>The Abrams is invincible https://twitter.com/ramiailoia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1thg7VvTpaI

>>31789034
>expecting sand niggers to know how to into tactics and combined arms

inb4 burgers and muh export monkey models

>>31789058
>goatfuckers T72 blow up
>Ahahahah slavshit
>goatfuckers Abrams blow up
>expecting sand niggers to know how to into tactics and combined arms
>it was 1st modification!
Fatniks

fake, there is no allahsnackbaring

>>31789034
No way it could have penetrated the tank

>>31789034
An ATGM hit on the rear would do that to any mbt.

>>31789086
I think it obviously penetrated the tank and it's right there in HD. ;)

>>31789086
>No way it could have penetrated the tank

>literally hits the back of the turret

You're fucking stupid. A hit like that on ANY modern MBT would likely cause a fireworks show

>>31789034
>The Abrams is invincible

No a KornetD would btfo any abramas wouldn't even need a rear or side shot. That's probably why everyone is developing active countermeasures for tanks.

>>31789175
So you say it's a Kornet ? Konkurs is being mentioned on twitter.

>>31789086
...

The ATGM passes over the engine deck and strikes the rear of the turret almost dead center. A pretty good shot to be honest.

If it wasn't an Abrams you would have dead crew instead of vented ammo.

>>31789034
isnt it like to protect the crew from being burned alive?

>>31789034
>Not knowing what blowout panels are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay7bOG2nD6k

It was a good shot, but really, you're not showing anything that hasn't been shown in the last 10 years.

It was a good shot and it would have defeated any MBTs armor, at that point the only relevant point is whether or not your crew would be dead; in this case they probably all survived.

>>31789242
>the crew is alive

1. Citation needed
2. "No"

inb4 fatniks spouting >muh monkey model

>>31789312
all modern tanks are designed to allow their ammo to burn like this without harming crew

>>31789331
The missile hit in the perfect place to penetrate the crew compartment.

My money is on the crew being dead

>>31789034

DS/DS checking in. Fucking tank was a beast. Not surprised everyone in the world scrambled around for an answer to it. It was blowing off turrets that were dug deep in the sand at 50 mph like it was at an arcade.

>>31789346
If it hit the crew compartment, then it wouldn't have blown up like that
And even then, thats just 1 dead commander/maybe loader.

GET FUCKED AMERICA

GET FUCKED

I hope next time we will have many burnt burgers in those tin cans.

>>31789312
>>31789346
No ATGM warhead has the penetration to reach the crew compartment from the rear of the turret bustle.

>>31789374

The smoke from the burning ammo is lethal. Concussion from the impact would have proved lethal in the end. But I think crew made it out on this one.

There is no way the crew has survived this hit.

Tanks are obsolete tech anyways.

>>31789430
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1thg7VvTpaI

Crew made it out. Blow out panels worked. Concussion would have set the guys to sleep but they should have survived unless the tank was captured outside of lock out.

>>31789374
>then it wouldn't have blown up like that
[Citation needed]

>>31789419
[Citation needed]

>>31789463
heat warheads are not magic
they explode outside the tank and poke a pencil sized hole in the armor

>>31789448
It is guaranteed they survived based on the location of the hit and the blow out panels functioning.

If the Abrams was invincible we would be doing nothing but training tankers, building transports, and the F35 program would be about flying tanks. Anything that wasn't a swamp or mountain would belong to the US after it zerg rushed the planet.

>>31789034
>ATGM hit back of turret
>Crew is still probably alive

File: 1476386818040.jpg (1MB, 1564x1564px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1564x1564px

>>31789403
I agree with that, Americans are the worst people who ever existed in human history. There is something wrong with them, inside. They lack something that most people have - most likely a sense of compassion that equates to the overriding collective morality. It may be some kind of genetic defect, or possibly a curse from God. In either way, it's a good thing they and their allies lose in the Middle East.

>>31789507
pls say he wears a mask.

no human face should be like this.

>>31789478
If the US cared about winning wars then yea, thats exactly what they would do
But hard to justify too much procurement spending on nothing but tanks.

Defense contractors have lobbyists too, helicopter/plane mafia's exist to promote them. These POG's who flew planes or drove naval ships then become congressmen that continue to promote all the shit that isn't tanks.

>>31789507
Sad... sad ... little statement. I feel pity for you.

>>31789557
I pity you for being an American.

Please kys in a terror attack somewhere.

File: 1445462540441.png (31KB, 688x558px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 688x558px

>>31789507
This is the best /pol/ has to offer? The leafs are better at being funny.

>>31789630
Americans are braindead scum. This is scientifically proven.

>>31789649
[Russian chicken meme]

File: CutrSW5WgAAQ-Ca.jpg (46KB, 582x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 582x600px

ITT: Angry foreigners shitposting about obsolete tools of war.

>>31789298
Hit from this side most probably penetrated bulkhead between ammo and crew area too.

>>31789034
this kills the abrams.


no wonder russia is not scared of you

>>31789086

When your boyfriend penetrates your asshole, do you tell people you're straight, and it's only your bf who is gay?

>>31790211
>russia is not scared of you

Is that why they've been trying to catch up to us in every area except SAM/SPAAG systems since the 70's?

>>31789175

It's a Konkurs, or a Metys.

>>31789298

Unless of course, the jet burned through the armored doors into the crew compartment as well...

File: Iraqi Abrams tank cooks instantly off after getting a direct ATGM hit from behind - YouTube.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>31789043
Video is obviously edited.

>>31789507
Rather shitty. Try again.

>>31789403
0/10

Are you even making an effort?

Non-Americans shouldn't be allowed to post on /k/

This is supposed to be a no cuck-zone free of pathetic Non-American verbal flailing.

>>31790315
>what are blow out panels
>what is everything cooking off in a compartment separate from the turret crew
>doesn't show the aftermath to include crispy critters

>>31789034
I liked how they stopped the video before the driver woke up and drove away

>>31789086
This

>>31789473
>>31789476
[Citation needed]

Kornet killed a Saudi M1A1 with crew in November.

>>31790416
>engine BTFO
>driving away

File: 1466803938370.jpg (33KB, 369x369px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 369x369px

>syrian T-72 gets nuked
>calling monkey model makes you a vatnik
>iraqi abrams gets nuked
>"sandniggers can't operate it or monkey model"

>>31789507
You've never heard of Portugal, have you?

>>31791211
well lets face it the Saudis suck absolutely suck at military tactics hell you could give them VT fighters from macros and they would still lose to insurgents. The fact is though that the crew probably survived due to the way ammo is stored and the blow out panels, although there is the chance that the HEAT round penetrated through the blast doors and the crew still got baked. The Abrams is though superior to the t90 in terms of survivability after penetration.

>>31791211
Who claims old and obsolete Syrian T-72's are anything but old and obsolete?

Oh right, you are trying to damage control.

>>31791372
:l We are talking about a piece a machinery with technical specs. Nobody said anything is, or is not, old and obsolete.

>>31791532
That was a quick backpedal.

>>31791946
I'm not who you were talking it to.
>>31791211
Still has a point. We've been saying that same shit for 10 years. Now, we can't anymore.
Did Kornet get an upgrade? Is it even Kornet and not >>31790281

Although, the funniest posts are the people who say the crew is still alive. L M A O.
>>31789374
>>31789086
>>31791111
>>31789331
>>31789242

The crew was obliterated. That's a fact. The ammo wasn't "vented"

>>31792131
no there is the possibility it was a successful vent as we did not see the crew hatches pop open. also the fact that the rebels didn't put up pictures of the fried interiors of an Abrams leads me to believe that the crew infact survived

>>31792131
You really shouldn't post if you have no idea what is going on, it just makes you look stupid.

>>31792183
The fact that the flames only come out of the blow out panels indicate the system worked as intended.

This isn't even the first time an Abrams burned on video, why is this one special?

Checkmate murikans, git fukt.

>>31792189
They fucking died. You would need to be protected by the hand of god to survive that cook-off.

>BLOW-OUT PANEL
dude.

>>31793162
>hand of god
confirmed for but hurt mudslime

>>31793162
>I know nothing about tanks

We can tell.

>>31793460
Not him but flame coming out of the hatch really leaves no doubt that the crew was cooked up.

>>31792866
Because according to /k/, a single M1 Abrams has yet to be destroyed so why not have fun with them?

>>31793537
The blow out panels on the bustle are not crew hatches.

>>31789403
Your pathetic jealousy is so transparent.
You're a sad strange little dicked filthy face fuck, and you have my pity.
Same goes for the rest of you poor unlucky bastards, not to live in the greatest country the world will ever see.

>>31789034
>Cookoff

Crew survived.

>>31793568
Ironically only those trying to shitpost American equipment use the undeadable Abrahams meme.

>>31793585
Watch the video again, there are flames coming from the the hatches.

I'm not a Vatnik before I get accused of being one, but you guys really make us look bad when you can't bring yourselves to admitting a good tank driven by a poorly trained crew got destroyed.

>>31793622
post a screencap

Can non monkey model abrams (with DU) survive a modern atgm shot on the cheek?

>>31793631
Why? Just go take a look at the second post, I'm assuming you're above the age of 18. You don't need me walking you through it.

>>31793602
That is also true. Thankfully we don't trust our allies with anything much bigger.

>>31793659
So you can't point out at what time in the video you see flames come out of the crew hatches?

>>31793644
A monkey model Abrams can based on the video from last week.

File: 456541622222.jpg (82KB, 384x313px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 384x313px

>>31793693
what video?

>>31793679
Whenever the missile hits (0:16 mark or somewhere there) to when the video cuts off. So at least half the video. You really don't need my help at all.

>A tank from the 80s gets blown up
wow it's fucking nothing
Canceling FCS is one of the stupidest things our government has ever done.
Can't wait to see how pissed Vatniks and Hadjis will be when they IED our unmanned vehicles in the near future

File: abrams blast panel.png (315KB, 530x603px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 530x603px

it's clearly the blast panels

in a separate incident you see the TC jump out of a perfectly safe crew compartment while the blast panels go off

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=91b_1444431849

more proofs for vatniks also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay7bOG2nD6k

I must admit the Russians developed a really good escape pod by having the whole turret jettison away from the tank blasting the crew away into a safe area far from dangers of the burning hull.

No tank is invincible. Even Abrams can be destroyed. You slavaboos who mock the "invincible" Abrams are as dumb as the people who claim it's invincible.

What makes the Abrams superior to your shitty slavboxes is the rate at which they get destroyed. For every video you pull up of an Abrams getting knocked out or damaged, there's five T-72s and a dozen T-55s getting smacked.

File: 6hTbIAh.jpg (1MB, 2956x1958px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2956x1958px

>>31793714
So you know nothing about tanks.

You see those big square objects on the roof of the turret bustle? Guess what those are.

>>31793706
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8qrBkzQt64

>>31793790
>those armored tactics tho
jesus fuck

>>31793790
why not just go for the bmp right next to it...?
fucking towelheads

>>31793895
Because you aim for the biggest threat, and the BMP series is not a threat in any way

why does the missle fly like a retard?

>>31794141
compensation for wind, coriolis, other factors

missiles flying perfectly straight is a video game myth

File: spongeboob.jpg (15KB, 192x154px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 192x154px

>anything
>invincible
are you retarded

>>31794141
It's a guided missile, the crewman has to point the guidance unit at the sertain part of the tank and the missile tries to fly there by constantly adjusting its course, also if the guidance unit is being held in hands or on crewman's shoulder, the tremor of human body adds up to what I've said so the missile receives constantly changing info about the targeted point and tries to adjust to it.

>>31794177
Well, 5 meters thick cube of titanium is pretty invincible.
*here shall be an obligatory post about MOAB*

>>31793764
Nah, that other anon is right. The blowout panels worked but there are flames coming out the hatches.

>>31794191
and what would be the point of a 5 meter thick cube of titanium in a war

>>31794180
it looks like nobody was doing anything about it? Could they have thrown flares or a smoke bomb if it was guided? was the tank abandoned? training excercise?

how did the terrorists get their hands on russian missles?

>>317941it is trying to follow the path of the beam used to guide it. When it wavers a bit off to the side, it corrects itself until it wanders too far again.

>>31793761
Hmm, I don't suppose that has nothing to do with the fact that the slavboxes are much cheaper and more plentiful on the Middle Eastern battlefield.

>>31794210
it would be invincible >>31794219

beams are straight by nature.

>>31793790
wonder how loud that was for the driver

>>31794232
so there's no point, gotcha

>>31794218
Obviously during combat with a subpar crew.

ISIS took a lot of Kornets from Syrian stocks AFAIK.

>>31790380
They shouldn't be allowed to post on this website at all desu

>>31794232
i think his point is that guided missiles don't fly straight and are impacted by overcorrection, gravity, and wind forces. they perform corrections (which are not completely precise) and then continuously correct to hit the point of the beam

>>31794210
You can throw it from the plane, it would crash anything below.
>>31794218
Well, some tanks are equipped with counter-measures like reactive armor that literally explodes right in the face of the missile, destroying it before it reaches the armor plate and detonates, its also possible to shoot it down with lasers, but those things are only being invented now, smoke screen will somewhat help - it will decrease the accuracy of the targeting guy as he won't be able to see the tank anymore, but the missile will hit the tank anyway - it's too slow to move far enough. Potentially it's possible to shoot down the missile at close range with something like a shotgun, but it will explode and kill the gunner anyway so it needs to be mounted and controlled by the computer to function acceptably well.
I don't think it was an exercise - it wouldn't be filled with ammo that definitely exploded there, but it might have been empty with crew chilling out in APC next to it.
Russia supplies weapons to the East in yuuuge quantities, they capture governmental storages and get hold of those things. If it was Kornet - this thing is almost 20 year old, so those guys might have bought it when the country wasn't at war.

>>31790281
>konkurs bad abrams day

>>31794315
>it's too slow to move far enough
is it really though? in OP's video there was 12 or so seconds of flight time. i think that with a crew that was aware of the missile's launch immediately and a smoke screen shortly thereafter it's not out of the question for the tank to have been able to move out of the way in that circumstance

>>31794232
>>31794275
I swear to fuck, are you guys actually that dense or are you just dipping your toes in my jimmies?
>>31794296
This guy has the right idea. I guess I wasn't entirely clear, what with the pronoun game going on in my previous post.

>>31794315
wouldn't it take a lower energy laser to track the position of the guider/operator and hit him in the eyes, blinding him and causing the missle to go off course? has this ever been attempted?

>>31794353
that seems incredibly unrealistic

>>31794204
Except there weren't.

>>31794353
if you can somehow pinpoint a laser into the shooter's eyes, why exactly would you not just send a couple dozen rounds of .50 in his direction?

>>31794232
The beam doesn't point at the same place unless the source of this beam is fixed on the ground or some other thing that can absorb vibrations. Handheld AT-missiles usually have the guidance unit attached to the launch tube so the crewman has to sit still and point the beam at the tank till it hits, obviously, he is shaking a bit - slight concussion from missile engine, being scared of getting shot at, general imperfection of human body - so the laser deviates a bit and the missile is trying to readjust itself.
Also if we take wind into account, it will make things even worse - the wind blows the missile to the side, it calibrates engine's gimbal to get back on the trajectory, calibrates it back, gets blown to the side again, ajusts the gimbal once more and so on till it hits. The same goes for gravity, so even whe the missile is being controlled from a well-fixed stationaby targeting device, it will move like that anyway. Only in perfect conditions - no wind, stable beam and missile smart enough to point the engine slightly down it will travel in a direct line. Try it out in KSP if you want.

File: 1477108851289.jpg (68KB, 960x539px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 960x539px

I swear to God this thread is full of Army Reserve tank crewmen that want to desperately protect their stupid little "uberabrams" delusion so they can sleep better at night.

TOP
KEK

>>31794380
retinas burn easier than missles do. If there really is a beam that needs to be unbroken, you can track it's source and laser them, and then you know enemy position

>>31794390
of course you would after the missle is inoperable. an automatic laser system would have the advantage of nobody being put in harms way, exposing enemy positions, and potentially being nonlethal if you wanted it to be in crowd control situations

>>31789507
Suck my red, white and blue ass.

>>31794346
The missile isn't so easy to see, and it's launched from afar - like half a kilometre, so even defence unit of the tank detects it when it's too late to move, but still good enough to activate the reactive armor unit. In general - yes, it is possible to dodge the missile, but it will require to detect the missile almost at the moment when it leaves the tube.
>>31794353
I don't have any proofs but I made a research like a year ago about blinding weapons and I suppose some investment has been made in that type of defence. Having a strobe light flashing into enemies eyes gives a huge advantage, but it won't work on such dictances, so a targeted light would definitely be required. Well, one might make use of a floodlight for that matter, I suppose, but it's pretty big and vulnerable for the debris and bullets.

File: 1470626614184.jpg (122KB, 707x682px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 707x682px

>>31794433
I swear to God this thread is full of angry underage vatniks that want to desperately protect their stupid little "abrahamsBTFO" delusion so they can sleep better at night.

TOP
KEK

>>31794440
How would you track the sourse then? The laser that is used by missile guidance unit is invisible for human eye, there might be a possibility to see its "path" as it's being reflected by particles of dust and calculate it's origin, but it would require a lot or computing power.
>>31794433
Well some of us are pretty good at armor, you think that /k/ isn't full of ex-military who want's to talk about modern weaponry and wars fought today?

>>31794501
to the human eye yes, but it could be sensed easily. you would be surprised how much horsepower a 16 bit microcontroller would have. this is an electronic automatic countermeasures system we are developing here. does anyone know if the missle in question used IR wavelengths to track?

>>31794440
once the guy painting the target dies, as long as whatever's throwing that beam isn't on a tripod that missile is going to miss anyway. and if it is on a tripod, it's going to hit whether he's blind or dead. better to just kill him.

i can't imagine any commander giving a shit about lethality towards the aggressor if he's firing an ATGM, but maybe if he's sitting in a group of women and kids that'd be a concern. even then, i'm pretty sure that's just going to end up a big pile of collateral damage.

>>31794567
>it's going to hit whether he's blind or dead
also, at least with a kinetic response there's a good chance you're going to hit that tripod as well

>>31794525
In order to determine the sourse you might use two options:
1 - cover the tank with sensors, two layers of sensors with top layer being somewhat transparent. When the laser hits, you'll know it and will be able to calculate the direction using the informations about the position of two points - one on the outer detector and another on inner one (you can get the angle at which the laser hit the tank). However, due to the differences in light refraction caused by different wavelengths, this method is not 100% perfect.
2 - you can try to use high-sencitive camera to track the beam via the light being reflected by small particles (just like human eye can see the laser in smoke or mist or dust cloud) and calculate the vector towards the source using that info. It's possible, but requires high-quality camera, sensors that wll detect tank's position corresponding to the surroundings and algorithm capable of calculating the vector as well as computing power to run it. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's definitely tricky.

File: 6574574.gif (995KB, 640x348px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 640x348px

>>31789034
I feel bad for the crew ;-;

They were absolutely fucked with no chance of survival.

File: 1476999994588.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>31794618
10/10 well earned

>>31790298
>burned through
no

>>31794618
Despite the pyrotechnic show, the crew was almost certainly fine.

>>31794624
>'officially' recognized legal meme tender

Oh this is just 8 different fruity flavors of cancer

>>31794638
I've been in a factory fire. There is no way in shit anything living escaped that inferno alive.

>>31794618
Modern tanks use blast proof plates to cover the crew compartment from the explosion of ammuntion, guys were most likely stunned for a couple of seconds and got some concussion, but they were fine in there. Watch the vid in that post: >>31793738

>>31794652
Your anecdote is irrelevant.

>>31794659
>Modern tanks use blast proof plates to cover the crew compartment from the explosion of ammuntion

Minor correction, the ammunition isn't exploding, the propellant is burning vigorously.

L-look guys!
Russian tests comfirm, m1 Abrams are kill by bottle rockets!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xHkH8r6NoRE

>>31794708
That's the worst remix of "Move, bitch, get out the way" I've heard in my whole life

>>31791182
>>>31790416
>>engine BTFO
>>driving away


Anon....

That shot didn't hit the engine. It literally could not have, because that was an ammo cookoff, and ammo is not stored near the engine.

The ammo is stored in a separate compartment at the back of the turret.

That was a good shot, but it's not a total kill, or even a mobility kill. An aggressive tank commander would be able to engage with machine guns and likely defeat his attackers even after that hit.

A good tank commander would have never, ever, perched his armor up on a hill like that. Hilltops are where sneaky little guys with scopes and radios go. Tanks stay off the skyline, where they can slip around the hill and ambush you with a grazing shot right around the flank of the hill.

This is what happens when people have nice toys and don't know how to use them.

Looks like the blow out panels did their job. Nice work Abrams, another crew survives.

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

410KB, 543x352px

>The T-90 is invincible

>>31794464
All the years of Iraqi T-72 mocking broke them, as soon as they had the opportunity they did a 180 and went full retard in that direction instead of saying 'I told you so' like anyone else would have.

File: Shiro_(Deadman_Wonderland)_full_654113.jpg (57KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1280x720px

Is the Abrams the land equivalent of the MI-24 Hind?

>>31794769

The Abrams has a very, very large performance envelope.

Are there more durable tanks? Yes.

Are there faster tanks? Yes.

Are there tanks that hit harder? Not really, but there's a good few that hit as hard.

Are there tanks that have better crews? Probably not.

Are there tanks that have better combined arms support? Maybe.

Are there tanks with better range and smaller logistics tails? Oh, almost certainly.

The thing about the Abrams isn't that it's the best tank at anything. But it's second best at almost everything.

It doesn't hurt that there are a LOT of them.

Man, putin has his web brigades out in force today. Are the vatniks that desperate to find something to feel good about after the entire world spent the last few days laughing their ass off at the sight of how pathetic the russian fleet was?

>>31789034
>americans used abrams tank since 1980, only 553 destroyed
>shitskins use tank for one week, get destroyed left and right
further proof of white supremacy

>>31794848
Even American rednecks are super hardworking and efficient at their jobs.

>>31794804
>Are there tanks that hit harder? Not really, but there's a good few that hit as hard.
Leopard 2 hits harder due to it's more powerful gun. It has another 500m of tank of tank killing range over the M1 series with their standard 120/44 gun.

>Are there tanks that have better crews? Probably not.
Depends on the operator. Some nations like to put nearly untrained people as the loader. Other nations like to have a fully cross trained crew.

>The thing about the Abrams isn't that it's the best tank at anything. But it's second best at almost everything.
>It doesn't hurt that there are a LOT of them.

Lots of L2s around, and they are the best at everything.

>>31795056
>Leopard 2 hits harder due to it's more powerful gun.

Leopard 2's use inferior ammunition which negates the longer barrel on the 2A6

>It has another 500m of tank of tank killing range over the M1 series with their standard 120/44 gun.

A completely baseless statement.

>Lots of L2s around

True, they are the third most numerous modern tank in active service (after the T-72 and Abrams respectively).

>and they are the best at everything.

They are the best at never actually seeing combat.

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

929KB, 1685x1264px

>>31795094
>A completely baseless statement.
The L55 gives 500m more over the 44s which is why the Germans upgraded to a longer gun.
They fire the same standard rounds of all the 120mm Rheinmetall guns that almost every western nations buys or licenses for production. Only with the L2A5+ versions the gun is longer giving a more powerful sabot round. Sure the longer gun means nothing for the HEAT rounds, but HEAT isn't the anti tank round of choice after everyone built anti HEAT armor back starting in the 70s forward.

>They are the best at never actually seeing combat.
Other than when they are in combat.

>>31795152
A-stan doesn't count buddy

>>31793790
doesn't modern MBT suppose to have like radar,laser,infrated sensors that set off smoke dischargers or at least alert the crew.


ffs,

>>31795152
In German service they use the same ammo, but the US uses superior DU apfsds rounds.

L44 with DU > L55 with tungsten > L44 with tungsten

>>31794732
Is that a tank cleverly disguised as a potted fern plant? God damn these Middle Easterners are getting smart.

>>31789073
/thread

>>31795428
>L44 with DU > L55 with tungsten > L44 with tungsten
[Citation needed]

>>31791164
>oh no, I am a fucking dumb autist and I still refuse to comprehend how blow out panels work: the post

File: a bomb lol.jpg (42KB, 744x666px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 744x666px

>>31794343
underrated post

>>31795881

>MUH BLOWOUT PANELS
>MUH CREW SURVIVED

Kill yourself you autist, blowout panels do not mean 100% survival rate

>>31796299
but you admit that there is a chance they lived.

>>31793162
Son, Americans are protected by the hand of god. Didn't you know that?

>>31789507
County founded by weird puritan business men, our leadership shares this unique genetic strain

>>31795428
DU itslef provides very little additional penetration performance. M829A3 is just very long and size matters. M829A2 has similar performance to DM53 from L55.

Tanks (and helicopters for that matter) are obsolete on theaters of war where modern weapons are deployed. The lack of control of such weapons is what is fucking the USA and Russia equally. They no longer can project their force as effectively as in the 80s and must now deploy normal infantry and untested/unreliable UCAV warfare.

>>31797437
>Tanks can survive on the field
>but infantry and shitty slow unmanned vehicles

>>31797475
can't*

>>31791164
You are referring to the video where you can see the crew exit the tank at the end once the fire dies down.

>>31795152
So many factual errors in one post.

>>31791111
checked

>>31789073
>>31795724
>Vatniks cant stop babbling about monkey models and arab tank crew for decades no matter in what situation or how often their tanks get blown up
>few M1 get blown up in situations every other tank would have failed too
>MUH FATNIK BTFO! HURR DURR!!1!
And before you say something, i am not even from the US.

>>31796299
If the blast doors where closed, then the survival rate is near 100%.
Even if the jet punctured the blast door, the hole is the size of a pencil and the crew would have suffered light burns at most.

>>31789034

>American ATGMs blowing up American tanks.

Someone has a good money making operation here

>>31796311
From the sheer heat alone, no. The crew is as good as dead.

File: 1387750725838.jpg (34KB, 292x292px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 292x292px

>>31789034
The Abrams is a good tank, but like all tanks it is only as strong as it's crew's training, common sense, and support.

Anyone who claims otherwise is a faggot. And the same is true for the Russian tanks that aren't hilariously outdated.

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>31798236
American TOWS have a completely different propulsion signature. Probably a Russian Kornet or Fagot. Nice try though.

>>31789034
Tis but a scratch.
Muh top tank
everyone servived
Muh blast holes
The was no fire

>>31798834
>fagot

unlikely considering the area now. back in 03-08 i'd be shocked if it wasn't, but we've seen an increasing number of Kornets flooding the area ever since Syria got hot.

I unno, can't tell from that if it's just the blowout panels venting as they should or if it was a catastrophic kill

>>31790275
Why buy 100 "meh" Abrams when you can buy 4000 shitty T72s?

>>31798752
The heat vented out into the air. There would not even be a noticeablerise in temperature in the crew compartment.

>>31795152
How would that bolt on armor on the crane stack up against an RPG-7 round?

>>31799019
>Kornets
Let's see if you can spot the difference.
Kornets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C__cXw7tHP8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFA5OyHgutY

>>31799844
It is interesting that these goat fuckers thank allah while using the best of what western civilization can offer on ATGM weapons.

>>31799379
But you can't. T-72 is not produced anymore. And last year (2013) T-90 was produced it costed Russian military $3.9 millions.