So much for LEO2 being the best tank inna world

File: Capture.png (1MB, 1356x733px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1356x733px

Another pic

File: Capture.png (2MB, 1156x744px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1156x744px

It takes off its hat, just like old soviet tanks.

E-ein affenmodell

This has to be the 20th tread in like a week, using the same pictures each time

>a missile designed to defeat armor defeats armor
What next? AA-missile shoots down a plane?

TEUTONIC STEEL

>>32736239
>It takes off its hat, just like old soviet tanks.
You made pretty much the same remark in /thg/, you shitposting fuck.
At least change it up.

>>32736298
Never been on /thg/. Try harder you triggered leofag.

>>32736301
Fucking idiot yes you were

>>32736308
Nope. Show proof or gtfo.

>80's tank defeated by 90's anti-tank missile
hold the presses!

an A5 would actually be interesting.

>>32736326
Here:
>>32714977

>>32736228
>>32736352
OP is an idiot. Obviously an not an A5/A6

Don't ever speak ill of T-72 ever again.

I goddamn hate commies but goddamn their tanks work.

>>32736228
No tank is unkillable.

T-90 / Abrams / Leo 2 / Leclerc / K2

They'll all get blown to bits if hit with ATGM's.

Be it a TOW, Konkurs, Milan or a HJ-9.
Exceptions are situations where the Era / APS defeats the missile.

Turkey had old Leo2A4's. They have no added spaced armor kits. They will get fucked up badly if used incompetently.

Instead of spotting a target and driving up to the berm to fire and retreat, the turks sat in their tanks, in the open and got killed.

It's the same with the retarded Saudis and Iraqis. No situational awareness, they simply think the tank will do everything for them.

Systems are all working as designed. They can take a frontal hit from another tank of the same era, but not an ATGM hit to the side of the hull/turret.

>>32736381
What's the point of these MBT then?

Why don't we just make more shermans and have infantries support it?

>>32736396
Are you attempting to be funny or are you just ignorant?

>>32736402
Please explain how am I being funny or ignorant?

Sherman would work well in these conflicts due to the cheapness of it.

>>32736374
MUH MONKEY MODEL

It's the M1 threads all over again.

>>32736407
How would retooling in order to make the Sherman be cheaper than continue producing the M1?
The M1 also has a more effective cannon and FCS, is more mobile and is better protected, even if it's not invincible.>>32736402

>>32736407
You're a full on spastic
How many RPGs to you think the durkhas have when they even had ATGMs out the ass?

>>32736433
Because you lose more with each M1 lost than with a sherman.

>>32736441
As said, supported by infantries, anon.

>>32736450
>Shitskins
>Supporting armor with infantry
Lmao, you clearly don't know anything about dune divers, and tell me, if they were doing that, why don't they just use the more up to date MBTs they have now with infantry and air support to counter ATGMs, instead of rolling back to a massively outdated piece of tech because some ignorant spastic thinks it'd be a good idea
At least easy 8s were easy to bail out of, shitskins would love that

>>32736228
>>32736235


Mobilität zu töten, a-affenmodell

>>32736472
I'm not sure if M1 is even in production anymore.

Somehow the US is just focusing on airplanes and forsaking the ground troops.

>>32736407
lol

>LEO2
I'm assuming you just forgot A4.

>>32736352
>90s at missile
ackhuhally metis is 78year

>>32736373
Not me though. But that's a good observation on that anon

>>32736474
haha

>>32736819
>its not a kornet because that does not fit my narrative.

Lel.

>>32736819

Metis-M is quite much more capable missile and that is from 1992. Most important difference is far more capable tandem warhead.

File: QUALITY.png (487KB, 847x439px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 847x439px

>putting unarmored ammunition in the hull


JUST
EXPLODE
MY
CREW
COMPARTMENT
UP

>>32736228

Newsflash: Any modern Tank can be penetrated by WW2 era Panzerfaust if hit in side or rear.

>>32738716
Pretty much.

If you're not covered by spaced/ceramic armor or ERA/NERA on your sides you're entirely fucked.


It's the hull ammunition storage on the Leo II next to the driver that's dooming it.

>>32738746

Spaced armor could actually make a Panzerfaust more effective since stand off distance was not very well known back then and Panzerfaust lacked a probe to provide proper stand off distance for optimal penetration.

>>32738768
I guess, but the effectiveness of NERA/spaced ceramics and steel/ERA should still be far higher than what is needed to block a Panzerfaust.

Modern (IE late 70s-80s upgraded designs) Western tanks really weren't meant to remain in an environment with this many guided projectiles and HEAT warheads floating around dismounted.

Can't very well defend the Fulda gap if you've got Russian infantry suddenly popping up on your flanks, now can you?

>>32738662
>basically every russian tank

>>32739123
Nah, in Russian tanks the ENTIRE stowage is in the center hull.

It's even worse.

Another thread? Seriously? Has someone saved how many threads we already got about this?