Where were you when Russia won tank warfare? http://www.tel

File: id710-03.jpg (287KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1280x960px

>>31937814
they said the same thing about T-64

>>31937952
Thats true. Only problem is that the soviets got stuck in its design hence the T-72 and T-80 bastard childs instead of going away from the T-64 design.

>Russians are 10 feet tall, please give us more funds

File: 14295564481040.jpg (491KB, 1417x1068px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1417x1068px

>>31937963
T-64 design was too radical

T-72 is a more practical solution

and T-80 is a T-64 with a better chassis

>>31937814
>put sloped armour
>put a bunch of small pockets into it
Kinda defeats the point

File: Т-64БВ_1.jpg (4MB, 2618x1750px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2618x1750px

>>31937952
>T-64

because the T-64 is one of the best tanks ever.

>>31937952
it was for its time

>>31937990
>T-80 is a T-64 with a better chassis

and worse engine.

File: ss (2015-01-05 at 08.18.13).png (82KB, 641x1389px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 641x1389px

>>31937952
And they were right. You just think that Leo2, M1 and Challenger II exist forever. In it's time T-64 was revolution. M60 were pretty useless against it.

Well, it is the largest change in Russian tank design in the last half century.

File: nXV0147Rf7I.jpg (300KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1280x851px

>>31938008
sure, with the T-80 and T-80B, not the T-80U
GTD-1250 is light year ahead of western development of tank turbine engine

File: tumblr_nmw3izRrcX1tj31v2o1_1280.jpg (140KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 960x720px

>>31938002
>>31938007
>>31938013
it was revolutionary, but the tank have reliability problem
and its performance in Ukraine was meh

File: 1444065629039.png (54KB, 225x350px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 225x350px

>>31937990
>T-64 design was too radical
For some time but those got fixed with time. All of its problems were gone by 1970.

The T-72 was a solution for a problem that was gone. Instead of just replacing the engine that was asked of Nizhni-Tagil they replaced the suspension and the autoloader from their failed obiekt 167. The only reason it got to exist was because a certain general was on vacation and it had support from some of the military and politicians.

The T-80 is nothing more then a mad cow from leningrad who only got to exist because of the death of one man and the replacer being a mad cow who loves turbines.


The production of three different tanks with different suspension and engine but similar armor and firepower is nothing more then a crime against the state.

>>31938036
>and its performance in Ukraine was meh
Wow a tank made in the 60's is not that good in a modern war.

>>31938036
>performance in Ukraine
Man, those are trash. They sold every working tank long before conflict. And, you know, PRGs are more advanced that they used to be in 70th.

File: 64 ukraine 2014.jpg (797KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 1280x960px

>>31938054
>>31938057
most of the tank Ukraine army was using are newer T-64BV and T-64 Bulat

the situation only gone from bad to shit when Ukraine army have to bring out their T-64A and T-64B in late 2014 and early 2015

>>31937814
i was sat at home drinking cosmoline when ivan ring

'russia won tank warfare'

'no'

and you???????????

>>31938072
All the T-64BV is only putting ERA on it and the T-64U BM is still a 64 hull.

File: USSR_T-64 T-80 armor.jpg (548KB, 2000x1073px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 2000x1073px

>>31938233
>All the T-64BV is only putting ERA
So you are ignoring the evidence of the T-64BV having a different hull armor structure?

The conflict in ukraine proved that the T-64BV does infact have different hull armor then earlier models and it is not just about putting ERA on it.

>>31938251

That's not a lot of LOS thickness on those hulls. If ballparking Texolite as 1/2 steel effectiveness, that only gives T-64BV 400mm LOS against KE without the ERA, which is pretty pathetic.

The Germans are already developing a new next gen tank.

And unlike Russia, Germany has a high-tech industry and access to technolgy from all the important hot spots.

>>31938395
Russia has its own "silicon Valley" so does china, they just dont spend as much on defense cause theyre not autistic, they can spend 100 mill on designing something that does the exact same thing the us would spend billions on, jist cause you spend more doesnt always make you better, sometimes it does. If you can afford an ar and i can only afford a hi point the chances are youll do better in a fight, but if i can get an ar for the price of hi point then the game changes

File: 243.png (35KB, 587x496px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 587x496px

>>31937814

>Without hyperbole, Armata represents the most revolutionary step change in tank design in the last half century.

What is basically said in the article:

- Armata is new and uses new technology. Nothing about its effectiveness is said except that a larger gun COULD be installed (basic model does not have a 150 mm gun) and active protection systems COULD intercept missiles (if they work).

- UK has no "future tank" research program of its own to compete because they have used money and research to fight insurgencies.

- The threat also comes from production numbers, seeing how Russia is planning to field more tanks than UK.

It really does not say Armata is exceptional, it says it can be upgraded to exceptional if you ONLY look at numbers and think that APS and 150 mm guns will revolutionize the world - and that production numbers matter a lot IF THEY HAVE MONEY FOR MANUFACTURING.

EU and USA can do better, it's more about money than technological superiority. As usual.

>>31938457
here's your ruble, comrade shitposter

>>31937814
Sitting at home laughing at their failures. They try so hard to be on par with USA but they aren't even on par with China. They are a joke to anyone that isn't a drunk bydlo vatnik.

>>31938286
>That's not a lot of LOS thickness on those hulls. If ballparking Texolite as 1/2 steel effectiveness, that only gives T-64BV 400mm LOS against KE without the ERA, which is pretty pathetic.
What are you calculating from? The Textolite has a effectivness of 0.41 vs KE compared to RHA.

So from that then the T-64BV LOS should give around 436mm of RHAe against KE and thats when not counting in the hardness but assuming its plain old RHA.

And the T-64BV came out around 1982-1985.

The T-64A is from 1969 and its hulls armor LOS RHAe is 381mm against KE which is pretty impressive for its time when most of the world were using APDS round which preforms very badly on sloped armor.

And 381 vs 436 is a difference even in my simplistic calculations which does not take in hardness nor textolite performance difference when either sandwhiched between steel or bundled up in two thick textolite plates which early T-64, T-72 and T-80 used.

File: berlin 1978.jpg (244KB, 944x944px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 944x944px

>>31938395
i really hope that the new MBT won't be another MBT-70
at least French know how to make super exspensive but practical tank

>>31938534
Blame the USA for that MBT-70 disaster.

>>31938493
Im chinese

>>31937952

The T-64 had no competition until the M1A1 Abrams.

>>31937969
>Russians are the tallest of men world wide.
>The facts do not lie but the west does.
Give us more funds, we will deliver superior fire arms.

>>31938395
>The Germans are already developing a new next gen tank.

I will believe it when I see it.

Unfortunately German politicians today are more interested in importing millions of rapefugees and putting them on welfare than actually modernizing the German military.

>And unlike Russia, Germany has a high-tech industry

LOL, you mean what they didn't outsource to China yet.

I'm not defending Russia here but get real dude. Modern Germany is a paper tiger that can't even defend itself without massive American military aid. At this point U.K., France, South Korea, and Israel are all bigger military powers than Germany.

>>31938733
>The T-64 had no competition until the M1A1 Abrams.

Not true. The Chieftain was perfectly capable of fighting the T-64.

>>31938818
>Unfortunately German politicians today are more interested in importing millions of rapefugees and putting them on welfare than actually modernizing the German military.

sure but who say the tank is for the german army. They sell it to saudi arabia and other gulf states.

>Modern Germany is a paper tiger

like before they will sign every paper if Rheinmetall wants it (they just need to keep the leftists and the greens out of the deal)

File: 1473091803597.jpg (270KB, 812x883px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 812x883px

>>31938715
Here's your yuan, douche

File: TTB%2BColor[1].jpg (108KB, 900x722px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 900x722px

didn't read the article but the only thing I can think of that journalists would sperg over as "new" as far as tanks go is the unmanned turret currently featured on the Armata.

their face when the US did it better

File: 14542450972810.jpg (118KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1024x768px

>>31939279
>only one prototype
>the US did it better
i bet it cost one trillion dollar too

>>31939298
>us decided the concept was not worth it

>Russia decides to implement it

Russia confirmed for using decades old failed American concepts.

File: 1432709819094.png (10KB, 404x511px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 404x511px

>>31939298
>only one prototype because USSR cant into staying afloat and because US tank design philosophy of Crew protection and survivability doesn't mesh with autoloaders and unmanned turrets
enjoy your slower reloads and lack of ammo isolation.

oh, you need an extra hand because you threw a track or tried to take part in the VDay parade? TOO FUCKIN BAD

File: 14632303719631.jpg (566KB, 3240x546px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 3240x546px

>>31939319
to be fair, T-14 is not the first Russia tank implement that concept

they have shit tons prototype in the 80s, at the same time with M1 TTB

File: Abrams killer.jpg (258KB, 1268x845px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1268x845px

>>31939371
>can't made reliable auto loader
>we need a nigger loader to keep them off the street, guys

meanwhile every first world tank have an autoloader

File: 14600561426770.jpg (58KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1024x576px

>>31939371
>Crew protection and survivability
too bad, blast door don't work 100% all the time

File: T-72.jpg (29KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1280x720px

>>31939381
unmanned turrets/turretless tanks have been in design since the 50s.

>>31939409
the autoloader on the M1 TTB actually set the bar for autoloader performance at the time, it just literally wasn't found to be worth the trade offs it comes with

>>31939421
I can't remember the term that tankers use for when they keep a couple spare rounds at their feet instead of taking the extra time to grab every single round from its protected storage.

>>31939371
If your in the situation that and theirs no other friendly infantry or other tanks,

then your probably fucked anyhow

File: 12345.gif (2MB, 318x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 318x197px

>>31939452
or you're in grozny

File: vatnik-bait-thread.png (117KB, 1208x782px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1208x782px

>>31937814
>Where were you when Russia won tank warfare?
It actually is pretty funny.
Think about all those poor vatniks, working hard all over internet, to earn in a week what we earn in an hour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades

>>31939448
Probably lap loading. Put one round in the tube, pull a second and cradle it like a baby. Two quick shots before falling in to your standard rate of fire.

>>31937952
For it's time, absolutely

File: obrez home defense.gif (2MB, 370x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 370x281px

>>31939524
ahh right, I was thinking of hot loading for some reason
>but we aren't talking about 10mm

THREE MAN CREWS ARE STUPID.

There, I got it out of the way.

>>31937969
I like this meme

>>31938488
This.

In WW2, the Germans had a few good tanks too when only looking at performances.
Especially at the end of the war.

But :

- they costed a lot to build
- they took a lot of time to build
- they needed a lot of maintenance
- they were logistical nightmare

In the end, they lost because logistics and artillery win wars, not tanks, not planes, not infantry, not rifles...

File: 14546991545620.jpg (169KB, 1100x732px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1100x732px

>>31939590
stop bully

>>31939647
>In the end, they lost because logistics and artillery win wars, not tanks, not planes, not infantry, not rifles.

This isn't 1940s grandpa. Air Dominance wins Wars. If you control the skies, ground vehicles become sitting ducks. You can just bomb them from safety indefinitely.

>>31938525
Bleh, meant RHAe in the last sentence, LOS was already mentioned earlier.

>>31939684
No, logistics and manpower win wars. Germany failed abysmally at the first and stubbornly refused to even consider improvement, and were pretty handily beaten in the latter by their choice of opponent.

>>31939671
Like, tanks need repairing.

It can be a magic space tank or whatever, but the tracks are still going to throw sometimes.

Besides that, you want an extra pair of eyes looking around, and the loader is the perfect position to train somebody to work inside a tank.

Unless your tank is using rounds that are too big to be lifted by humans, autoloaders are dumb.

File: 3042349_original.jpg (241KB, 1680x1260px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1680x1260px

>>31939724
>you want an extra pair of eyes looking around
loader job is reloading the main gun, not looking for hostile

you need thermal cam and data link between your tank, not an extra pair of human eyes

>>31939710
>No, logistics and manpower win wars

Didn't work that way in the Israeli-Arab Wars.

You don't seem to understand that with modern Fighters you can directly attack production, infrastructure, and military headquarters. That is how we ended up with such short, swift wars. Israeli's bombed the hell out of the war-fighting capacity of the Arabs and they had no choice but to surrender. You couldn't do that before in 1942. Imagine if Germany could have just ignored the front-lines and sent in their aircraft directly to bomb the oil infrastructure and factories far beyond the Urals. Soviet Union would have been fucked.

>>31937814
Someone at MI6 forgot to clue MoD as to what is ans is not Russian propaganda. Armata is nothing more than a paper tank.

>>31939762
Everyone gets some kind of vision.

An autoloader can't look at the tank's surroundings with a human brain and make assessments amount it.

Having 33% more human inside the tank is just useful for all kinds of shit, and 4 dudes and an autoloader takes up more space than 4 dudes and a manual loader.

Although frankly, I think the crew arrangement matters much less than the fire control system and the ammunition/armor, which matters still less than the context in which the tank is deployed and what's supporting it.

>>31939789
It is the same argument with Dual Seater jets vs Single Seater jets.

Navy really, really wanted to keep its dual-seaters. However, Air Force feels it can do without.

>>31940273
See, I just think it's dumb for people who like Russian tanks to point to the autoloader as some magical accomplishment.

I still don't see any technologies on the Armata that provide a real improvement over a more conventional tank design.

>>31940273
No, it isn't. Pilots don't perform maintenance on their own jets, they just fly the thing. A tanker will be schlepping rounds, fucking around with tracks, and various other tasks with serious physical demands that are made a hell of a lot easier with the fourth man.

The Navy fighter jock has a boat full of rainbow sideboys to do stuff for him. The tanker doesn't.

>>31939279

>a shitty prototype is as good as a real tank

lel

File: o-STALLED-RUSSIAN-TANK-T14-ARMATA-facebook[1].jpg (297KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 2000x1000px

>>31940454

I'm pretty sure this is >50% hyperbole, hoping to get the war industries floated some fatter contracts in the next 5 years. All major Western militaries have cut back to varying degrees in the past 10 odd years. Oops! Looking forward, this seems to be a mistake, the only problem is that no one knows what kit is going to be actually deployed. If a small country should order 100-200 MBTs, will they actually see action or mostly sit in inventory? Would it be better to invest in upgrading light armor, APCs, and artillery?

The rest of it is a combination of 'fear' such as there could be fear of Russians outpacing the West technologically (keep in mind their limited industry), and the more legitimate concern over the seriously aging inventories of Western armor and artillery stocks. Most of these militaries are built on kit dated to the '70s-'90s. Upgraded to include more modern electronics and comms gear, but still mostly very dated designs and equipment.

>>31937952

It was a beast for its time.

Are penetrators still able to blast through every armour?

>>31941463
Front? Naaah. Front armor of modern tanks are pretty unpenetrable. Except Merkava.