The Abrams is the best modern tank, right? It's been tried

>>31450459
Hay mom look a shit post yaaay.

>>31450498
But it's true

File: 12434652_1112814825419067_136153093_n.jpg (123KB, 841x960px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 841x960px

Specifically the SEP V2, yes. Key notes before 350 comments of butthurt Ivan

-Challenger is a Relic, in bad need of a retrofit program
-Leopard is less lethal, a longer barrel doesn't mean its got more penetration, they fire tungsten
-T90 is said to be a lot of things, I heard from RT it could even fly
-T14 while a great innovation for Russia and their tank design, it is underperforming to include handicapped by an unmanned turret, as it cannot do the same things a crewed turret can, to include better situational awareness, clearing jams, and manually aiming and moving the gun during optical, electrical, and hydralic faults
-K2 is a glass armored tank, only meant to fight NK, not old USSR surp on the planes of Russia.
-Merkava is good at a lot of things, but excels at nothing
-The SEPV3 is entering the fleet as soon as this year
-M829A4 APFSDS is already in service
-You will never fight a boneyard tier M1A1, the army only has A2 SEPs and the Marine Corp A1 AIMs which are the same thing as a sep minus a CITV
-Saudi Arabia, Australia, Iraq, all M1 operators outside the US use a shittier version of the Abrams.

but TLDR the Abrams is the best tank currently in service. The Leopard is maybe 3-5% less of a MBT, and the challenger maybe 3-5% less than that. Then you get a gap and find tanks like the Leclerc, T14, T90, k2, etc etc

File: screaming-kid.jpg (79KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 500x333px

>My country's tank is better than your country's tank!!!!!!

>>31450459
UNDEADABLE

>>31450543
This. Although the Type 10 and K2 are sexy.

>>31450547
What's wrong with comparing machines that are explicitly created to fight other machines? Some of them are better and some of them are worse, that's just how it is

File: 28776721345_75625d7bdf_o.jpg (3MB, 2592x1725px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2592x1725px

>>31450543
Technically Australia uses a comparable M1A1, though they don't use M829 because muh DU. They are also interested in upgrading to SEPv2 or SEPv3.

Poland is also considering buying Abrams to replace their old T-72/T-72M1 and PT-91 tanks.

File: 1459759386543.jpg (49KB, 480x443px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 480x443px

>>31450621
>hippies cripple half of the free world's militaries because muh feels

File: 1400918866478.gif (3MB, 350x267px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 350x267px

>>31450610
Except the differences between modern MBTs are not enough to decide a battle. Tactics, crew training and situation all are far more important in deciding the outcome between two tanks. These threads just degenerate into shitposting.

>>31451000
>modern MBTs are not enough
>shitposting
Ussually by dropping extremely blanket statements like this, yes there is shitposting like, your post.

When your tank fires an APFSDS thats 500mm shorter, and 6kg less than everyone else, one begs the question if it can kill another tank. If you can't kill an enemy tank with what you're giving, how the fuck is crew training and situation going to help you?

>>31450543
Delusional. Is this why Abrams get gutted by Kornets all the time? An ATGM that the Merk 4 regularly shrugs off btw.

>>31450543
>as it cannot do the same things a crewed turret can:
get penned and get someone killed in the turret,
be confined to the cupola for situational awareness meanwhile drones and panoramic cams are a thing,
not have the amount of redundancies and duplicates in an unmanned turret tank since the crew consume the space,
and larp ww2 tanks and get killed instead of retreating to fight another day.

>>31451280
Less Abrams have "been gutted" by Kornets than Merkava's in 06.

>>31451030
>When your tank fires an APFSDS thats 500mm shorter, and 6kg less than everyone else, one begs the question if it can kill another tank. If you can't kill an enemy tank with what you're giving, how the fuck is crew training and situation going to help you?
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>31451396
>Less Abrams have "been gutted" by Kornets than Merkava's in 06.
They didn't face as much Kornets as the Merkavas ever did.

>>31451355
>get penned and get someone killed in the turret,
be confined to the cupola for situational

Reminder that the T-14's hull goes halfway up an Abrams turret.

>awareness meanwhile drones and panoramic cams are a thing,

Having access to those, and being reliant on them, are not the same thing.

>not have the amount of redundancies and duplicates in an unmanned turret tank since the crew consume the space,

And again you need to be reminded that the T-14 is a giant.

>and larp ww2 tanks and get killed instead of retreating to fight another day.

Non sequitur?

>>31451503
>They didn't face as much Kornets as the Merkavas ever did.

Which doesn't change how well/poorly Merkava's did against them.

>>31450459
After the Leopard 2, yes.

>>31451355
>there is literally no purpose for eyeballs
shiggy diggy

>>31451604
Less lethal, less powerful engine, less accurate, and lacks C4ISR. One would even as far as to say the armor is also inferior, but that's mostly best on speculation. 100% 2nd to the Abrams.

>>31451568
>Reminder that the T-14's hull goes halfway up an Abrams turret.
and?

>Having access to those, and being reliant on them, are not the same thing.
if you want superior situational awareness you would have to rely on these.

>And again you need to be reminded that the T-14 is a giant.
and?

>Non sequitur?
use small words, it doesn't suit you when you try something you don't even understand.

>>31451687
Wrong

At least you tried

>>31451604
L2 recently won another competition in the ME.

>>31451733
>and?

A hit on the side of an Abrams turret that could kill the crew would hit the side of the hull on a T-14 and could kill the crew.

>if you want superior situational awareness you would have to rely on these.

You know what is even better situational awareness than cameras and drones? Cameras, drones and human eyes.

>and?

You are arguing that an unmanned turret saves space, and yet the premier example of a MBT with an unmanned turret is larger than all the rest.

>use small words, it doesn't suit you when you try something you don't even understand.

You might want to learn what a non sequitur is then, and why your comment has nothing to do with the post you responded to.

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

13KB, 670x509px

>>31451741
>not less accurate
>what is thermal warp

anyone got the image of an abrams with the turret blown away by jews?

>>31451759
>L2 recently won another competition in the ME.

Saudi Arabia is buying more Abrams.

File: 1466651421800.jpg (36KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 250x250px

>>31451741
Well that was over quick, I guess the Leopard is better.

>>31451741
>>31451804
The joke is that the L/55 is more accurate than the older L/44 because of the increased .uzzle velocity, 20 years of improved metalurgy and new muzzle reference system.

.

>>31451804
Yeah, what is thermal warp?

>>31450543
>Marine Corp A1 AIM
Please share knowledge about the Marine Corp A1 AIM

The barrel of the L/55 has also the same length as the L30 of the Challenger 2.

What I'm supposed to see here?

>>31451860 On top of a heavy barrel being more affected by thermal warp;


>new muzzle reference system
Its the same thing, and performing an MRS update doesn't make your tank "more accurate" then other tanks. The only thing an MRS update does is fix zeroing issues after the fact. Also the guns are still 90% the same thing. The only difference is the position of the colminator, length, and the recoil system.

Also also daily reminder the Leopard's ability to induce, and dump lead in its fire control system was fixed 10 years after the Abrams.

...the Abrams is more accurate. But this is a retarded point to be arguing, we are literally talking about the difference of 90% and 85% at x distance.

>>31451741
>>31451687
you both realize that the leo2 and the abrahams are basically the same tank and had both been developed in germany by rheinmetall?

>>31451911
Rheinmetall designed neither the Leopard 2 or Abrams.

>thermal warp

oh /k/... you special snowflake.

>>31451798
>A hit on the side of an Abrams turret that could kill the crew would hit the side of the hull on a T-14 and could kill the crew.
What makes you think I only meant that in a direct hit through the side armor? Both Germany and Russia are working on better guns and ammo that pretty much no-sells contemporary frontal turret armor.

>You know what is even better situational awareness than cameras and drones? Cameras, drones and human eyes.
Eyes are only of marginal utility as compared to drones and cameras.

>You are arguing that an unmanned turret saves space, and yet the premier example of a MBT with an unmanned turret is larger than all the rest.
I'm not arguing that or if you thought I did I'm not the anon who did.

>and why your comment has nothing to do with the post you responded to.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills then because I addressed specifically thought points in that post I responded to.

>>31451804
>What are counterweights and thermal sleeves.

>>31451940
>Eyes aren't that useful

But having all that plus eyes is more useful than having all that and no eyes at all, thanks for acknowledging that you fucking retard.

>Uh, I didn't make that argument!
Enough said.

>>31451928
oh wait its KMW, rheinmetall was the mg3. my mistake.

>>31451911
Leopard 2 is basically the tank without the retarded design decisions of the M1.

>120mm vs 105mm

What a surprise that we need a better gun to defeat modern Soviet tanks!

>German developed armor system vs. Chobham

What a surprise that using that only give us a weight advantage against HEAT and not against KP is quite dumb.

>putting all ammo in the turrent

What a surprise that the increased turrent weight because of the ammunition and additional armor fucks up the center of gravity of the tank.

>using a helicopter turbine in a tank

Sure, developing a compact 1500hp diesel machine was cutting edge technolgy in the 70 but putting a turbine and fucking up your thermal signature and logistics is just dumb.

>>31451955
>But having all that plus eyes is more useful than having all that and no eyes at all, thanks for acknowledging that you fucking retard.
Yeah, to the tune of 0.00001% in improved performance, assuming the rest are the same which they are absolutely not. In a T-14 both the gunner and commander possess interfacing capabilities to access sensors, both onboard and in external.

>Enough said.
>he isn't willing to take my bait- better declare victory then!

>>31451940
>What makes you think I only meant that in a direct hit through the side armor? Both Germany and Russia are working on better guns and ammo that pretty much no-sells contemporary frontal turret armor.

If you have a gun that can get through the frontal turret armor of a modern MBT, the T-14's frontal hull armor is not going to stop it either.

>Eyes are only of marginal utility as compared to drones and cameras.

This is a hilarious lie.

>You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills then because I addressed specifically thought points in that post I responded to.

"and larp ww2 tanks and get killed instead of retreating to fight another day." does not address anything.

File: 2lw0s5s.png (1MB, 1200x836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x836px

>>31451879 AIMV1
>M1A1 tanks enter the process at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, where the entire vehicle is completely disassembled with each component cleaned, inspected and evaluated for rebuilding, refurbishment, or complete replacement. While many of the rebuild components stay at Anniston, other parts are sent to one of several rebuild sites. These sites include General Dynamics' facilities in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Muskegon, Michigan, as well as other Army depots. Turret and hull subsystems are first worked on at Anniston and then shipped to Lima, Ohio, where the tank is reassembled, tested and accepted back into the Army's fleet.

>AIM alone is a sustainment process only and does not insert new technologies nor address obsolescence. However, by exploiting the synergy created by integrating the AIM program with a viable Abrams recapitalization program, the Army has a cost-effective opportunity to apply and field these high-payoff projects. The current high-payoff projects include 2nd Generation FLIR, frontal & side armor upgrades, Vehicle Integrated Defense System (VIDS), digital turret & hull networks boxes with built-in test, and a new engine.The AIM Overhaul program is the optimum time/location to complete applied improvements. The AIM Overhaul program in its objective state will produce M1A1Ds. Currently the process applies many product improvements with some M1A1s receiving the M1A1D configuration retrofitted in the field.

AIMV2
>M1A1AIM v.2/M1A1SA (Situational Awareness): Upgrades similar to AIM v.1 tanks + new 3rd generation depleted uranium armor components
>pic related

USMC Versions of AIMV2/SA are called M1A1FEP. Almost a carbon copy of the SEPV2 without a CITV.

>>31452005
>If you have a gun that can get through the frontal turret armor of a modern MBT, the T-14's frontal hull armor is not going to stop it either.
Which is good, that's what the APS is there for. Again it doesn't mean the APS alone can take care of the APFSDS projectile, far from it; it just degrades projectile to the level both the integral ERA and then the main armor can take it.

>This is a hilarious lie.
This why even in Abrams the thermals and not eyes are the preferred sensor in spotting and searching?

>"and larp ww2 tanks and get killed instead of retreating to fight another day." does not address anything.
It addresses the "muh manual backups allow me to fight still" point you shills constantly make. More to the point, in case of penetration, SOP is immediate evac, in the case of developing fire you get out anyway since the inert gases pumped by the fire suppression system isn't at all conducive for human life.

>>31451568
Less than a few replies into the thread and the T-14 is already mentioned for some reason

We really are living in the meme age

>>31451907
>...the Abrams is more accurate.

If I claim things often enough it will become true!

File: Smug_T-14.png (199KB, 425x325px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 425x325px

>>31452055
>Less than a few replies into the thread and the T-14 is already mentioned for some reason
>We really are living in the meme age
Its the pepe of tanks.

>>31452051
>Which is good, that's what the APS is there for. Again it doesn't mean the APS alone can take care of the APFSDS projectile, far from it; it just degrades projectile to the level both the integral ERA and then the main armor can take it.
I don't think you know how APS and APFSDS work.

>>31451988
>120mm vs 105mm
>What a surprise that we need a better gun to defeat modern Soviet tanks!

The original Leopard 2 had a 105mm gun, and 120mm ammunition did not mature/outpace 105mm ammunition until the mid 80's.

>German developed armor system vs. Chobham
>What a surprise that using that only give us a weight advantage against HEAT and not against KP is quite dumb.

I don't think you have a clue what any of these armors are. Also Abrams initially used an armor called Burlington, not Chobham.

>putting all ammo in the turrent
>What a surprise that the increased turrent weight because of the ammunition and additional armor fucks up the center of gravity of the tank.

Never go full retard.

>using a helicopter turbine in a tank
>Sure, developing a compact 1500hp diesel machine was cutting edge technolgy in the 70 but putting a turbine and fucking up your thermal signature and logistics is just dumb.

Learn what a turboshaft is, diesel exhaust has a larger thermal signature (learn what emissivity is) and tanks consume a fraction of the fuel your entire army does.

>>31450621
>They are also interested in upgrading to SEPv2 or SEPv3
Pointless. We never have and never will deploy our tanks. Our M1A1 AIMs have literally never left Australian soil.

Better to spend the money on IFVs and other shit we can actually deploy.

>>31452055
Try rereading the thread.

File: Diesel vs Gas Turbines dyno sheet.png (88KB, 921x510px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 921x510px

>>31451988
>Sure, developing a compact 1500hp diesel machine was cutting edge technolgy in the 70 but putting a turbine and fucking up your thermal signature and logistics is just dumb.
>I have no idea what I am talking about but here is my opinion

The turbine also produces significantly higher amounts of torque against diesel engines at low RPM ranges, you know, from idle all the way up to full RPM. Retards would argue "muh top speed" but not only do you never hit top speed outside of a paved road, the turbine allows the Abrams to smoke other tanks in an acceleration race. The only tanks that can really keep up are ones with higher PTW ratios.

File: indonesia.jpg (115KB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1080x608px

>>31452115
The broken english of the anon trying to shitpost Abrams and the time of day make me think this image is related.

>>31451830
>Saudi Arabia is buying more Abrams.
its a political thing, we germans kinda dont want to sell shit to them. eventho we do.

>>31452098
>I don't think you know how APS and APFSDS work.
Even the long and thin projectiles of APFSDS are susceptible to induced yawing from either very close proximity HE blasts as is the kill mechanism in Trophy or collision with EFP jet as it is in the Afghanit. A destabilized rod even for a few degrees penetrates a lot less than one that isn't.

>>31451988
>What a surprise that the increased turrent weight because of the ammunition and additional armor fucks up the center of gravity of the tank.
Yeah, because putting the ammo next to the driver is far better. At least the Abrams has blow out panels.

>>31452051
>Which is good, that's what the APS is there for. Again it doesn't mean the APS alone can take care of the APFSDS projectile, far from it; it just degrades projectile to the level both the integral ERA and then the main armor can take it.

How many times are you going to move the goalposts?

>This why even in Abrams the thermals and not eyes are the preferred sensor in spotting and searching?

The preferred method of searching depends on the situation.

>It addresses the "muh manual backups allow me to fight still" point you shills constantly make. More to the point, in case of penetration, SOP is immediate evac, in the case of developing fire you get out anyway since the inert gases pumped by the fire suppression system isn't at all conducive for human life.

Ah, its the "my unmanned turret just got knocked out, I will just leave the middle of a firefight to get a new one" argument.

>>31452101
>The original Leopard 2 had a 105mm gun, and 120mm ammunition did not mature/outpace 105mm ammunition until the mid 80's.


The Leopard 2 never had anything else than the 120mm. It was the center of the Leopard 2 programe when it was officially just a cheap alternative of the MBT 70 programme.

The USA went with the 105mm gun because after the clusterfuck of the 152 mm XM150E5 gun developement they were left with nothing in the tank gun department.

>I don't think you have a clue what any of these armors are. Also Abrams initially used an armor called Burlington, not Chobham.

Burlington is just another name of Chobham and didn't provide additional protection against KP over RHA steel.

>Never go full retard.

It really fucks up the cross country performance of the M1.

>Learn what a turboshaft is, diesel exhaust has a larger thermal signature (learn what emissivity is) and tanks consume a fraction of the fuel your entire army does.

Yeah, all the burning soldiers by diesel exhausts oh wait that were poor American soldiers who got to close to the Abrams.

File: m60_Elbit.jpg (63KB, 696x392px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 696x392px

The USMC is interested in installing Trophy APS on their Abrams, so once that completes trials, it'll be the best tank.

>>31452173
>close proximity HE blasts as is the kill mechanism in Trophy or collision with EFP jet as it is in the Afghanit

You need to learn how specific APS work before you can say if they are capable of being a countermeasure to APFSDS.

>>31452182
It is indeed the better design decision.

If the ammo storage of the Abrams gets blowed up it's a mission kill even if the Abrams can still move and operate.

Splitting your ammo gives you redudancy.

>>31452212
Reminds me on that tank competition in Germany which showed that American tankers can't into hiding their tanks anymore.

File: 8j8BQux.jpg (34KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 400x400px

>>31452199
>It really fucks up the cross country performance of the M1.
see >>31452143

>Yeah, all the burning soldiers by diesel exhausts oh wait that were poor American soldiers who got to close to the Abrams.
That has never happened. Are you even trying?

>>31452242
I love that Honeywell PR bullshit picture so much because it really shows that the diesel engine is better in the relevant RPM area.

Who thought that was a good idea?

>>31452262
>I love that Honeywell PR bullshit
being this mad

>>31452224
But the Abrams also has ammo in the floor, so it too splits the ammunition.

>>31452262
Picture made by non engineers for other non engineers.

>>31452182
>Yeah, because putting the ammo next to the driver is far better. At least the Abrams has blow out panels.
A hit that penetrates the frontal turret armor is guaranteed to penetrate the inch thick blast door though. And the hole is pretty huge as well, something like the size of a small fist if the offending projectile is an APFSDS penetrator, its basically a very short stub but very well fatter from the mushrooming. Doubt the crew can survive getting fireblasted from that hole.

File: leopard2av_2.jpg (56KB, 550x432px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 550x432px

>>31452199
>The Leopard 2 never had anything else than the 120mm. It was the center of the Leopard 2 programe when it was officially just a cheap alternative of the MBT 70 programme.

Oh look, a Leopard 2 with a 105mm gun.

>Burlington is just another name of Chobham and didn't provide additional protection against KP over RHA steel.

0 for 2

>It really fucks up the cross country performance of the M1.

Like I said, never go full retard.

>>31452278
>Oh look, a Leopard 2 with a 105mm gun.
that's the L1.

File: abrams roasting infantry.webm (3MB, 720x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x360px

>>31452199
>>31452278
>Yeah, all the burning soldiers by diesel exhausts oh wait that were poor American soldiers who got to close to the Abrams.

So instead of trying to make an actual rebuttal you are just making up fiction.

>>31452270
No it doesn't. Ammunition is stored in the rear section of the turret.

>>31452294
You shouldn't be posting here if you cannot tell a Leopard 1 from a Leopard 2.

>>31452195
>How many times are you going to move the goalposts?
Making use of available assets is now moving the goalposts, how cute.

>The preferred method of searching depends on the situation.
And it only so happens most situations not just adverse ones the preferred sensor is still the thermals...

>Ah, its the "my unmanned turret just got knocked out, I will just leave the middle of a firefight to get a new one" argument.
What are duplicates and redundant systems for pretty much most systems except the gun itself? And you actually raise a good point, an unmanned turret on account of its superior modularity lends itself well to repairs and retrofits, up to including replacing the turret module with another with just a crane like modern powerpacks.

File: f_r1hs2wwrvnem_48ae9c2.jpg (70KB, 538x632px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 538x632px

>>31452311
>No it doesn't. Ammunition is stored in the rear section of the turret.
Except for the 6 rounds stored in the hull/floor.

>>31452239
You mean the one where Germany had a crew train for the competition?

File: CtEKDUKXYAAKkcz.jpg (73KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1136x640px

>>31452315
>the leopard 2 came before the leopard 1

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/ch7.htm#par11

>The extreme heat produced immediately to the rear of the M1-series tanks prevents dismounted infantry from following closely, but protection from small-arms fire and fragments is still provided by the tank's bulk and armor.

>>31452324
>What are duplicates and redundant systems
I am still waiting for a single Ivan Ivanosky lover to point to an additional Hydralic Pump on the T14.

>>31452262
> Relevant RPM areas
> 2100 RPM is peak torque for the MTU833
> Drops off significantly after this
> AGT1500 puts out max toque at low RPM which is useful when you need to accelerate from a stop.

>>31452274
Yes?

>>31452346
>The extreme heat produced immediately to the rear of the M1-series tanks prevents dismounted infantry

So the WEBM is fake? Or maybe the soldiers were robots. How is this possible anon?

File: abrams-tank-hull-920-7.jpg (427KB, 920x1226px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 920x1226px

>>31452270
>>31452329
6 rounds can be stored behind an armored door with blow out panels in the hull rear. "On the floor" implies it is openly stored in the crew compartment.

>>31452278
>I have no idea about anything
>time to post a picture of a prototype

>>31452338
>if I post a reaction image I can pretend I never said a picture of a Leopard 2 was a picture of a Leopard 1

File: Abrams-04.jpg (83KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 700x525px

>>31452346
see >>31452300
Also, pic related. Standard BII for an Abrams platoon. USMC gets a similar device for their Snorkel kit.

Stop being this retarded.

>>31452362
> in

>>31452370
>Leopard 2's never had a 105mm gun
>picture of a Leopard 2 with a 105mm gun
>THAT DOESN'T COUNT REEEEEEE!!!

>>31452262
Well, that picture is bullshit anyway because it somehow changed the max output of the diesel engine to 3000 RPM.

File: 1463076197594.jpg (104KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 400x300px

>>31452372
I am not even the same guy. But the extremely poor arguments posted in this thread, or low quality bait literally dismantles itself. You can't make this shit up. I've never seen so much BTFO'ing in a single thread without engie or tank sergeant in it.

>>31452385
The Leopard 2 never had the 105mm indeed.

>>31452400
>>31452385
I do like how there was not even an attempt to refute the point that 105mm ammunition kept up with 120mm until the mid 80's.

>>31452417
>>31452415
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

File: 2e42.jpg (143KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x851px

>>31452349
>I am still waiting for a single Ivan Ivanosky lover to point to an additional Hydralic Pump on the T14.
To be fair we haven't seen the insides of the turret yet, and considering all their tanks up to now always had manual backups it only makes sense they replace those with duplicate systems instead. They are not even that big, as compared to the manual controls if you think about it, and with no crew in the turret they have plenty of space to work with in the first place, not that they need much.

>>31452415
Just ignore the picture of a Leopard 2 with one.

>>31452428
Good that it isn't a Leopard 2.

>>31452423
>They are not even that big, as compared to the manual controls if you think about it
Manual controls are smaller. The traverse crank is literally a handle with 5 gears in it.

File: 2217879.jpg (76KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x480px

>>31450543
>I heard from RT it could even fly
yes

>>31452399
>Output of a diesel engine
>RPM

>An engines output is measured by how fast the crankshaft turns

This is literally the automotive equivalent to listening to a COD playing teenager arguing why an AK is more reliable than a "Jam-16".

>t.diesel mechanic

>>31452440
Good, because the MBT-70 developed directly into the Leopard II

This is how you sound

M1 is disadvantaged against other tanks in short-ranged acceleration due to several second lag inherent in turbine engine (despite having 7 second acceleration from 0 to 32 kph once it starts accelerating). Over long-term acceleration, horsepower as opposed to engine type is the deciding factor, but this acceleration is only relevant on open plains; when there is cover avaliable, sprint performance is far more important. M1 Abrams has 1.120 kW engine power, 57 metric tons in M1A1 and 63 metric ton weight in M1A2SEP variant. This gives it power-to-weight ratio of 19,65 kW/t for M1A1 and 17,78 kW/t for M1A2SEP. Maximum speed is 67 kph on road for M1A1, 68 kph for M1A2SEP (basic M1 coould achieve 72 kph but is no longer in service) and 48 kph cross-country, but poor suspension means that average speed over the rough ground is slower than that of Challenger II, and slower than most other tanks. Ungoverned maximum speed over the road is 112+ kph. Power pack can be replaced within 30 minutes.

>>31452463
It's like claiming that the YF-22 is a F-22.

>>31452461
No one talking engine output but output shaft speed.

>>31452465
horsepower =/= torque

This was fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

>>31452101
>>31451988
Listening to germany on tank design decisions. German steel won world war 2 righ...oh..wait..wait...wait. no. it didnt.

I'd say Abrams is best all round.

But for armour and accuracy you have to go with challenger.
Speed and ease of upgrades, leclerc.
Cost effectiveness Leopard 2.


>>31452219
Challenger 2 has APS already, in addition to a general electronic warfare suite.

>>31452478
The reason it talks about output shaft speed is because the Honeywell's crank RPM is far far higher than that of the diesel engine. If they were to be overlayed on the same axis then the Diesel engine would be indiscernible.

>>31450459
>2016
>tanks
shiggy

>>31450543
Some of the sekret club "we actually pay for archival documents" tank book writers got a hold of the Merk's armor scheme recently.

Sheer garbage in the base models, relies entirely on spaced armor and the engine to prevent catastrophic kills. Never meant to actually fight enemy armor.

Think 30mm of RHA with a spacer plate of unknown thickness behind it and then the engine.

That's the entire base Merkava frontal protection scheme.

>>31452507
The UK MoD is going to evaluate MUSS, but Challenger 2's do not have an APS yet.

>>31452549
[citation needed]

M1 Abrams does not have good operational mobility primarily due to its turbine engine, which uses huge amounts of fuel when idle or at slow speeds when compared to diesel engine. Average fuel consumption, even with high percentage of travel on secondary roads, is 3,86 US gallons per mile when idling is included (turbine burns 10 US gallons per hour when idling). With 504 gallon fuel tank, this translates into 130 mile (209 km) range. Without idling and travelling on road at economic speed fuel consumption is 1,67 US gallons per mile, giving 302 mile (486 km) range. In combat operations consumption can be as high as 8,6 gallons per mile, for range of no more than 58,6 miles (94,3 km). It can take up to 60 seconds to start, compared to no more than 5 seconds for diesel, which means that in combat environment it has to be kept at idle – in which case it will consume entire fuel in <15 hours. Its turbine also has high maintenance requirements. M1 requires 1 hour of refuelling every 3 hours and one hour of filter cleaning every 2 hours; consequently, it is immobile for 14 hours every day. Its gas turbine breaks down every 250 km, unlike more reliable diesel engines. During Desert Storm, it had to stop every three to five hours in order to undergo engine maintenance and repairs, and could not travel for more than 30 kilometers without undergoing emergency maintenance due to sand clogging up engine filters, which necessitated filters to be replaced.

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

34KB, 580x426px

>>31452573

File: ECM module.jpg (83KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1280x720px

>>31452573
See the gantry on top?

MUSS is the replacement for the current APS, but the ECM suite is being kept.

Good luck getting a lock in the first place.

>>31452587
This lack of mobility allowed key Iraqi armored units to escape destruction during the Desert Storm, causing 12-18 hour delays due to fuel shortcomings alone. Neither are these issues exclusive to desert areas: falling leaves and snow can also be sucked up into air intake during operations, requiring organizational maintenance. Crew is typically not allowed to try and clean intake by themselves for fear of damage. Overall, 3/4 of the fuel used on Iraq and Afghanistan wars was used to get the fuel there in the first place. But supply train is very vulnerable, being composed of thin-skinned vehicles, and thus can be easily destroyed, stranding tanks. Larger supply train requires more troops to protect, which reduces number of troops deployed against the enemy. While turbine is often stated to have advantage of multifuel capability, most if not all diesel-engined tanks in this comparison are multifuel capable, and using any fuel other than JP-8 will damage the engine. Listed maximum range (without idling) is 463 km for M1A1 and 411 km for M1A2SEP. Ground clearance is 483 mm. It can ford 1,2 m deep water obstacles without preparation and 2 m with preparation. It can climb 1,2 m obstacles and pass 2,7 m trench. Specific ground pressure is 1,05 kg/cm2 for M1A1 and 1,09 kg/cm2 for M1A2. It can traverse 60% gradient and 40% side slope. It is 9,77 m long, 3,66 m wide and 2,44 m tall.

File: Merkava III (9).jpg (97KB, 1024x558px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1024x558px

>>31452573

>>31452587
1 9 9 1
9
9
1

“Logistics is the ball and chain of armored warfare.”

– Heinz Guderian

Logistics and mobility are the two key design requirements of the Leopard family.

And the main reason of the export success of the Leopard tanks. The 120mm gun and well designed armor sheme are basically just cherries on top.

>>31452587
Lets tally the things that were wrong or misleading

>does not have good operational mobility
>huge amounts of fuel when idle
>130 mile (209 km) range
>In combat operations consumption can be as high as 8,6 gallons per mile/ range of no more than 58,6 miles (94,3 km)
>It can take up to 60 seconds to start
(fyi the improved versions of the A2 hull received analogue starters that make it instantaneous)
>M1 requires 1 hour of refuelling every 3 hours
>one hour of filter cleaning every 2 hours
(really, really wrong)
> it is immobile for 14 hours every day
>Its gas turbine breaks down every 250 km
>more reliable diesel engines
>sand clogging up engine filters
(the run on sentence is misleading, Iraq 2 didn't have this problem)
>>31452594
round 2
>falling leaves and snow can also be sucked up into air intake during operations, requiring organizational maintenance
>Crew is typically not allowed to try and clean intake by themselves
(grossly false)
>Afghanistan
>and thus can be easily destroyed, stranding tanks.
>which reduces number of troops deployed against the enemy
> using any fuel other than JP-8 will damage the engine
> It can ford 1,2 m deep water obstacles without preparation and 2 m with preparation

>>31452594
A lot of this is based on desert storm, and a lot of these issues have since been rectified, to include the Abrams electrical stand by idle which gives it full capability besides moving, with the engine off. Another is the outdated information on the air filtration system.

The crew is directly responsible for maintaining, and can seek organic mechanical assistance from the company mechanics. But the big thing is the plenum box underneath the armored cover, it takes 2 men 15 minutes at the most to clean the V-pac filtration system, which is 3 giant filters that combine into 2cu/m+ of micro filtration. And in the event it isn't enough the tank has an automatic pulse jet filter cleaner which blasts the filters with high-pressure air and pushes foreign objects out the back of the tank, to the left of the exhaust.

You ever see that giant grill that expands the entire back side of the tank? The entirety of that is not the exhaust. Half of it is for the automated filtration system.

>Comparing tanks with many classified components
>Comparing tanks which have never seen combat (no, M1s vs. T-72s doesn't count)

We may as well talk about how amazing our penises are without being allowed to take off our pants, and all of us being virgins.

>>31452591
>See the gantry on top?

Not an APS. The ECM is an IED jammer like CREW used by the US.

>>31452678
It's sure funny how much stuff they need to put on the tank to compensate for the bad decision of using turbine for the M1.

It's time to develope and deploy a compact diesel electric tank engine in the near future.

>>31450459
>It's been tried and tested all over the world
Pfffffahahahahah!

>>31452709
Well, it have been tested all over the world.

It basically lost against the Leopard 2 all the time.

>>31452712
It lost against the Leopard 2 twice and beat the Leopard 2 once.

>>31452694
The ECM is APS.

Fuck everything but wire guided.

>>31452718
when? not the same guy also

>>31452719
You need to learn what ECM and APS are.

>>31452718
>and beat the Leopard 2 once

when?

>>31452678
>A lot of this is based on desert storm, and a lot of these issues have since been rectified

Most of what he wrote is either flat out bullshit or things that effect diesel engines as well.

>>31452718
Abrams and Leopard were tested in Sweden, Switzerland, Greece and Saudi-Arabia.

The first three bought Leopard 2 tanks. And Saudi-Arabia wanted L2 tanks twice but because of political antics in Germany the deals were never finalized.

>>31452732
being that butthurt

>>31452587
>>31452594
It's sure crazy that the USA thought such a logistics nightmare was a good idea in the middle of the Cold War with chaotic and destroyed supply lines.

>>31452736
Saudi-Arabia buys whatever tank they feel like

>>31452726
You need to learn that the gantry contains APS.

>>31451798
>A hit on the side of an Abrams turret that could kill the crew would hit the side of the hull on a T-14 and could kill the crew.
Except unlike M1, T-14 hull is unmanned with the exception of small crew compartment in the front. Meaning that a hit on the side of an Abrams turret that could kill the crew would hit the side of the hull on a T-14 and the crew won't give two fucks.
>Cameras, drones and human eyes.
Are you acting like T-14 crew has no means to use their eyes when inside of the tank?

>>31452736
most European nations buy European gear

File: enhanced-buzz-829-1305134985-10.jpg (117KB, 600x602px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 600x602px

>>31452699
The United States put a turbine in the Abrams because they can afford an engine that costs 200% more but performs 125% better. Do you really think they would put a potato in the engine compartment for no reason?

>>31452764
>meme picture

File: Sky-lined_tank.png (11KB, 408x345px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 408x345px

>>31452752
>just hit the side of the turret
we world of tanks now

>>31452752
It's much harder to gain situational awareness. In order to have the same SA as the Abrams, the T-14 crew would literally have to climb onto the turret of the tank.

>>31452752
They would give a fuck, now that their tank is dead.

>>31452726
Softkill anyone?

>>31452736
>Abrams and Leopard were tested in Sweden, Switzerland, Greece and Saudi-Arabia.

Sweden and Switzerland chose the Leopard 2 because they were allowed to locally produce them.

Greek officials got caught having taken bribes from KMW.

Saudi Arabia never tested the Leopard 2, but was interested in 2A7+ for a while. Since then they have decided to buy another batch of M1A2S.

>>31452744
Calling it a logistics nightmare does not make it one.

File: tiddies.jpg (186KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1200x1600px

>>31452771
>It's much harder to gain situational awareness. In order to have the same SA as the Abrams, the T-14 crew would literally have to climb onto the turret of the tank.
This is some seriously dumb shit, almost gave me a stroke from sheer stupidity btw. Here, to get the blood running for everyone else experiencing the same problems...

>>31452751
An IED jammer is not APS.

>>31452802
It was one in Desert Storm.
And everything trial stated it as well.

>>31452806
but it's true, sometimes you just can't discern what you're looking at through a scope....sometimes the Mk1 eyeball is better. I mean, good on Russia for finally entering the modern age though.

>>31452806
I feel sorry for you if you couldn't understand what the anon said.

>>31452810
CR2 Tech REME.

Can confirm Its an APS in addition to ECM suite.

We tested it, it works.

>>31452806
>This is some seriously dumb shit
The only dumb shit is the people who think cameras can do the same job as eyeballs can. They can't. You're either lacking peripheral or lacking depth. Nothing is as good as the human eye, panoramic sites are a supplement. This is why anyone who argues like you do is consistently wrong every time. In addition camera's do not have a twitch reflex.

Also 4 man tanks with manned turrets have yet another added benefit of 2 observant people on top, one can manage C2 and hunter killer ability, while the loader guides the driver, scans for threats, and helps keep tanks in formation, line, staggered column, vee, or whatever.

>>31452813
Your argument is that they were a logistics nightmare because they advanced across Iraq faster than supply lines could follow.

>>31452768
Look, I know that M1 was designed as basically just a glorified self-propelled tank destroyer, but even Americans realize that's not how modern warfare works.
>>31452771
>T-14 crew would literally have to climb onto the turret of the tank
But "T-14's hull goes halfway up an Abrams turret" :^)
>They would give a fuck, now that their tank is dead.
They would be alive do give a single fuck. Not two. M1 crew would be BBQ'd.
>>31452818
Are you acting like T-14 crew has no means to use their eyes when inside of the tank?

>>31452835
in 2003 they opted for a much smaller ground force, and it got a lot more done for the same amount of man hours wise.

>>31452839
>They would be alive do give a single fuck. Not two. M1 crew would be BBQ'd.

You have that backwards ))))

>Are you acting like T-14 crew has no means to use their eyes when inside of the tank?

They have a very limited ability to.

>>31452839
yes, which means in order for them to get the same SA they need to get out of the tank, as the crew compartments is in the hull

>>31452849
>yes, which means in order for them to get the same SA they need
To use commander's panoramic sight. Its not ww2 anymore.

>>31452712
M1 has never faced a contemporary tank/army/weapon in combat until recently and as soon as it happened videos of this mangal going full BBQ began to pop up here and there.

File: s-df11a38b81c07fe9ef135a05eff8b1994525af80.gif (402KB, 403x304px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 403x304px

>>31452839
>Americans realize that's not how modern warfare works
That's exactly how tanks work. The optics are... get this... on the top of the tank. In a defensive position, the tank is turret down, the only thing that's really visible is the machine gun. Yet, you still have perfect visibility. The platoon can alter, or come up to hull down at the same time exsposing the gun, and ripping open anyone who just passed the trigger line. The cool thing, is after a couple, or even just one shot, the tank backs down and is invisible to anyone whose far away.

>>31452840
A non sequitur.

>>31452829
>You're either lacking peripheral or lacking depth.

HMD for the F-35 fixes this. Its really the future. You are correct when looking at screens though.

Cams have a role though. Gunnery and ident.

>>31452839
The T-14 crew CAN use their eyes while in their tank, it's just that they're limited what they can see because they're located in the hull, not the turret.

As for the BBQ'd comment, not likely. If anything it would be the armata crew. Crew survivability has been a central factor concerning tank design for nearly 40 years in the West.

>>31452862
So... what happens if the tank is not in defensive position? What if the position is compromised? Burn and die? Or - fuck! - what if you need to attack? It suddenly becomes not so modern warfare? Or the plan is to attack in a hull down position?

>>31452858
but no sight can ever replace the sharpness or clarity of the human eye, not to mention the intuition of the commander (or whoever) that comes from years of service and their ability to recognize what they're looking at.

>>31452859
By your standard the T-72 is the only "modern" MBT that has faced a contemporary tank/army/weapon in combat until the last decade.

>>31452848
>You have that backwards ))))
Not as backwards as using manned turret in 2016 :^)
>They have a very limited ability to.
No, they do not.
>>31452849
>in order for them to get the same SA
>the same SA
They already have better SA than any M1. They would they need to go down to M1 level?

>>31452874
Most battles are won by whoever sees the other first. So it doesn't really matter if the tank isn't in a defensive position.

>>31452874
Supplementary or hasty battle position. Actually.

>>31452870
>it's just that they're limited what they can see because they're located in the hull, not the turret.
Armata has 360 degree camera coverage, man. They can see everything much better than with eyes while being outside fucking Knispel style.

>>31452821
I don't do stupid, so yeah.
>>31452818
Compare the # of situations a camera is better than your mk.1 eyeball then come back.
>>31452829
>The only dumb shit is the people who think cameras can do the same job as eyeballs can. They can't.
But what if they not only can, but they can do a lot more?

>You're either lacking peripheral or lacking depth.
That's easy, have the cameras in pairs about the width between your eyes and interlace their footage into a 3d one.

>Nothing is as good as the human eye
hahahaha, nice joke.

>This is why anyone who argues like you do is consistently wrong every time
according to who? the dumbass who insists eyes are better than cameras that benefit from improving technology?

>In addition camera's do not have a twitch reflex
Store bought CCTVs can detect very faint movement and issue alerts to the operator so no.

>>31452867
Maybe some day the T14 can get a head mounted display. Until then, these people can enjoy having a MBT that takes away capability by putting people in a bubble.

>>31452881
Sure, throw all those FLIR, panoramic sights and shit into the dumpster. Another recommendation - no ranged weapon can replace the sensation of looking your enemy in the eyes while you kill him. Use a stick.

>>31452862
>In a defensive position
I'm sure there was a lot of combat going on in a shithole somewhere around the Fulda gap where you were stationed, grandpa, but this is not 1979 anymore.

File: download.png (5KB, 160x158px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 160x158px

>>31452893
an attempt was made

>>31452887
>>31452888
Guys, you cant move a battle position. It can so happen that there is NO battle position in a place you have to fight.

>>31452904
>take ball and go home instead of defending your argument

>>31452886
>2016
>not using a manned turret
The US already explored the option of having an unmanned turret, as did the Germans (I think), both nations concluded that the SA for the crew outweigh the weight reductions and lower profile.

They don't, they have some advanced optics (which is cool to see, good for them) but ultimately this is their first try at a tank designed with crew survivability in mind, meaning they won't always get things right. Meanwhile, the West has been doing this for nearly 50 years. This is assuming they can actually bring these things into production any time soon, which given the state of their economy, is unlikely.

>>31452917
I dont defend any argument, man, its you who brought a stupid argument about muh eyes. No, eyes are not better than optics.

File: you mount stupid.gif (11KB, 576x467px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 576x467px

>>31452913
>is NO battle position in a place you have to fight
>what is hasty battle position for 400

Hey look someone else whose talking about something that they have no idea what they are talking about. I hope you realize that terrain is dynamic, and not a giant flat expanse with no features like the fairy tale world you referenced.

>>31452882
Not really, also M60, T-55, T-62. Hell, even Chieftain.

>>31452919
>concluded that the SA for the crew outweigh the weight reductions and lower profile
In 80s it probably was. Too bad this is not the 80s anymore.

>>31452919
>The US already explored the option of having an unmanned turret, as did the Germans (I think), both nations concluded that the SA for the crew outweigh the weight reductions and lower profile.
You do realize that they did not have HD cameras and shit back then?

>>31452900
You mean something like the Iron Vision? Actually a screen that you can pan and tilt the feed is much better imo. Its insanely nauseating to look around the place while the the tank is moving in combat. Also means your hands leave the console when for example looking at the back.

>>31452931
The T-14 does not evidence the claim that an unmanned turret reduces a tanks profile.

>>31452925
>and not a giant flat expanse with no features like the fairy tale world you referenced.
Sorry, m8, but terrain is dynamic and there are plenty of places on this planet where terrain features arent high and big enough to hide the tank, they always exist only in fairy tale world you are referencing when talking about attack in a hull down position, lol.

>>31452931
>biology has changed since 1980

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. We know what cameras can do. Do you know what humans can do for a tank? its obvious you don't know the responsibility of the crew members.

>>31452942
Well, you just fucked your own argument then. Or your buddy's argument.

>>31452893
Depth perception and peripheral, like that other anon said. There are some things that cameras just can't replicate. As for the # of situations, you'd have to ask a member of the armor corps, as that's not my bag. I do however know a guy who was a Cav Scout in the first gulf war, he said the TC was outside looking through binos nearly the entire time they were advancing, due to low visibility and heat which sometimes fucked with their different sites.
>>31452904
To the contrary, take all of that stuff, it's very helpful, but it's stupid to throw out the best optic (eyes).
>>31452932
>>31452931
Very true for both points, it is a new decade and tech has advanced hugely. But even HD cameras sometimes can't discern objects like the human eye can.

>>31452947
>>biology has changed since 1980
Technology has changed since 1980. Drastically.

>>31452942
Whoa-whoa. This wasn't just ordinary goalposts moving. This was just right away changing the subject to something absolutely irrelevant to the current discussions. But sure, let's compare the size of M1 and T-14 crew compartments... oops, looks like T-14 hull is unmanned with the exception of small crew compartment in the front. Meaning that a hit on the side of an Abrams turret that could kill the crew would hit the side of the hull on a T-14 and the crew won't give two fucks.

>>31452941
> Its insanely nauseating to look around the place while the the tank is moving in combat.
>i have never been in a tank before though

>>31452944
>terrain features arent high and big enough to hide the tank
A 3 meter tall vehicle with 4km of range and 10km of veiwing? The natural curvature of the earth will even hide a tank at 2km anon. Add in [literally any kind of feature] and you can work off that. Again, terrain is dynamic and the majority of the worlds surface is in fact, not a flat fairy tale. Even iraq kuwait and saudi arabia had small rolling hills that could be used you turd burglar.

>>31452947
You once again are trying to act as if T-14 crew can't use their eyes. Simply repeating what can be proven false with any frontal T-14 image won't do you any good.

>>31452951
>But even HD cameras sometimes can't discern objects like the human eye can.
Its like that argument about redundancy and ability to rotate the turret by hand. No, its simply wrong, even without taking into account the simple fact that FLIR enhances your ability to see whatever shit you want to see by approximately 9000%.

>>31452951
>But even HD cameras sometimes can't discern objects like the human eye can.
Which is why T-14 crew has an option to use their Mk1 Eyeballs.

>>31452944
Guess what?

That's almost none of the world. Virtually NONE of the worlds population lives on entirely flat plains.

Really, you're looking at the American Midwest outside of cities, and some parts of the great steppes.

>>31452900
Maybe, but being such tech is in western hands first, it would most likley be integrated into a western tank. Right now thats state of the art, it has to trickle down to tanks first.

>>31452941
No, like the F-35s eodas system with an hmd. Commander wears a helmat, and essentually is in a glass tank. Loader wont need this, gunner would benefit, driver just needs to see where he is going and needs spatial awareness.

I would not be disorienting, its essentually like sticking your head out of the tank, but while buttoned up and being able to zoom, auto threat detection, etc.

>>31452953
Camera's aren't eyes. Checkmate. Next you will tell me household computers have more processing power then my brain. Maybe your primal cerebral matter of an excuse, but not normal people. Technology hasn't advanced that far yet at any practical level.

>>31452965
by standing on top of their tank....

>>31452961
also, that's not stupid.....redundant systems need to be there as backup...in case something fails.

>>31452957
>A 3 meter tall vehicle with 4km of range and 10km of veiwing?
Hey man terrain is dynamic, and not a giant flat expanse with no features like the fairy tale world you referenced.

>>31452966
That does not mean a place where hiding a tank in a hull down position is impossible and/or such position is tactically useless does not exist. It is actually pretty common. I am pretty sure the enemy will happily exploit such features when choosing a defensive position.

File: t-14 (1).jpg (121KB, 1100x732px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1100x732px

>>31452974
>by standing on top of their tank....
Facepalm.

>>31452983
Thats a service hatch m8.

>>31452973
>Camera's aren't eyes.
Eyes arent FLIR. Checkmate.
>Next you will tell me household computers have more processing power then my brain.
Yes they do, in all situations where computer is used.

>>31452974
>also, that's not stupid.....redundant systems need to be there as backup...in case something fails.
Sure, but claiming it must be hand is retarded.

>>31452988
sure, then go electric, the Abrams has that and a hand crank

>>31452988
Home computers dont even have a 1000th of the processing power has the human brain. The brain can do 38 petaflops of data per second.

It does have a fuckton more memory though.

>>31452976
>It is actually pretty common.
No, it is not. The few places that do not have sufficient terrain disruption top hide armor are sparsely inhabited and unlikely to ever see much fighting for a variety of reasons, with everything of worth being confined to urban areas anyway.

You've got the sea of grass, sea of corn, and That's. Fucking. It.

>I am pretty sure the enemy will happily exploit such features when choosing a defensive position.
Are you completely retarded?
Who is typing this for you?

No, you're not going to set your defenses in a flat, featureless area.

If you somehow find a prepared position that allows your armor good positions but it totally flat in front of them, guess what?

Hostile armor is going to use their mobility to go somewhere else.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about, and i'm now convinced you're either a retarded europoor living on or near the steppes, or a midwest nigger who thinks the world is a corn field.

>>31452988
Calling checkmate requires you to win. FLIR doesn't work in all conditions. Its also got the same issues cameras do, that I am still waiting for you to damage control next cause you still haven't countered it.

>Yes they do, in all situations where computer is used.
No, they do not. Super computers have only just recently bypassed human brains memory and processing power, that reads as, not your desktop or smartphone.

Stop being wrong. Just take your loss and go home. The T14 is a joke, there are 3-5 tanks that are better than it you butthurt shill.

>>31452942
>The T-14 does not evidence the claim that an unmanned turret reduces a tanks profile.
Depends on which profile you are looking at. Overall height it is a big tank yes, but if you are only looking at strictly the armored profile, or rather the profile containing the crew and majority of the tank's systems its slightly lower than the armored profile of the T-90 itself, if you ignore the gun and its accompanying mechanisms (that fit within the mantlet if you are looking at it from the front anyway, so its small) that is.

File: t-14 (9).jpg (172KB, 1280x911px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1280x911px

>>31452985
FACEPALM. The periscopes, dumbass.

>>31453004
We are talking about human eyes, not cams dumbass.

If you are going to be a dick at least understand the arguement being presented.

>>31452999
Yes, you get it too.
To this anon, >>31452988
things like thermals and FLIR don't work very well in bad conditions. Fog, rain, heat all have an affect on what you can (or can't see) through a scope.

>>31452993
>sure, then go electric, the Abrams has that and a hand crank
Thats what they probably did. And hand crank is there not because it is absolutely needed, but because there was no point to remove it.
>>31452994
Sure, not please take a JPG image of your dick, encrypt it and send it to me using just your brain. I'll give you a generous one second to do that.
You are fucking retarded, brain is analogue, not digital, it uses content adressable memory, its a parralel machine it does not have system clock (so there is nowhere you can even take your dumb petaflops, moron), you cant even compare them not processing-wise, nor functionality wise.

>>31452994
>The brain can do 38 petaflops of data per second.
Of what data in particular? Your childhood memories? Your fear to shit yourself? Your thoughts about home? Your tremor?

>>31453012
>>31452988
Also engagement is more often or not, started with a direct visual anyway. Particularly during mobile offensive operations.

>>31453004
llooking through a periscope still doesn't give you the same amount of SA. They're literally building a tank with handicaps built in, then saying that the other nations don't know what they're talking about (even though those other nations have the years of research and combat service records to prove it).

>>31452998
>No, it is not.
Yes it is.
>No, you're not going to set your defenses in a flat, featureless area.
No, you are going to set up your defences in an area with features, and have a more featureless area in front of you.

>>31452999
>FLIR doesn't work in all conditions.
Eyes do not work in all conditions either, actually, they work in much less variety of conditions than FLIR.

>>31453018
big hyperbole from a little man. I honestly kek'd.

>>31452999
>FLIR doesn't work in all conditions.
But your eyes do... sure.

>No, they do not. Super computers have only just recently bypassed human brains memory and processing power, that reads as, not your desktop or smartphone.
You can do ultra fucking complex calculations in your head bruh? Like simulate the weather and shit? Fuck are you like rain man or something? Must be, only that you turned up the retardation instead.

File: picard-double-facepalm-o.gif (669KB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 320x213px

>>31453011
>Tank periscopes are cams

File: download (2).jpg (13KB, 260x194px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 260x194px

>>31453025
>o... o... oh yea? Eyes don't work all the time either
I guess a tank that offers eyes, cameras and drones, is worse then a tank that offers only cameras and drones.

>>31453021
>llooking through a periscope still doesn't give you the same amount of SA
As what?

>>31453039
Fuck! So russians indeed weld their conscripts inside tanks, like fucking space marines? Fuck, you are dumb.

>>31453025
Look at a topographical map of the world sometime.

Then follow up with a heat map of world population.

Followup with suicide. It's blindingly obvious that you're a moron who can't grasp that your local geography is not universal.

>>31453039
Don't bother. This same idiot is essentially making a flat earth argument.

>>31453033
>You can do ultra fucking complex calculations in your head bruh? Like simulate the weather and shit? Fuck are you like rain man or something? Must be, only that you turned up the retardation instead.
My phone struggles to open Google Maps and and run Pandora at the same time. I am trying to remember the last time there was an impulse in my head, sysnapses.exe are not responding, oh wait that's not a thing.

>>31453039
>I guess a tank that offers eyes, cameras and drones,
Current and prospective Abrams tanks don't have provisions for receiving video feeds from UAVs.

>>31453044
eyes

>>31453047
>Look at a topographical map of the world sometime.
I will just look outside, and, believe it or not, there are not much terrain features big enough so you can hide a fucking tank behind them. And there are even less that can allow the tank to, like, fire at the enemy. For fuck sake, your fucking hull down position simply does not work in ALL circumstances when enemy has elevation advantage.

>>31453052
Looking from where? An open hatch?

>>31453049
>My phone struggles to open Google Maps and and run Pandora at the same time
You CANT open Google maps and Pandora in your head. And good luck thinking about two things at the same time anyway.

>>31453047
>Don't bother. This same idiot is essentially making a flat earth argument.
His weak ass pandering is getting boring pretty fast anyway. I am going to dip out, so I guess he wins now. later.

>>31453050
what is tiger, what is bft

[ ] wrong
[ ] really wrong

>>31453067
BMS, but you already knew that. Those too, don't have the bandwidth to facilitate video feeds.

>>31453033
I.... don't think you actually understand that math that goes into simple things like walking, much less visual-spacial skills like throwing objects or shooting projectiles. And that's the simplest shit I can think up.

There's a REASON we can't get machines to be very good at these things.

>>31453062
>BUT ALL MUH APPS
Nigger, I can walk, shoot a gun accurately, note the temperature, listen to music, yell at a moron, and think about staceys big fucking tits all the the same time.

If you genuinely can't do two things at once, I have bad news for you:
You're retarded. Literally. Low processing power. Like your phone.

>>31453056
>I will just look outside
Good thing tanks aren't designed with taking your house in mind. If they DID find some asshole hiding in your house, they'd simply bypass if they felt it too hard to attack, and proceed to destroy rear echelon units and leave your house to with impotently on the vine.

Here's a map of the thing tanks are designed ot fight on. Note that it isn't very flat.

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=30e5fe3149c34df1ba922e6f5bbf808f

>>31450543

>Challenger in bad need of a retrofit

As a britfag this. This so much. It's just old. Need a new Engine, needs a track that dosent suck shit, and a power traverse that dosent break legs.

>>31453082
>>BUT ALL MUH APPS
Nigger, I can walk, shoot a gun accurately, note the temperature, listen to music, yell at a moron, and think about staceys big fucking tits all the the same time.
Computer can process commands to make robot move, note the temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, GPS coordinates, exact wind speed and heading, exact distance to an object, yell at someone and be a host for Pornhub at the same time, at least from the perspective of a person who sometimes need to think for a couple of minutes to realize its own position.

>>31453039
>a tank that offers only cameras and drones.
Which tank would that be?

>>31453013
>>31453018
https://www.quora.com/Roughly-what-processing-power-does-the-human-brain-equate-to

I hope you enjoy reading a fuckton of papers!

>>31451804
That's why sniper rifles have shorter barrels than regular rifles, right? For more accuracy, right?

>>31453058
yes

>>31453097
I do not need to read this shit to realize that computer has more processing power in any circumstances where computer is used, which was the initial point. Because why the fuck you would need a computer if it does not, you fucking retard.

>>31453109
>i dont have to read shit that directly contradicts my world view!

Of course you dont, you are retarded!

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/estimate-human-brain-30-times-faster-than-best-supercomputers

>>31453097
>what-processing-power-does-the-human-brain-equate-to
Yeah, and the universe before the Big Bang could fut on a flack drive, blah blah, blah. That's not the argument. The argument is that regardless of how may petaflops of data per second a human brain can process, a computer does it differently. Like that other anon said, take an image of your dick, encrypt it and send it elsewhere in a second using just your brain.

>>31453084
Engines fine, tanks too heavy.

Tracks are fine, Tanks to heavy.

Never seen power traverse break legs?

Its getting a retrofit now anyway, making it about 10t lighter.

>>31453106
So now you are telling me T-14 crew can't look from an open hatch? Stop embarrassing yourself, you lost this.

>>31453101
>your sniper rifle barrel is so heavy it affects accuracy
yes, this is why free float weapons are less accurate. a .308 is the same thing as a 120mm cannon. Fuck off fudd.

>>31453116
Once again, please, JPG image of your dick - and i wont accept image with major losses - then encrypt it and send it to me. Your brain has computing power that puts best supercomputers to shame, yet you need hours to remember exactly what you see in enough detail you wont forget or distort half of it in a day.

>>31453101
He is an idiot - posting a meme picture.

Years later, guy still didn't explain the term "thermal warp".

>>31453122
Yes, they can. They've always been able to, that's not the issue. The issue is if they want to have the same SA as an Abrams (or similiar) TC, they would need to climb out of the hull (because that's where their seats are) and need to be sitting/standing on the turret or something that increases their height. (this is all assuming neither are using optics, which in that case it would go to the Abrams, as Western optics are significantly better).

>>31453117
>FUCK READING!

>>31453131
>FUCK READING!

Protip: humans can recreate images from their brains. We have been doing it for century's.

>B...BUT ITS AN INCOMPLETE REPRESENTATION

Which has to do with memory, not processing.

>>31453140
No, but we've established that the slav lives in a two dimensional world.

>>31453147
>The issue is if they want to have the same SA as an Abrams (or similiar) TC, they would need to climb out of the hull (because that's where their seats are) and need to be sitting/standing on the turret
Armata's hull is halfway up Abrams turret, so they will only need to turn out a little bit higher.
>as Western optics are significantly better
Protip: Armata's optics arent from soviet times. It is mostly stolen technology. From the west, yes.

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

270KB, 780x348px

>>31453137
>meme picture
So you also think a 1 inch thick donut can support several tons of barrel and maintain accuracy, even during high heat and extreme pressure? You're the same idiot from the last thread. Here, enjoy this picture again, thermal warp is the difference between 1000m accuracy and 2000m accuracy, thats why pic related exists.

Your bubba rifle can't shoot that far for things like this to be relevant, and if it did, factors come into play you don't know about. To inclide flexing of the barrel. IE Thermal Warp. IE 120mm cannons, IE, why the L44/M256 is a better gun.

>>31453150
>Protip: humans can recreate images from their brains. We have been doing it for century's.
Nowhere near the speed and detail computer can. Actually if you are looking at the object you never seen before, or simply under stress, you wont remember it at all.

>>31453147
>they would need to climb out of the hull
Just like M1 crew. You see, in order to look from an open hatch you need to get your head out of the open hatch. Regardless of the tank.
>and need to be sitting/standing on the turret or something that increases their height
But "T-14's hull goes halfway up an Abrams turret" :^)
>Western optics are significantly better
Do you have a single fact to back up the claim that T-14 optics are worse than M1 optics?

>>31453162
Or your subconsciousness will simply replace it with some vague shit with your mom, which is even worser.

>>31452591
good luck with next-gen home-on-jam ATGMs

>>31453150
>humans can recreate images from their brains. We have been doing it for century's
Are you right now genuinely comparing painting a painting to taking a picture of this painting and selling it to elsewhere in a matter of a fraction of a second? Are you this fucking desperate?

>>31453155
True, but now you have a tank that's nearly as large, with glaring SA issues that really shouldn't be there, especially if making a new tank.
And yes, they do contain tech stolen or bought from a 3rd party, however these sort of things usually result in lower quality products.

>>31453162
>Nowhere near the speed

The brain builds images from scratch far faster than a computer loads from memory.

>B...BUT THE OUTPUT TO DIFFERENT MEDIUMS

Has nothing to do with processing power.

>more detail

Nothing to do with processing power, and the brain can really go into infinite detail because again, its images are built from scratch, the holes are filled that memory does not make up.

>SO COMPUTERS HAVE A MORE PERFECT IMAGE!

Yes, but again, thats memory, not processing.

>>31453162
>Actually if you are looking at the object you never seen before, or simply under stress, you wont remember it at all.

Ahh, so any new object i wont remeber? Guess im blind, because every object is new, once.

>>31453162
Are you actually brain damaged?

>Actually if you are looking at the object you never seen before,
What? No.
>or simply under stress, you wont remember it at all.
Strong emotional reactions aid in the forming of memory, chucklefuck.

File: hasda.jpg (1MB, 2848x2144px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2848x2144px

>>31453166
>hatch you need to get your head out of the open hatch
yup

>>31453174
>with glaring SA issues
None are present, try harder.

>>31453173
> Do you SERIOUSLY know the difference between memory and processing.

Yes anon, i do. Do you?

>>31453166
>Do you have a single fact to back up the claim that T-14 optics are worse than M1 optics?
Not him but...Russian thermal imaging equipment is backwards engineered french technology. The french were literally selling the Russian's thermals because their domestic technology was so shit.

>>31453160
Yes, you the same retard who said the T-14 and I quote "doesn't have collimator". Fucking hilarous and shameless of you to show your face here again.

>>31452143
>that hilarious red herring picture
What matters are the performance specs after the transmission. If you take Honeywell's shit as the literal truth then cars shouldn't be able to move at all as there's not enough torque to propel the vehicle from zero speed even though cars have several times the power-to-weight ratio of tanks.

>>31453174
>True, but now you have a tank that's nearly as large
With prospects of 152mm gun.
>with glaring SA issues
In your imagination.
>And yes, they do contain tech stolen or bought from a 3rd party
French arent 3rd party.
>>31453177
>The brain builds images from scratch far faster than a computer loads from memory.
Or it does not do it at all.
>Ahh, so any new object i wont remeber? Guess im blind, because every object is new, once.
Not once, actually. If you see it once in a year it will remain new and hard to remember indefinitely.

For fuck sake, moron, stop talking about shit you do not understand, brain has no CPU clock, which means its speed is not a fixed number. It can be really fast at doing some shit, and next second it will have issues distinguishing up from down. And the initial poing still stands - computers have much more processing power in absolutely anything computers are used for

>>31453189
>Not him but...Russian thermal imaging equipment is backwards engineered french technology.
So copying from the best is now bad?

>>31453189
that was the '90s

>muh glorious abrams
It became pretty average in 2000s with new models of leopard, leclerc and uprgades fleet of russian tanks recieved.

>>31453180
>What? No.
Yes.
>Strong emotional reactions aid in the forming of memory, chucklefuck.
Thats why victims often struggle to remember their offenders despite having plenty of time to remember them.

>>31453203
That was right before the sanctions.

>>31453166
yes, peek out the hatch, not get out of the tank completely.
As for info on the T-14 optics, I can only speculate (like everyone else) because hard info regarding the T-14 is very hard to come by, but if it's anything like the normal Russian or Chinese bluster, they'll make it seem like the best thing since sliced bread. That line they usually maintain until one gets captured and we actually get to see it's real capabilities.

>>31453198
I'll believe a 152 gun when it's put en mase on those tanks and slated for production, until then they can just spout anything about placing random guns on random vehicles and calling it a game changer.

>>31453198
>>31453201
i'm sure French systems are good, but nowhere near the level of sophistication of American and German engineering

>>31453182
So use the periscopes. That are present on T-14. That I have already referred to. That you discarded as "cams" and then, realizing how much you just shat yourself, resorted to claiming "llooking through a periscope still doesn't give you the same amount of SA" as looking from an open hatch with your eyes.
Stop embarrassing yourself, idiot.

>>31452040
Huh always thought the marines had an inferior Abrams version, it's actually pretty much the same

>>31453219
I'm that SA guy
No, we're not talking about cams, which i stated before. We're talking about using your eyeball,. You said look through periscopes, I said you lose peripheral vision.

>>31453218
>I'll believe a 152 gun when it's put en mase on those tanks and slated for production
They have 152mm gun and autoloader for it complete and tested, so i do not see anything that will stop them from putting it on the tank if they need to. Do you even know what modernization potential is?
>i'm sure French systems are good, but nowhere near the level of sophistication of American and German engineering
Now thats simply shamelessly pulled out of your ass.

>>31453169
Yeah build an expensive arse ATGM for only one tank, which only numbers about 600.. that can defeat most warheads anyway...

>>31453084
At least the government are now willing to spend the money on it getting an upgrade. 1500bhp engine, better FCS, might even get a 120mm smoothbore.

It depends on whose given the contract to upgrade it though.

>>31453198
>For fuck sake, moron, stop talking about shit you do not understand,

Says the man who directly refuses to read sources that proves him wrong.

>C...computers work differently therefore its impossible to estimate the brains processing power!

Being that many leading scientists disagree with you completely, i would say your wrong.

>>31453189
Sure, whatever. But do you have a single fact to back up the claim that T-14 optics are worse than M1 optics?
>>31453218
So now you are telling me T-14 crew can't look from an open hatch without getting out of the tank completely? Stop embarrassing yourself, you lost this.
>I can only speculate
At least you admit you are just taking the shit straight out of your ass and smearing it all over your posts.

>>31453239
>Says the man who directly refuses to read sources that proves him wrong.
You did not bring a single source that contradicts my claim, retard.
>Being that many leading scientists disagree with you completely, i would say your wrong.
Oh yes, you can estimate brain processing power, but it is kinda useless for many reasons. For example brain uses overwhelming majority of its processing power to parallel process shit that simply does not require processing, which computer almost never does.

>>31453230
>No, we're not talking about cams
Periscopes don't use cams, dumbass. You can use the periscopes or peek out of the hatch in both tanks.

>>31453255
I posted a article that directly estimates the human brains processing speed. Do you want more?

>majority of its processing power to parallel process shit that simply does not require processing.

Ahh, the brain processes stuff that does not require processing! Quite astute anon. I honestly expected nothing less from somebody as smart as yourself!

>>31453274
>I posted a article that directly estimates the human brains processing speed. Do you want more?
Yes, i want an article that says brain is better at what computer does, you idiot.
>Ahh, the brain processes stuff that does not require processing!
Oh yes, when you are looking for the enemy and suddenly start thinking about the titties, for example.

>>31453248
>>31453248
No, I'm saying to get the same SA that a Abrams TC would have (without optics) the Russian TC would need to open the hatch completely and get out of the tank to be at the same level of the Abrams TC. How are you not understanding this?
They are more than capable
>>31453248
Well for one, it features a second generation thermal and night sight (which comes standard on all tanks), a Commanders independent viewfinder, and a sight for the 50 caliber up top. Those are top of the line. As for the T-14 can you provide any info on it's capabilities? Generally curious cause information is short.

>>31453262
Yes, they don't. I never said they did, but with a periscope you're limiting your field of view.

>>31453296
>Russian TC would need to open the hatch completely and get out of the tank to be at the same level of the Abrams
So, level of Abram's TC commander's head = armata's hull+complete body height of Armata's TC? You claim that russian tankes are midgets or something? Thats offensive.
>Well for one, it features a second generation thermal and night sight (which comes standard on all tanks), a Commanders independent viewfinder, and a sight for the 50 caliber up top. Those are top of the line. As for the T-14 can you provide any info on it's capabilities? Generally curious cause information is short.
Considering T-90MS has all of that i doubt Armata is worser.

>>31453160
>>31453160
>and maintain accuracy, even during high heat and extreme pressure?

yes

>>31453284
>Yes, i want an article that says brain is better at what computer does, you idiot.
>at what computer does
>you idiot

Wew laddy. What a computer "does" is have a fuckton of memory, far more than a human. This is now the third time i stated this.

>muh obtrusive thoughts

Require processing first of all, second of all procreation is a prime directive of humanity

>>31453302
But Russia didn't produce any of that stuff, they acquired it from other nations, specifically France, which has been mentioned in this thread. The french military, while being a first rate military, is not really known for its breakthrough optics or weapon systems.

>>31453302
Well, sitting in the hull certainly limits your view, which would necessitate getting vertical to expand it. As for the manlet comment, I didn't claim anything. But they DID however get most of their tankers from smaller men, as the cramped interiors made it hard to work in if you were bigger.

>>31453302
to add on to >>31453320
I guess I'm just really skeptical about their claims, as most of their equipment, once properly disassembled and analyzed is almost always inferior.

>>31453317
>Wew laddy. What a computer "does" is have a fuckton of memory, far more than a human. This is now the third time i stated this.
No, it does not, at least reliable, which us pretty obvious even if we ignore complex maths that computer processes in seconds, while brain simply cant process it.
>Require processing first of all, second of all procreation is a prime directive of humanity
Which is still a waste of processing power. You cant control your subconsciousness, and processes running there a) require a lot of your brain processing power b) can be useful, useless or harmful.
I am sorry, evaluation is result-driven, not excuse-driven. Abstract high number of processing power of the brain does not mean it is faster than computer. It is unreliable, unpredictable and wasteful. Which brings us to initial point - computers have more effective processing power in everything computers do.

>>31453320
>But Russia didn't produce any of that stuff, they acquired it from other nations, specifically France, which has been mentioned in this thread.
As licensed production with transfer of technology.
>The french military, while being a first rate military, is not really known for its breakthrough optics or weapon systems.
Thales is an extremely respected producer of optics devices.
>Well, sitting in the hull certainly limits your view
It is either safe to turn out, then you can turn out as high as you want, or its not, then you do not turn out at all. It is not WW2 anymore, when tank commanders went into combat while being turned out.
>But they DID however get most of their tankers from smaller men, as the cramped interiors made it hard to work in if you were bigger.
Armata has shittons of space for crew, it is simply not required anymore. And it is largely a myth, i know plenty of tankers 170-180cm tall.

>>31453296
>Russian TC would need to open the hatch completely
Just like M1 crew.
>and get out of the tank
No, they would not, since "T-14's hull goes halfway up an Abrams turret" :^)
>As for the T-14 can you provide any info on it's capabilities?
No, because it is not known yet and I am not going to speculate out of my ass.
>I never said they did
Except for that time when I posted a picture showing T-14 has periscopes to which you first responded with saying that you "are not talking about cams", then resorted to claiming that "it's all about looking with literally bare eyes form an open hatch, then posted fucking periscopes yourself.
>with a periscope you're limiting your field of view
Which is why it is not the only option.

>>31453344
A computer does not do complex math, it does simple math very fast.

Fuck, i thought you just didnt know about brains, you dont know anything about computers either.

For example, how fast can a computer build a 3D object with real life resolution (or near it)? It takes weeks nigga. CGI takes litteral weeks to process it.

Your brain does it at will.

>>31453357
Thales, while a very good company (I would know, I've fixed planes with Thales systems onboard, great shit) is still going to be behind the power curve when it comes to tank optics, doubly so when compared to US companies.

You'd be surprised how much time TCs spend turned out. A freind of mine was a Cav Scout in the first Gulf War, said his TC was equally split between binos and the day sight (thermal and night didn't work well because of heat and the oil fires).

>>31453360
Yes, but the Abrams TC would not need to get out of the tank, he'd merely have to peek over the hatch. As for the "halfway up" comment, they'd still need to go vertical.

Where did i post the periscopes myself? I think that might have been another anon. I mean I've talked about the optics on an Abrams when comparing them to another tank.

>>31453344
>ignore complex maths that computer processes in seconds

Computers cannot even subtract, you absolute retard. The math they do is strictly additive. Fuck.

>>31452881
Yeah cause you can spot anything at 4km good on ya mate.

>>31453420
>Abrams TC would not need to get out of the tank, he'd merely have to peek over the hatch
So just like T-14 crew.
>they'd still need to go vertical
This is idiotic. To you there are only two positions T-14 crew can take, one being completely sealed in a capsule with only electronics to rely to, other being driving on the top of the turret standing tall looking skyward?

During the extensive trials programme with prototype 120 mm L55 weapons, the hit accuracy was tested with existing ammunition as well as with the latest kinetic energy types such as the DM43A1 and the DM53. The results show the same dispersion characteristics as the current 120 mm L44. Trials have shown that the lengthening of the barrel results in an increase of muzzle energy of about 14 per cent when compared with the latest field APFSDS round.

>>31453125
what? no argument about thermal warp anymore? maybe you're just retarded and make things up?

File: muikeaelfi.jpg (18KB, 183x199px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 183x199px

>>31453428
>Computers cannot even subtract

>>31453160
really, explain to me why sniper rifles have longer barrels if, according to you, this lowers accuracy

>>31451687
>less powerful engine
That's the only thing you're right about, and the jet turbine is still less reliable than a diesel engine, and a gas guzzler by comparison.

>>31450543
>Stretching this hard to try and say that obvious improvements are inferior.
Crew survivability, improved loading, smaller turret profile, less weight, etc. are really important innovations.

>>31451687
>Less lethal
Both have a 120mm gun and a few MGs, both can use the same ammunition
>Less powerful engine.
Both have the same hp, but the im not sure about the other specs so Ill give you this one
>less accurate
Wut? If anything a longer barrel should increase accuracy.
> lacks C4ISR
Might be true for german leopards, but not for some export customers.

>>31453532
>im actually this ignorant.

Inb4 you show me a calculator.

>>31450543
>Challenger is a Relic, in bad need of a retrofit program
>meanwhile it still btfo's Abrams leopards and russ shit

lel british engineering

>>31450543
>ameriboo this delusional
>ameriboo thinking his tank is this good
>inb4 muh monkey models
>inb4 muh iraqi exports

Your tank is far from the best. However, no tank is currently "The best in the world". Same as how there's no best standard issue rifle in the world

Im going to wade in with a shitpost regarding engines.

At the time of production of the abrams the gas turbine was by far the better option over Mechanical/Early electronic governed large diesel engines, As they did not have the required power/displacement. To get the same power you wouldve been looking at a 65-70 liter engine. The turbine was by far a lighter and insanely more powerful engine. Now days with proper common rail diesel engines you could get the same power from a 23 liter-27 liter engine. Technology has moved on.

Also don't sit here and say hurr durr MTU Diesel. A properly designed engine by a manufacturer that isn't shit would fill the role of the Turbine at a lower operating cost and with much less maintenance. Turbines are fragile, its a lot of moving parts and a lot of extremely fine tolerances. But they are fucking powerful

>>31452587
also
>1hr refuelling
what is fast fill? A 4000L earthmover tank can be filled in 10 minutes
>one hour of filter cleaning every 2 hours
What is operational spares? You're not doing to stop a tank to blow out its filters for an hour. You're going to swap it out for a spare filter and let the mechs clean it out whilst you go forward

>>31452828
Fucking btfo

Will he ever recover?

>>31453004
>FACEPALM

Back to /leddit/ you go, newfag

>>31453611
>At the time of production of the abrams the gas turbine was by far the better option over Mechanical/Early electronic governed large diesel engines

That's wrong.

True would be that pulliing out a compact 1500hp diesel engine was out of reach for the USA in the 70s without risking additional delays.

>turbine
>a lot of moving parts

One of the selling points of the turbine is that it doesn't have a lot of moving parts.

The problem with turbines is if you have a turbine you want to run it at highest efficiency.

>what is fast fill? A 4000L earthmover tank can be filled in 10 minutes

The problem is that the supply lines need to catch up with the tanks and all the preparation time will lead to one hour refuelling time quite easily.
Even if the act of refuiling a platoon takes 30min in a best case.

>>31453668
Hmm maybe I should rephrase, A lot of parts and extremely fine tolerances.

By the time they would've made a compact 1500hp engine it would be mid 80s. Considering American diesel engine makers (CAT and Cumbuckets mainly) were not making active forays into electronic governor control (here's looking at you 3306e) until the mid to late 80s.

Im saying for the time the turbine was great. But now it could be easily swapped for a decent diesel.

>>31453447
Assuming it's hull down, the Armata crew won't be seeing much of anything. And there are many, but sitting upright in a seat in the hull will limit what you can see.

>>31453557
Longer doesn't mean more accurate. And the ammunition used is different. The Germans use tungsten, we use DU.

>>31451687
Canadian Leo2A6's have C4ISR, but we only have very few of those models.

>>31453793
>Assuming it's hull down
Off to the Fulda Gap with you and your self-propelled tank destroyer stories, grandpa. Furthermore, hull down is exactly the position in which T-14 crew could peek just a few centimeters out of the hatch and see anything. Assuming they would ever need to because all optics, electronics, periscopes, drones, ect. just fucking magically disappeared.
>sitting upright in a seat in the hull will limit what you can see
Limit to virtually anything except for simply fucking sticking your head out of the hatch. Which they can do anyway if there will be such a need. Jesus Christ, you are pathetic. Stop posting, you lost this.