Really? THIS is supposed to be our new MBT? Fucking overpric

File: chrysler-TV-8.jpg (8KB, 600x295px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 600x295px

>>31915974

>Buying anything from Chrysler.

Somebody is still stuck in the past...
>The best tank ever made, he says, was the German Panther of World War II

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

396KB, 1279x1600px

>>31915974
>In last month's issue of the magazine, a former Marine Corps warrant officer added his criticisms to the debate.

>"The turret of the XM-1 is fraught with shot traps," declared Thomas Swearengen. "A single high explosive projectile trapped between the turret and the hull can readily remove the turret."

>Reached at his home in Burton, S.C., Mr. Swearengen elaborated on his criticism of the XM-1. He claims that its glacis plate (the frontal part of the tank) "cannot absorb direct hits by high velocity projectiles nor can it withstand hits from HEAT [high explosive antitank shells.] It needs an angle of about 55 degrees to be able to deflect these rounds."

>Calling the tank "a virtual death trap," Swearengen, who served in the Marine Corps as an explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) officer and who describes himself as "a student of explosive ordinance," urges an immediate redesign of the XM-1 to eliminate shot traps and provide maximum ballistic protection with sloped armor. He adds that no amount of British- designed Chobham armor, with which the tank is liberally equipped, "can help the XM-1 in its present configuration."

Based marines knows the truth. That damn thing cant handle a T-62 ;^)

Let alone an early T-80 which is in hindsight totally not a T-64 with a different suspension and engine.

We need to listen to the marines if we ever are gona win against the russians.

>>31916028

> It's a lemon
> Can't run, can't turn, can't accelerate
> Russian tanks are better than M1's because they have a 125mm gun
> If we ever run into T-72's, all the M1's will be destroyed
> we are better off maintain our proven M60 fleet, which are cheaper than the M1 and can do everything better.

It's true that the turret design was indeed inferior to the Leopard 2 for example.

The main problem of the XM-1 and Abrams was that the new Chobham armour layout only gave a weight advantage against HE.

>>31916048
Exactly.

Like a wise man once said "Quantity has its own quality". We gotta out produce the russians with M60's, M-48's and M-47's.

M-1 is nothing more then a nice looking tank to have on parades. Ain't a real mans tank.

Might as well link once again to the classic...

https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

File: x35.jpg (17KB, 300x239px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x239px

This sounds familiar somehow...

>>31916210
>>31915974
Also, the Bradley IFV went through this same thing, with people saying it was a deathtrap.

File: cocksucka.jpg (52KB, 566x566px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 566x566px

>>31916028
>declared Thomas Swearengen
Swengin, probably cocksucka

>>31916210
Quite amazing how this cycle happens all the time. I wonder if its the modern media that just make it happen by giving attention to people who don't know shit and are stuck in the past, or if it was always the case and media just made it worse.

File: MzRCYGC.jpg (96KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x640px

>>31916333
It's literally the point of the post.
Any time something new comes out, some dipshits complain about it for years until they complain about the new thing being so much worse than the old thing.
Pic related.

>>31916210
You can keep going back, F16 or back further to the P-51, shits been happening forever.
I'm Australian and when we bought the M1a1's off you guys people were sooking and saying we should keep our Leopard 1's, can you imagine a Leopard 1 in modern warfare, every Hadji and his dog would be capable of putting holes through it.

>>31916228
>>31916333
>>31916354
NO GUYS IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT THIS TIME HAVE YOU SEEN THE F35 BUDGET IT IS CLEARLY THE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER FLOWN

>>31916028

The Abrams has plenty of shot traps too.

>>31915974
Literally an Arjun copy.

>105mm gun

What was America thinking?

>>31915974

>Not adding ERA.

So we are expending millions of millions into this shit to counter soviet tanks and we don't even invest into actually protecting the thing as good as the soviets do.

Fucking military industrial complex.

And Its 1980 people we NEED autoloaders, even the frenchies have them(AMX-13).

God this country is going into shit.

>>31916017
lower average and peak ground pressure than the Churchill 1
better power to weight ratio

but yea everything else about the tank kind of sucks

>>31916448
>Not adding ERA.
Its 1980. Not 1982

>>31915974
>>31916028
http://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?article=1476
it is of advanced design

File: post-3240-0-65722400-1409587497.jpg (50KB, 645x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 645x300px

>still a prototype
>while the Leopard 2 was already protecting Europe

File: 1446734140766.png (54KB, 209x203px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 209x203px

>Colonel Icks first made his "shot trap" allegation last December in the pages of National Defense, the journal of the American Defense Preparedness Association. Others have since endorsed his view. Writing to the magazine last June from Quebec, Gunter Scherrer, author of a forthcoming book on the World World II tank battle of Kursk, declared that he and a former German tank commander, who had destroyed 13 Russian tanks in one day in World War II, came to the conclusion that the XM-1 "would be a most desirable target for a good antitank gunner" after studying photographs and pictures of it.

>>31916459

ERA was first applied in 1978 but by Israelis though.

http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/EQP/era.html

Like how the guy called the Challenger 1 the best tank in service.

A tank developed from an export version of the Chieftain and so bad and flawed that it got replaced 10 years later by the Challenger 2.

Okay there's making a point and then there's shitposting in the opposite direction

>>31916348
The m-16 did have serious flaws in its debut, are you saying its unjustified to complain about it? America had above average equipment in ww2, yet as a first world nation in 'nam you could argue it was not even the best assault rifle for jungle fighting.

>>31916361
Likewise it is totally different this time. It is the most expensive military project yet with little signs of being superior by a large margin to previous US jets to justify this clusterfuck. Eventually it will kick ass, but the overpriced and delayed production reduces the program's success.

>>31916501
It was first battle tested in 1982 and also captured along with some advance 105mm rounds. This sparked the russians into seriously funding their own ERA which your source mentions.

But who cares about some jews with their weird explosive boxes!? I think we should listen to the marines and germans to remove the shot traps.

>>31916547
American and German tanks have enough passive armor and especially their armor is still effective after a hit.

>>31916630
Yeah, but you can always slap on more ERA plates.

>>31916647
Yeah, something the infantry can easily do on battlefield.

Oh wait, they are already killed by the exploded ERA.

>>31916665
Well maybe they shouldn't be standing right next to a tank then.

in armored warfare the xm1 is at one hand a fucking shot trap that just about anything can kill if the player knows what it's doing or an unstoppable killing machine bouncing shots left and right i have bounced 70+ shots in a game and survived in hulldown in a ditch right between the two teams spotting everything for the team and dishing out damage.

it's astounding how unreliable the performance is.

>>31916674
What other purpose do they serve?

File: 1475465760631.jpg (45KB, 347x434px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 347x434px

>>31916498
>But Felder stoutly defends the XM-1, claiming it is superior to West Germany's Leopard II and to Britain's new Challenger. In Colonel Icks's view, the British Chieftain is the best tank in the world today, "although it's a little bit overheavy."

>The best tank ever made, he says, was the German Panther of World War II "because the glacis was at such an angle that a shot deflected from it would also be deflected from the front face of the turret. It was almost a continuation of the same line. That feature has been lost sight of these days."

>>31916688
Being hard-to-kill, very deadly, mobile murdermachines. They are not foxholes, trenches, dead ground or cover.

>November 21, 1980

ITT its 1980?

put troops in ifv
follow tank in ifv
ifv is fine with era going off doesn't give a fuck
when tank did the tank things
troops dismount from ifv

>>31916700
Tell that to the infantry >>31916028

>>31916710
Russian infantry, you mean?

File: Tank Ammunition damage.jpg (96KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x600px

>>31916710
Tank riding into battle is a obsolete tactic when IFV and APC's exist.

A RPG hitting close will fucking kill the infantry riding it if they are close to it. With or without ERA.

Shit gets worse if a tank HEAT round hits the tank.

File: 1418295731977.png (360KB, 676x750px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 676x750px

>>31916665
>>Yeah, but you can always slap on more ERA plates.
>Yeah, something the infantry can easily do on battlefield.
Infantry are not made of explosives and you do not mount them on tanks to stop HEAT warheads.

It is a funny meme but it just dont work.

>>31916732
>and you do not mount them on tanks to stop HEAT warheads.
Yes, you do. You mount them so they shoot any dumb fucker who lifts his head up in an attempt at shooting your tank. HEAT warheads ain't going to fire themselves.

File: mmu_get_jpeg.php.jpg (70KB, 504x632px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 504x632px

>>31916717
Yeah that's what I meant

File: russia-tank-park-prokhorovka.jpg (92KB, 690x388px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 690x388px

>>31916724
>Tank riding into battle is a obsolete tactic when IFV and APC's exist.
Russians still do it though. Earlier Btrs might as well be death-traps. Who the fuck thought side doors would be a good idea?

>>31916739
Riding during a march is not the same thing as being a tank desant, anon. Educate yourself.

File: M48tank-USMarines-Vietnam.jpg (143KB, 600x407px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 600x407px

>>31916745

>>31916724
Georgia?

>>31916765
>not even being fired upon

>>31916354
Except the m1s have never left Australia, oh and they lack depleted uranium armour which the us has.

>>31916736
>HEAT warheads ain't going to fire themselves.
well we could easily make that happen today the technology is there

>>31916406
M779 and M833 having amazing performance mostly.

Also ammo commonality and the correct thinking that taking lessons learned from the 779 would result in a vastly superior 120mm round than what theFRG was fielding.

File: Captain_obvious1.jpg (35KB, 436x327px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 436x327px

>>31916780
>Except the m1s have never left Australia
>Pic related
> oh and they lack depleted uranium armour which the us has
Unlike the Leopard, which lacks armour all together

File: 1432395998452.png (678KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 1280x720px

>>31916736
So you are gona have infantry ride on the tank so they can protect it against a AT-3 sagger team 2 kilometers away?

Interesting, whats stopping the enemy from killing your easily exposed infantry or quickly peaking out with a RPG while spraying machine gun fire at your infantry on the tank?

>>31916745
Well the russians are an interesting case. Conscript army being engaged in 3 unconventional wars in a row and then a conventional war with the army still being in a bad case. All with having ortodox tactics and outdated and some case unmodernised equipment.

>>31916765
Those boys sure are actively scanning their area for enemy soldiers with RPG's.

>>31916808
>So you are gona have infantry ride on the tank so they can protect it against a AT-3 sagger team 2 kilometers away?
Are you going to fire an ATGM through a forest with visibility of ~200 metres at most?

>>31916808
just use wire to fix the soldiers on the tank, this way even if they are dead, they are still protecting the tank :^)

File: 1455060590477.jpg (27KB, 300x401px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x401px

>>31916829
No since that is well in range for a RPG-7 or SPG-9. The tank will also be relatively slow since its in a forrest.

And the chance for a first round hit is about 60% at 200 meters unless you are hull down, 80% for the second round.

And guess what? AT-3 sagger teams are equiped with RPG-7's but they prefer to be in open ground so they can engage the target far away.

>>31916876
>The tank will also be relatively slow since its in a forrest.
Faster than a man running still.

>>31916508

CR1 was never "replaced" due to any effectiveness reason, it performed excellently once it got to the battlefield. ANy early issues had long been fixed by the Mk3, and there were plans for further upgrades, including an L30 gun. The original plan was 400 CR1's and 400 CR2's would be the ongoing tank force to replace the 900 Chieftains.

Then budget cuts happened and left wingers threw down the WE DON'T NEED TANKS meme.

>>31917043
>blaming the left wing for defence spending cuts

File: 14558007124870.jpg (827KB, 1890x1326px) Image search: [Google]

827KB, 1890x1326px

nice prototype fatniks

>>31917105
>out of touch with board culture
>missing the point by several AUs
>T-14
>fatnik

Oh, it's YOU again. Go take a break, this is a joke thread and the attention of putins web brigade is not needed.

>>31917105
WHAT HAVE YOU FUCKING DONE?!
NOW THE FUCKING AMERIFATS AND VATNIKS ARE GOING FUCK THIS THREAD EVEN MORE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUCK YOUOOOOOO YOU DUMB DOUBLE NIGGER

File: New American Tank (1967).webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>31915974
>Really? THIS is supposed to be our new MBT? Fucking overpriced bullshit. Who approved this?
>Not buying glorious MBT-70
They should not stopped that program.

File: MBT-70 MBT.webm (2MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x360px

>>31917328

File: t3_5axww5.jpg (263KB, 685x999px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 685x999px

>>31917178

>board culture

I member when "board culture" didn't involve getting absolutely asshurt about russia, so perhaps you need to get the fuck on, newshit

>>31917353
Your anal anguish is showing

>>31917043
Yeah, see the Canadian Army Trophy Competition.

Shit performed badly.

>>31917353
that girl is so hot I'd invade Russian in winter if I could nail her ass (first)

Why don't we just rip-off the Armata tank design, and improve it?

We know there are things we like about it, and other nations steal our shit all the time.

File: 6049511.jpg (142KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 600x900px

>>31917429

> not having a russian gf

I sincerely hope there's nobody that stupid

>>31915974
>>31916028

Hey...

You know, bullets are made of lead, right? And lead is really dense. But you know what's even denser than that, uranium? What if we made armor out of uranium so bullets can't go through it!

>>31917429
>nail her ass
That's what they do, dem Russian mail brides. Use anal as contraception, contract HIV as 17yr old.

Look, im not saying the f35 is bad
im just saying i have to ride around in an amtrac for another decade becaue its replacement got ganked to fund the bravo

What the fuck are we doing developing the XM1? The M60 is a piece of shit; Give me back my M48's. Those puppies will really show those reds who's wearing the pants around here.

File: tank armor.png (30KB, 636x453px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 636x453px

>>31917178
It's amusing how you think I am the only person using this word.
t.anon who he apparently thinks he talks about at least some of the times
Also, daily reminder that initial M1 is a meh-tier tank with a pathetic 105mm "gun" that only later became a worthy vehicle, so I can see why they were complaining.

>>31917353
Years of vatniks roaming around here while other russboos sit beside this grinning with silent approval can do that. You reep what you saw.

Russian women age like toast.

Don't go that route.

>>31917956
You're trying too hard

>>31918204

I think just the ones in Russia do, just like the men.

>>31916860
Literal cage armor

>>31915974
did I just travel back to the 80's? you did see the date on the article, right?

File: Armored-Multi-Purpose-Vehicle.jpg (33KB, 550x365px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 550x365px

>>31916228
>Also, the Bradley IFV went through this same thing, with people saying it was a deathtrap.

It was death trap in it's original configuration like Abrams. Abrams got heavy revision in it's armor configuration in couple years, M1IP, the interim production version between original version and M1A1. It revised Abrams armor protection seriously. Original model was one that was pushed into production with army knowing that it was shit. To get it into production before politicians cancel it.

Now that it has been told...

Watch Pentagon Wars. Knowing that...
>Fictional General Partridge and his sidekicks are trying to get M113 replacement in production before mid 90's or early 2000's.
>That is what will happen if Bradley gets canned.
>They are fully aware that US Army can't afford purpose built scout. Something gotta be left behind.
>They are armor and mech inf officers being stalled by USAF colonel with no background in armored warfare
>Who wants APC that weights at least 70 tons to match protection of MBT.
>'muh strategic mobility,
>airlifted.

That movie gets a lot of political stupidity and staff officer insanity perfectly. People are just looking it from wrong perspective.

Picture very related... oh irony... Hollywood got something right retroactively.

>>31919632
The AMPV is only a thing because the GCV got shitcanned. It's a way to meet a need (replace the god damn 113) with something readily available and in the system (Bradley parts).

Is it perfect? No. But at least its something.

>>31919632
One thing that the movie seems to forget is about halfway during the design phase the Soviets came out with the BMP, which caused a redesign of the entire project to counter it.

>>31915974

From the Defense Department that brought you such classics as the F-22, F-35 and Zumwalt-Class Destroyer!