix thermal warp. Also a heavier gun puts more stress on the Hydraulics.

>>31406101
>Russia is upgrading their T-72B's with K-5 and since some time ago Relikt too. They currently have 1000 T-72B3 in service alone, not counting T-80U, T-72BA, T-72obr.1988, T-90 and T-90A.

Actually it is about 600.

>Relikt is only installed on modified T-90 versions none of which are operational and T-72B3 since this year.

Relikt is vaporware of the past, like Arena APS.

>>31406089
>You won't fight those tanks. Its like saying the US Deployed M60s to take down Saddam in 1991. They where there, but that wasn't the reason they were there.
You do realize ho retarded that sounds, right? The US did deploy M60s and Iraqus did fight them. Meaning that they were deployed. Against Iraqis. Who were fighting them. In 1991. They were, m8.
>You won't fight anything that isn't a AIM or SEP
It doesn't change the fact that these constitute only a portion of all the tanks the US operates. Which is exactly the point.
>>31406095
And the majority of the US tank force is M1A1.
>and lesser tanks
No.
>>31406160
>Oтвeчaя нa вoпpoc, кaкoe кoличecтвo T-72 yжe мoдepнизиpoвaнo дo ypoвня T-72Б3, Cиeнкo cкaзaл, чтo "пopядкa тыcячи".
https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160908/1476388731.html
Actually it's about 1000.
>Relikt is vaporware of the past
It is the reason the contract for T-72B3 with Relikt was sealed this year?
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1695164.html

>>31406179
>You do realize ho retarded that sounds, right? The US did deploy M60s and Iraqus did fight them. Meaning that they were deployed. Against Iraqis. Who were fighting them. In 1991. They were, m8.

Kuwait isn't Iraq.

>It doesn't change the fact that these constitute only a portion of all the tanks the US operates. Which is exactly the point.

You do understand that AIM and SEP tanks make up the majority of Abrams now right?

>And the majority of the US tank force is M1A1.

The majority of the US tank force in active use is M1A2 SEP, the vast majority of reserve tanks are M1A1 AIM.

>and lesser tanks

The numerical majority of Russia's tank forces are still older T-72 models, followed by T-80's in reserve.

>Actually it's about 1000.

This means there are more B3's than T-90's now.

>It is the reason the contract for T-72B3 with Relikt was sealed this year?

Blog post, cool.

File: stopbeingretarded.png (627KB, 1500x1056px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 1500x1056px

>>31406179
>You do realize ho retarded that sounds, right?
You do realize how retarded you sound right? Please, why don't you tell us what M60s did in the Gulf War my intelligent friend.

>>31406034
Are you just daft?

>>31388493
Merci frenchfag

You're all fags

File: DM-SC-92-03658.jpg (3MB, 2810x1820px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2810x1820px

>>31406259
What does it have to do with Kuwait?
>AIM make up the majority of Abrams now
>the vast majority of reserve tanks are M1A1 AIM
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
>The majority of the US tank force in active use is M1A2 SEP
Define "active". Majority of active Russian tank force uses T-72B3/BA/obr.1989, T-90A and T-80U.
>The numerical majority of Russia's tank forces are still older T-72 models
The numerical majority of America's tank forces are still older M1 models. There are little to no pre-T-72B models left in reserve, since they were not produced after 1985.
>followed by T-80's in reserve.
T-80U is in reserve only nominally. Factually it's still in use, albeit being gradually replaced.
>bmpd
>Blog post
Kek. Anyway, there's a link to the governmental contract registry with contract information.

>>31406274
>Please, why don't you tell us what M60s did in the Gulf War my intelligent friend.
Fighting Iraqis.
>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 US did deploy M60s and Iraqus did fight them. Meaning that they were deployed. Against Iraqis. Who were fighting them. In 1991. They were, m8. Pls, stop backpedaling.

>>31406373
>stop backpedaling.
I was never back peddling. 99% of the fighting done wasn't done with M60s. This already known story does nothing to prove wrong what I said.

>>31406384
>You won't fight those tanks. Its like saying the US Deployed M60s to take down Saddam in 1991.
>They where there, but that wasn't the reason they were there.
Truly Schrödinger's M60's.
Anyway, the point is that just like in the US, in Russia the majority of the tank force consists of older models. It's an objective fact, I don't understand why would anyone argue it.

>>31406412
>I don't understand why would anyone argue it
Because you can't craft an argument like "Russia has bunkers full of old T55's and T34s" so "if we fought russia we would be fighting nothing but T55s and T34s". Thats a form of pandering and it makes a poor argument. Just like saying the majority of the United States tank force is A1s. Its misleading. For several already mentioned reasons.

File: 1432799683934.jpg (75KB, 600x428px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x428px

>arguing with slavs

File: disabledtanks004-60.jpg (334KB, 800x614px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 800x614px

>>31406445
blyaaaaaat

>>31406434
But Russia doesn't have T-55's and T-34's in reserve, just like the US doesn't have M60's and M48's in reserve. But the majority of Russia's tank force consists of T-72B, just like the majority of America's tank force consists of M1A1.

>>31406445
Slavs live in such a fantasy world about WW2.

>>31406107
>Counter weights can't fix thermal warp
We have this thing called thermal sleeves.

>Also a heavier gun puts more stress on the Hydraulics.
Then get beefier hydraulics. Or are you telling me you can't or don't have the capability to modify the design from its original specifications. Pathetic, even the Chinese modify the stuff they copy or license.

File: berlin liberators.jpg (749KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

749KB, 1920x1200px

>>31406484
Wehraboo, please.

>>31406359
>Define "active".
I think he means tanks outside long-term storage. Army got more than 2000 SEPs, this is majority of its fleet.

>>31406506
>We have this thing called thermal sleeves.
Thermal sleeves hide thermal signature. They still don't do jack shit against thermal warp. Go ahead, I'll give you one more shot. Do you want me to be nice or provocative if you're wrong again?

>Then get beefier hydraulics.
I guess the German's should. The Abrams doesn't have this problem as the gun is lighter, yet still does more.

>even the Chinese modify the stuff they copy or license
Yea like the Type 96 which is a T72 Hull with a copycat Leopard 1 turret, which is far from a MBT Standard. Good example.

File: rfT9pqj.jpg (61KB, 919x611px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 919x611px

>>31406518
calm your tits slavaboo

>>31406527
>Thermal sleeves hide thermal signature. They still don't do jack shit against thermal warp. Go ahead, I'll give you one more shot. Do you want me to be nice or provocative if you're wrong again?
>A thermal sleeve, or blanket, is a device around the length of a gun barrel of a large caliber gun, typically found on modern tanks. Its primary purpose is to provide a constant temperature to the gun barrel preventing distortions due to thermal expansion caused by the temperature differences around the barrel when firing

>I guess the German's should. The Abrams doesn't have this problem as the gun is lighter, yet still does more.
does more what? does more calling shills out of the woodwork whenever its exposed as the inferior gun in all modern tanks, barring rifled bong one?

>Yea like the Type 96 which is a T72 Hull with a copycat Leopard 1 turret, which is far from a MBT Standard. Good example.
And just like that the point went over your head.

>>31406518
You know, kinda funny how there's not so much of actual photography from the Soviet celebrations in Berlin, only shitloads of fancy paintings.
Could it be because in reality, it wouldn't be so glorious to see soviets raping, getting drunk and looting.

>>31406574
Wehraboo, please.

File: 1473021407180.jpg (61KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x437px

>>31406584
triggered by facts slavaboo?

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-E0406-0022-018,_Berlin,_Siegesfeier_der_Roten_Armee.jpg (66KB, 800x569px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x569px

>>31406587
Wehraboo, please.

File: 1471390605308.jpg (44KB, 799x492px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 799x492px

>>31406592
slavaboo please

File: CEj9cfIVAAAZj7p.jpg (31KB, 490x331px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 490x331px

>>31406606
Wehraboo, please.

File: disabledtanks004-43.jpg (260KB, 800x559px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 800x559px

>>31406611
slavaboo please

File: images.jpg (24KB, 431x341px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 431x341px

All of you can just sit the fuck down.

The New Zealand heavy armour division just arrived.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1985-0531-314,_Torgau,_Begegnung_amerikanische-sowjetische_Soldaten.jpg (372KB, 852x673px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 852x673px

>>31406614
Wehraboo, please.

>>31406624
love this pic

>>31406067
>you answered your question in point 2 with what you said in point 1.
Relikt is both thicker and laid "flatter" than its predecessor on the base tank. Its not so much as guilotinning the front thirds of the penetrator but "bodyslamming" it with a flyer plate.

>As for point 3 given Russia's tedious and timely procurement process
This is sarcasm, right. Because it can only be that.

>lets just assume their entire tank force is Rekilt
You don't even have to go there. The beauty of ERA is that its such an easy item to produce, you can get away with just your frontline tanks fully equipped with ERA and when go time happens have a factory churning them out by the thousands every day.

File: 1471785553420.jpg (77KB, 499x440px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 499x440px

>>31406624
71 years later and still causing massive asshurt, stay salty slavaboo

File: ElbeDay1945_(NARA_ww2-121).jpg (79KB, 800x546px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x546px

>>31406649
Wehraboo, please.

File: 1409478287203.jpg (628KB, 1643x1240px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1643x1240px

>>31406649
>defeated
>country splited in 4
>became the most cucked country in EU
enjoy your muslim dick

File: thistriggerstheslavaboo.jpg (212KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 900x500px

>>31406655
ha gay!

File: pic011.jpg (333KB, 1000x657px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1000x657px

>>31406659
r-r-r-russia stronkkk!

File: Soviet Union.jpg (67KB, 516x800px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 516x800px

>>31406663
run out of Nazi pic so soon 8^)

File: stopbeingretarded2.png (270KB, 780x348px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 780x348px

>>31406569
>>A thermal sleeve, or blanket, is a device around the length of a gun barrel of a large caliber gun, typically found on modern tanks. Its primary purpose is to provide a constant temperature to the gun barrel preventing distortions due to thermal expansion caused by the temperature differences around the barrel when firing
Then I suppose these aren't needed anymore. You should work for tank designers.Ok, you blew it.

Thermal sleeve's have little impact on thermal warp, and counterweights have zero impact on thermal warp. If you take a x foot long piece of string and tie it to the gun mantel, tie the other end to the end of the muzzle and let it ride on top of the gun, if you let the gun sit in the sun all day you will see the string move position. The gun naturally flexes with ambient temperature, that's why a good ballistic computer takes breech, tube, and ammo temp before calculating a firing solution.

Now, with the L55 which is heavier then the M256, you have more weight suspended on the same amount of metal. it doesn't take anything beyond 4th grade science to know a heavier flexible object bends more at the fulcrum then a lighter one.

"but its so negligible you faggot its not an arguing point"
The only thing that's negligible is a thermal sleeves ability to stop thermal warp. In [not wikipedia world] it makes a great thermal shroud to dissipate heat faster.

Its the difference between hitting and not hitting a target beyond 2000 meters. Or a glance and direct impact at anything shorter. Also while firing the gun the temperature climbs, causing it to bend more.Causing greater inaccuracy. That's why the the devices in pic related were created in the first place.

But in conclusion, the M256 is a more accurate gun, firing better ammo. In no argument is the Leopard a more lethal tank.

>>31406669
dang me 2 :^)

File: NVA Lieutenant.png (672KB, 900x814px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 900x814px

>>31406668
yes, stronger than the Muslim German

>>31406587
Fun fact: of the 26 guys in this pic, 7 got killed, 15 got injured and those that survived got sent to Vorkuta. All were cucked by the Red Army's finest.

File: 242425.jpg (55KB, 321x480px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 321x480px

>>31406675
forgot pic

File: 4410474600_a2fcb4c5b2_o.jpg (160KB, 640x356px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 640x356px

>>31406680
let keep this going

File: 1453411828_panzer-tank-slippers.jpg (77KB, 589x491px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 589x491px

>>31406679
slavaboos pulling facts out of their asses again smhtbhfam

File: 1474259657494.png (382KB, 615x895px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 615x895px

>>31406484
they get to, they won.

File: slavsicle.jpg (149KB, 900x1145px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 900x1145px

>>31406686
mmm okay then

>>31406671
>Thermal sleeve's have little impact on thermal warp
stopped reading right there. That's literally their primary job- spreading heat all over the barrel to prevent sagging or drooping of any part relative to the rest.

>But in conclusion, the M256 is a more accurate gun, firing better ammo
a conclusion with faulty premises would only be false so,
>In no argument is the Leopard a more lethal tank.
no.

File: img_0074.jpg (172KB, 1000x718px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1000x718px

>>31406690
we should have listened to patton and gone along with operation unthinkable to stamp out those subhumans, feels bad man

File: 1310498381546.jpg (28KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x400px

>>31406679
>and those that survived got sent to Vorkuta
#rekt

File: 1470428557381.jpg (386KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 768x1024px

>>31406692

File: bt2.png (196KB, 480x317px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 480x317px

>>31406705

>>31406698
Patton was an asshole that got sacked for being an asshole.

>>31406694
>thermal sleeves all they do is wikipedia diahrea
no, also

>no
yes

L55 is less accurate
fires a lighter round
with weaker propellant
composed of weaker tungsten

Remind me, how is the L55 better again? Premises says you have no idea what you're talking about and you're shilling for germany because its germany

>>31406713
whatever you say vatnik

>>31406698
>patton
Hitler and his generals would have bitchslapped this incompetent buffoon upon meeting him.

File: Funeral procession of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, Ulm, Germany, 18 Oct 1944.jpg (81KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x560px

>>31406712

>>31406719
>L55 is less accurate
[citation needed]

>fires a lighter round
at close to Tungsten's sweet spot

>with weaker propellant
[citation needed; given that the L/55 sustains higher pressures from DM-53/63]

>composed of weaker tungsten
considering the self-sharpening effects of DU were only demonstrated against RHA steel targets, not modern multilayer arrays or that Tungsten alloy for APFSDS has thrice the young's modulus of DU, you know only the mechanism most beneficial to avoiding getting snapped by NERA or worse ERA on the rebound, yeah you don't know jack shit kid.

File: stopbeingretarded3.png (62KB, 696x1088px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 696x1088px

>>31406719
>>31406694
>>31406527
>>31406569
>>31406506
>>31406107

But yes, the Abrams is more deadly.

File: du-1.jpg (6KB, 250x169px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x169px

>>31406742
>[citation needed]
see >>31406671

>at close to Tungsten's sweet spot
Which is still worse then Depleted Uranium.

>sustains higher pressures
With a weaker propellant, the US and Germany does not use the same thing.

>not modern multilayer arrays
Except they have
>has thrice the young's modulus of DU
cool
>getting snapped by NERA or worse ERA on the rebound
it doesn't work like that kiddo
>yeah you don't know jack shit kid
Then why are you wrong so often?

>>31406747
>Taking the delusion of a cringy wannabe american (and now also soulja-boy!) pole high on fumes and his butt buddy with 3rd grade english as gospel
you are gullible as fuck

>>31406767
good counter, it is super effective

Thread needs a new title.

America Has a Better Tank: Germany and Russia BTFO Edition.

>>31406747
This looks familiar. Some video game?

>>31406760
>see >>31406671
might as well cited the back of your breakfast cereal's box

>Which is still worse then Depleted Uranium.
you have the numbers for this?

>With a weaker propellant, the US and Germany does not use the same thing.
Both rounds(DM-53 and M829A3) have just about the same volume of propellant, and yet the former has higher pressure- why is that?

>it doesn't work like that kiddo
A simple Oriental proverb would make it easier for your simple mind to comprehend?

File: IMG_154.jpg (74KB, 528x960px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 528x960px

>>31406790
>might as well cited the back of your breakfast cereal's box
Yea, what would I know about tanks. I've only worked with them and studied them for over half a decade. To include with the GDLS designers and technicians of the Abrams, koreans, and europeans, etc. Yea, I don't know shit.

File: 1.png (1MB, 1335x593px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1335x593px

>>31406810