Is the M1 Abrams an unmatched opponent? Is there even competition?

>>32781381
>turbine engine
>no s-ducts
why.

>>32781381
Yes 40 mm grenade with drone

If the gun can penetrate abrams armor than it can match it. The most important factor is the crew

>>32781389
>if sumthin go boom den tenk also go boom

OK kid
>What is armour?

>>32781381
>M1 Abrams
M1 Abrams was shit. M1A1 was something more or less adequte and only M1A2 can be named as decent tank.
Remeber - they tried to build tank as cheap as possible. Paper armor, gun from museum, nigga instead of autoloder.

>>32781406
>hasn't seen the ISIS drone vid where a 40mm HEDP is dropped on top of an Abrams when the commander was unbuttoned.

File: image.jpg (234KB, 900x593px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 900x593px

>>32781381
Not really
https://www.stripes.com/news/report-army-tanks-other-ground-combat-weapons-in-danger-of-falling-behind-1.450621
>Inb4 (((Dickstein)

>>32781568
M1A2 SEP V2 Abrams
Entered service 1999 (?)
Crew 4 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 63 t
Length (gun forward) 9.77 m
Hull length 7.92 m
Width 3.7 m
Height 2.4 m
Armament
Main gun 120-mm
Machine guns 2 x 7.62-mm, 1 x 12.7-mm
Elevation range - 9 to + 20 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 40 rounds
Machine guns 12 400 x 7.62, 1 000 x 12.7
Mobility
Engine Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine
Engine power 1 500 hp
Maximum road speed 68 km/h
Range 425 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 40%
Vertical step 1 m
Trench 2.7 m
Fording 1.2 m
Fording (with preparation) 2 m
T-90S
Entered service 1993
Crew 3 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 46.5 t
Length (gun forward) 9.53 m
Hull length 6.86 m
Width 3.46 m
Height 2.23 m
Armament
Main gun 125 mm smoothbore
ATGW 9K119M (AT-11 Sniper-B)
Machine guns 1 x 7.62 mm, 1 x 12.7 mm
Elevation range - 6 to + 14 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 43 rounds
Machine guns 2 000 x 7.62, 300 x 12.7
Mobility
Engine V-84MS diesel engine
Engine power 840 hp
Maximum road speed 60 km/h
Range 550 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 40%
Vertical step 0.8 m
Trench 2.85 m
Fording 1.2 m
Fording (with preparation) 5 m
T-14 Armata
Entered service ?
Crew 3 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 48 t
Length (gun forward) 10.8 m
Hull length ~ 8.7 m
Width 3.5 m
Height 3.3 m
Armament
Main gun 125-mm smoothbore
ATGW ?
Machine guns 1 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range ?
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 40 rounds
ATGW ?
Machine guns 2 000 rounds
Mobility
Engine A-82-2 diesel
Engine power 1 200 hp
Maximum road speed ~ 70 km/h
Range 500 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 40%
Vertical step ~ 0.8 m
Trench ~ 2.8 m
Fording ~ 1.2 m
Fording (with preparation) ?

>>32781568
MBT-3000
Entered service 2016
Crew 3 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 52 t
Length (gun forward) 10.1 m
Hull length ~ 7 m
Width 3.5 m
Height 2.4 m
Armament
Main gun 125-mm smoothbore
ATGW 9K119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper)
Machine guns 1 x 12.7-mm, 1 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range ?
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 38 rounds
Machine guns 500 x 12.7-mm, 3000 x 7.62-mm
Mobility
Engine diesel
Engine power 1 300 hp
Maximum road speed 67 km/h
Range 500 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 40%
Vertical step 1.2 m
Trench 2.7 m
Fording ~ 1.2 m
Fording (with preparation) 4 - 5 m
Challenger 2

Entered service 1994
Crew 4 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 62.5 t
Length (gun forward) 11.55 m
Hull length 8.33 m
Width 3.52 m
Height 2.49 m
Armament
Main gun 120-mm rifled
Machine guns 2 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range - 10 to + 20 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 50 rounds
Machine guns 4 000 x 7.62-mm
Mobility
Engine Perkins CV12 TCA diesel
Engine power 1 200 hp
Maximum road speed 56 km/h
Range 500 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step 0.9 m
Trench 2.34 m
Fording 1.07 m
Leopard 2A7
Country of origin Germany
Entered service 2014
Crew 4 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 67.5 t
Length (gun forward) 10.97 m
Hull length 7.7 m
Width 4 m
Height ~ 3 m
Armament
Main gun 120-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 1 x 12.7-mm, 1 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range - 9 to + 20 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 42 rounds
Machine guns ?
Mobility
Engine MTU MB-837 Ka501 diesel
Engine power 1 500 hp
Maximum road speed 72 km/h
Range 450 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step 1.15 m
Trench 3 m
Fording 1 m
Fording (with preparation) 4 m

>>32781568
Merkava Mk4
Country of origin Israel
Entered service 2004
Crew 4 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 65 t
Length (gun forward) 9 m
Hull length 7.6 m
Width 3.72 m
Height 2.66 m
Armament
Main gun 120 mm smoothbore
ATGW LAHAT ATGM
Machine guns 1 x 12.7 mm 2 x 7.62 mm
Mortar 1 x 60 mm
Elevation range ?
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 48 rounds
ATGW ?
Machine guns ?
Mobility
Engine General Dynamics GD883 V12 diesel
Engine power 1 500 hp
Maximum road speed > 60 km/h
Range 500 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step ~ 1 m
Trench ~ 3 m
Fording ~ 1.4 m

>>32781554
And this killed the tank how?

>>32781568
>No Leclerc tank
Why ?

>>32782051
French """weapons""" are not considered weapons.

>>32781381
>Is the M1 Abrams an unmatched opponent?
>Is there even competition?

Why do you care about tank vs tank when real war is combined arms vs combined arms? Are you fucking twelve or stupid?

TOW and Spike and Kornet FTW. Spend cost of Abrams on ATGW then fight and see whose money was better spent. Abrams could kill a few before brewing up.

>>32781381
Its pretty much on par with the latest Leopards, Merkavas and Leclecs.

Sure, some minor details differ, but thats because they are made with diffrent doctrines in mind, so saying that one is the "best" is pointless.

>>32781568
>leo
>125mm cannon

who made this shit?

>>32782121
Enjoy fighting WW1, because thats how it would end for the ATGM-only army.

>>32782070
You mean desu, it's a great tank

>>32782129
DDR-sponsored US media.

>>32782121
>combined arms
>second paragraph
>Why do you care about combined arms vs combined arms when real war is missiles vs missiles

>>32782029
I'm assuming, from his post, that it was dropped into the open cupola.

>>32781554
so just stay buttoned and have infantry keep their eyes on the sky
problem solved

>>32781554
>implying that this is an issue with only the Abrams

File: canadian_leopard2a6.jpg (277KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1500x1125px

>>32781503
>nigga instead of autoloder.
>kek

Remember Autoloaders can malfunction and a well trained nigga won't. I remember that being stated as the reason the Americans did not use an Autoloader.

>>32781568
>Challenger 2
>Special ammunition DU AT

Surely the special ammo is HESH?

>>32784180

Nope. The Bongs use moderately different round types to neutralise spin imparted by a rifled gun. Their rounds are also two piece, with projectile and propellant stowed seperately.

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

3MB, 480x360px

>>32784162
That's why early projects of new american tank were equipped with autoloader, sure. Those "nigga is better" arguments are pure damage control. Real reason is cost reduction.

>>32784388
Ever tried to do tank maintenance with a man down? Thrown tracks are tiring enough with 4 men plus there is an extra man to take watch meaning everyone gets a little extra sleep.

>>32781970
>Crew 4 men
Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

>>32784388
>That's why russian tanks have autoloaders, their doctrine always assumed those tankers were going to die in burning agony as soon as the tank took a hit anyway, so they wanted to minimize the number of tankers they had to train in order to pretend they were at a parity with NATO.

>>32784485
Russia and France doesn't seem to have this problem.

>>32784500
is there a problem or is is a men triggered joke?

>>32784767

Russia doesn't stray far from its own borders, and the French prefer to send wheeled vehicles abroad.

Why do I get the feeling that if an American tank uses an autoloader after the Abrams, or a later version of it, every American on this board will immediately change their tune on autoloaders not being a good option.

I have no opinion either way, but you see it all the time with the Americans on this board.

>>32781381
>M1
Evenly matched with concurrent T-72 and T-64, then T-80
>M1IP
Could take on 3 Soviet tanks by itself before going down
>M1A1
Could take down a whole company on it's own before being overrun or forced to retreat; T-80U introduced later was on par
>M1A1HA
Only other NATO tanks could compete
>M1A2+
Same as above, but it's the cream of the crop

>>32785016

It kind of depends, you get Americans who swear that 4 man tanks are the only correct choice, and that auto-loaders are for plebs (which is silly), but I usually see the arguments started by someone making a troll post that US tanks are backwards because of their lack of autoloader.

Honestly, either option is valid, when you consider the time that they were designed (late Cold War). In the same way that choosing a manual or automatic transmission for your car in the 1980s was down to personal priorities or preference, while today there are definite advantages for the latest automatics. I suspect that the next American tank will use an autoloader due to advances in technology making it a better choice.

>>32785016
Why do I get the feeling you actually do have an opinion in the matter, are aware of the arguments made for and against both setups, and have expressed the same opinion about Americans multiple times in the past.

>>32784767
When was the last time French tanks had to operate outside of a FOB?

>>32785359
As it were the US army is going to test an Abrams with a compact autoloader and the loader replaced with a UAV/UGV operator.

>>32781381

All 120mm L/44L55 gun tanks of similar weight are going to be about equal in actual tank on tank combat.

125mm (excluding proposed T-14 improvements)/120mm rifled are the next step down.

>>32784388

Cost reduction is only the start. THe fourth man per tank makes maintenance is a whole lot easier.


Just don't lap load the damn thing.

File: weirdmilsurp.jpg (43KB, 700x358px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 700x358px

>>32781381
Yes

File: 1474757419883.jpg (60KB, 793x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 793x600px

Serious question, why is American armor/aircraft/vehicles/weapons so fucking top tier?

I always hear about all of our shit being at par or above(80% of the time) anyone else's.

Can we ever get tired of winning?

>>32785163
1 Russian tank with ATGM launcher is more then a match, Abrams is not invinceble. It is all about the crew and their situation awarness.

>>32785808
Kinetic armor and HEAT armor are not the same. Even the modern Invar missile penetrates 900mm of armor... whereas the Abrams' turret (M1A1) resists more than 1200mm of HEAT penetration.

Don't kid yourself, by the mid 80's NATO frontal AV was immune to anything the Soviets could throw at them short of a bunker buster. Even a well trained Soviet crew could not take on a NATO MBT head on.

>>32785858
The M1A1 Heavy Armor version yes.

M1A1 got 700mm against HEAT.

>>32785897
Heavy Armor version resists 1500mm against HEAT on the turret, and 2100mm on the hull. M1A1 resists 1100-1200 against HEAT on the turret and 1500mm on the hull.

>>32785858
But anon ATGM is not striking the frontal armor, rather the top. And it is way weaker therefor easier to penetrate. I don't know why are consider Abrams (while it is obviously quite excellent tank) so much better then other foreign counterparts.

>>32785808
Russian GL-ATGM have similar range to what Western FCS can accurately place first shots.

>>32785927
The Russians do not have any top-attack ATGMs.

>>32785927
Which Russian top attack missile are you speaking of?

>>32785933
Slightly longer though. Western FCS and especially western guns are WAY ahead of the Russian ones. Armor is more or less identical if you'd like to believe it or not. In terms of layout they differ, but chobham is of very similar composition as "modern" Russian/Chinese armor is.

>>32785925
Did you pull those figures from your ass?

I can tell you where I got my number from. Osprey duels M1 abrams vs T-72

>>32786133
neither of your numbers are based on factual evidence, so it is a meaningless comparison

>>32785808

125mm HEAT ATGMs aren't powerful enough.

You need 150mm+ to pose a credible threat, such as Kornet-E.

>>32786178

He's probably closer to the truth than Steel Beasts

M1A1HA was said to stop ~1000mm from a tandem warhead
M1A1M, can't stop ~1200 from a tandem warhead

M1A1M is likely to be equal to the old HA, and an Iraqi leaked that it was ~1300mm for unitary shaped charges (which is why ~1200mm tandem got through).

>>32786133
Steel Beasts, a professional-level tank simulator used by various militaries around the world, including the US for training tank crews.

>>32786238
>M1A1M, can't stop ~1200 from a tandem warhead

Every video of a M1A1M getting hit on the turret face shows a non penetration.

>>32786238
Tandem warheads do not increase penetration, the precursor defeats ERA.

File: 13432213_1649430458713274_2825281708192079033_n.jpg (62KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 960x720px

>>32786259

Kornet-E has gotten through at least once

This is a Kornet-E perforation that was repaired. It lightly wounded the crew and damaged internal equipment.

The M1A1M is as heavy as the M1A1HA too, which gives credence that they should be similar.

>>32786259
o rly?

https://webmshare.com/GZ3W1

>>32786272

Yes, but tandem warheads, especially full caliber ones like on Kornet-E and probably Hellfire, mess with the NERA, which allows the main charge to do better than it normally would.

Burlington documents reveal this.

>>32786300

That's a Kornet-E. It's hard to tell where it hit. Could be turret ring or side, for example.

This >>32786287

Is the best evidence you can use.

>>32786300
>frontal hit

>>32786324
>That's a Kornet-E
Too slow to be a Kornet.
>It's hard to tell where it hit
Bullshit. Pay attention, the ATGM disappears over the left cheek.
>>32786333
Another retard.

File: 1427814790703.gif (1MB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 264x264px

>>32786245
Which unironically states that 14.5mm B-32 can pentrate 45mm RHA at 1500 meters

When it in reality cant even penetrate 40mm at 100 meters but 32.

Just look at those figures it gives for the ammunition. It is a great game to simulate being a tanker and so on but the numbers it gives for protecton and penetration? Dont take it at face value.

File: kornete-1.jpg (23KB, 420x280px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 420x280px

>>32786336

>not Kornet

There's video of the launcher, anon.

It's Kornet-E.

>BS

You can't tell. If you look at the full video (HQ), the missile plume vanishes around the turret ring.

File: kornete-2.jpg (24KB, 420x280px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 420x280px

>>32786363

And the second still

File: 13924928_1680233032299683_2814671866513968565_n.jpg (117KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 960x540px

Here's a non-perforating AT-5 hit.

Which is to be expected, but again, another piece of evidence.

>>32781381
Well it's a whole lot better than anything it'll ever go against, which is old t72s, t55s and technicals.
Other modern western MBTs, not really.

>>32786245
>Steel Beasts
Ew. Ammunition values in that game are completely fucked (3BM-32 somehow penetrates 540 at 3500m when it's predicted average is 560 at 2000m; M829 penetrates 50mm more than it should at 1500m longer range; 3UBR8 has anywhere from half to a third of it's real penetration; penetration values don't increase significantly with range) and some vehicles (Like the M1A1) have poorly modeled interior damage figures (It's impossible to set off the ammunition racks and see the blowout panels at work no matter what weapon hits it from whatever angle), and soft/mission/firepower kills aren't modeled very well either.

>>32786348

Steel Beasts:

>T-90S; ~1500mm CE

Real life:

>T-90MS (more advanced); ~1200mm

>>32785927
>Poor English
>Retarded

Obviously a vatnik.

File: 1485351299727.jpg (16KB, 384x320px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 384x320px

>>32781381
han solo in wheel and ahmed in mount.

>>32786662

My coworker was in Iraq and had an idiot in a hilux pull up next to him and start shooting with an AK.


Just turned hard right and rolled over the idiot.

He also melted the front of a german cop car.

File: 1480022057480.jpg (219KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1920x1080px

>>32781381

>>32784500
Women crammed in enclosed spaces stink

>>32781381
move aside burger, this is now an borscht thread!

>>32786786

Hull should be 120mm proof
Turret isn't

I'm skeptical of their penetration claims for the new 125mm. 800mm should be doable. 1000mm KE? Unlikely.

File: PARAD_PROEZD_MSK_150509_047.jpg (475KB, 1417x976px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1417x976px

russians are light years ahead the west!

>>32786208
Ding ding ding. This anon gets it. Even tandem 125mm HEAT based missiles/rockets can't defeat the better armored portions of modern MBT's.

File: I am from the future.jpg (108KB, 900x722px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 900x722px

>>32786876

>>32785359

We say that because we used two man turrets before, and they tested to be almost universally inferior to their three-man counterparts, and have seen results that show the view consistent. Now, this might just be a cooincidence because no modern autoloaded tanks has really tasted combat yet, but so far the statistics tend to agree with the latter: after all, if the audoloader fails, you now suddently have the gunner doing double-duty, which severly cripples the rate of fire of the vehicle, or you have both the commander and the gunner working in tandem to compensate, which cripples the vehicle's situational awareness. The Armata's lack of a commander's cupola in the turret is not a reassuring sign, either.

Nevertheless, I think having an optional auto-loader with a dedicated engineer replacing the loader might not be an unreasonable compromise that I can see the next generation MBT post-Abrams adopting.

>>32785797

Spending x6 times as much money on R&D as Russia tends to do that.

>>32785934
>>32785944
>What is Kornet ?

>>32787053

>Kornet
>Top attack

Anon....

>>32787053
Not a top attack missile.

>>32786662
Pretty much any modern tank could spin their turret faster than that car would be able to drift around them.

>>32786615
Yeah, nah. I just had a brain fart, meant to say: why you consider. No need to project so hard champ, I'm here to discuss tanks, not to shill for one or another.

>>32786891

The absolute best 125mm HEAT could do is ~900mm, which just isn't enough for the front of most tanks, other than weak spots.

>>32781381
>Abrams Vs.
>EFP made by sand nigger that can't write his own name
Efp wins sometimes.

>>32787066
>>32787069
Right, I've checked this one out, got my facts straight now. So how do Kornets managed to disable few Abrams MBTs during Iraqi war in 2003 ?

>>32787192
hitting the tank where front armor is weakest, aka the dead center, or hitting it in the sides and rear where armor is much weaker

>>32787192
Urban fighting and shooting them in the ass at ranges too close for countermeasures to work well.

>>32787192
>So how do Kornets managed to disable few Abrams MBTs during Iraqi war in 2003 ?

They didn't.

>>32785797
Because America simultaneously assumes it will have to take on the biggest and meanest baddies in the world unsupported, and because they have the budget and infrastructure to ensure they can.

>>32787192

There wasn't any Kornet hits in 2003

Several Iraqi M1A1M's were damaged, with some destroyed by fire, by Kornets. They're probably the same as US M1A1's for all intents (might be less armored against KE, though).

See >>32786287

For a frontal turret peforation

>>32787316

O, and they manage to do this because it does 1200mm of penetration past ERA; which apparently equals over ~1300mm of NERA backed with plates.

>>32787274
>During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Kornets were used by some groups of Iraqi special forces to attack American armoured vehicles, disabling at least two Abrams tanks and one Bradley armored troop carrier in the opening week of the war.
Well as anons above you mentioned it was probs at point blank range and/or hits were from the side or in the ass.
The question arises, is any of the russkies tank fleet able to take western ATGM fairly well ? I always had this image of armor superiority being on Russian/USSR side due to both numerical advantage and quite large offensive potential of their tanks, did the budget cuts has really deminished their biggest advantage ? I'm asking as someone who has lately greeted an armored division of somewhat 80 Abrams tanks and other armoured vechicles in my country.

File: theburningyoufeelisshamenosound.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>32781381
>>32781386
>>32781389
This is 6th generation shitposting.

>>32783152
And this killed the tank how?

>>32787434
It didnt. It didnt even kill the commander.

>>32787486
You know, if you hover over the reply number, it will show you the reply, and if you click on them, it'll take you to the reply. Where this comes in handy is tracing back two replies and realizing that my response is a sarcastic repetition of an earlier one, you autistic fuck.

>>32787434
Killing the crew

>>32787402
Nobody is really sure. Russian tanks haven't really been shot at since Chechnya.

>>32787547
>>32787486

>>32787402
>I always had this image of armor superiority being on Russian/USSR side due to both numerical advantage and quite large offensive potential of their tanks

From the 80's on, it never existed. Numbers stopped being relevant and fire support did.
As has been proven earlier in this thread, NATO MBTs have been frontally immune to any Warsaw Pact weapons since the M1A1, whereas even older rounds from the 70's such as DM13 were capable of defeating the latest Soviet tank, the T-80U. Things don't get easier for the russians with less armor; NATO IFVs and even APCs like the M113 were vastly superior to the BMP and BTR series, while the TOW and MILANs wielded by NATO IFVs could also easily defeat Soviet tanks, even from the front.

As even vatniks will admit, the NATO air forces are virtually uncontested in the air. Every conflict seen thus far has shown forces with NATO aircraft reaching kill ratios over 4 to 1 against Soviet-made aircraft. Lessons learned from the Israelis, and in Vietnam have significantly developed SEAD capabilities as well. Jamming and HARMs would suppress enemy air defenses faster than you can say "m-muh s-300" and strike aircraft would just toy with the rest.

Couple all of that with superior fire-control systems of NATO equipment, inherent defensive advantage, and superior training and tactics of NATO soldiers, and WW3 would have been a very bleak proposition for the Warsaw Pact... within maybe a month Abrams and Leopards would have been rolling in the streets of Moscow, which is why Soviet doctrine increasingly shifted from "Spam tanks" to "Spam nukes" because they knew that the technologies were too far apart for them to pose a credible threat to any western land army.

File: George.jpg (8KB, 276x277px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 276x277px

>>32785797
>Serious question, why is American armor/aircraft/vehicles/weapons so fucking top tier?
>Can we ever get tired of winning?

You can't think for one second about why your military has the biggest and best toys? It has the MONEY. The largest economy in the world, bar none. You spend fuck loads of cash on military projects, more than any nation ever could. It's not because you "love winning" and the rest of us hate it, it's because you have the pure financial stability to back it all up. I swear Americans are even fucking retarded about their own country.

Why is it that every American, in these types of conversation, think their military is top notch only because they all love freedom and are super patriotic? It's because of the money. Goddamn. It's like a child thinking Disneyland is awesome because it runs on love and magic. It's awesome because it runs on families going broke to ride three roller coasters you twat.

>>32782070
The united arab emirates seem to be quite happy with their leclerc tanks
but hey, we're on /k/

>>32787402

T-72/80/90s with K5 can withstand TOW-2A from the front; they're ~1000mm (under 1200mm but over 900mm against CE)

TOW-2B and Javelin have no problems.

M829A2/DM-63 120mm will work against against the same tanks.

On the return, 125mm BM-42M can't perforate the M1A1 from the front.

>>32788151
>125mm BM-42M can't perforate the M1A1 from the front.
The Russians don't (And still don't) have anything that can.

File: 16299651_1221870334516937_8060049999940205233_o.jpg (362KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 2048x1365px

>>32785505

>>32788174

BM-42M is all they have, so yeah.

Whatever improved APFSDS they make for the T-14 and its ability to handle longer rods, might, but that's not production.

Their tank destroyers with AT-14/AT-15 would work against M1A1s, but I wouldn't want to be in said TDs when the shooting starts.

>>32788313
You wouldn't want to be in the Russian army in general. The United States on it's own could roll over the Russian army in mere weeks were it not for the nuclear threat.

>>32788322
Not on their own territory without EU support.
The logistics involved in invading a country on another continent would be ridiculous without EU support.

File: AGMsywU.jpg (352KB, 2100x1399px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 2100x1399px

>>32788313
>>32788174
>>32788151
BM-42M never went into mass production, the newest round in production is BM59/BM60 which is comparable in length to the M829A3 and DM53. That also means it can only be used in the T-90A, T-72B3 and T-14.

>>32788752
Sure, you finally have around that can defeat M1A1, but now most Abrams are M1A2 and M1A3 is around the corner, so you're still fucked

>>32788229
Tell us more about how UAE troops are doing.

File: apfsds2.jpg (61KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1280x720px

>>32788785
>you finally have around that can defeat M1A1
>mfw I'm an American Abrams fanboy

Sorry, I prefer to not be a retard that is ignorant of potential enemy capabilities.

>>32788849
Well sure, don't rush into a killzone thinking you're invincible, sure, but the gyst of the argument is that American armor formations are undefeatable and have been since the 80's onward. WW3 Ironically would have seen the 11th ACR and 3rd Armor division rushing into East Germany instead of the other way around, because the entire 8th and 1st Guards tank armies would have crumpled against them both.

>>32788752

BM-42 then.

BM59/60. Year of entry? Which one is produced?

If it's similar to DM53, it might not be good enough against the latest M1A1 that weights the same as the M1A2 SEP -- it won't be good enough against the Leopard 2A6 based on trials.

>>32781386
hahaha

>>32788943
>BM-42 then.

Mango's are from the late 80's and pretty shit, at least go with BM48 Svinets which is the best round the shorter autoloaders could use.

>BM59/60. Year of entry? Which one is produced?

2002. It only seemed to enter mass production within the last 5 years due to the low number of T-90A's, that were the only tank that could use it at the time.

Don't know, one is DU and one is tungsten.

File: 1474738859743.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>32781568

>T-90

>APS

That's a bit of a stretch. It's basically a really crude laser warning receiver with a toaster oven jammer that rarely works.

File: spending.png (2KB, 270x250px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 270x250px

>>32785797
>Serious question, why is American armor/aircraft/vehicles/weapons so fucking top tier?
The reason is MONEYYYYYYYYYYY

File: tumblr_n7fsalyit01suctpao1_500.gif (461KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 500x375px

>>32784162

The reason America has a Negro Loader is because of MUH HERITAGE. The army traces its heritage from the slavery years.

A bit quirky if you ask me.

>>32786333

Blind, or just stupid?

It clearly hits the left front turret face.

>>32789178
>Blind, or just stupid?

I should be asking you that.

>>32787192

It's a myth.

There were no Kornets used in 2003. There isn't a single shred of verifiable evidence.

>>32784388
>>32784162

You're all retarded; American crews have a dedicated loader because it's one more person on a gun, defending a mission killed tank, repairing damaged parts or getting out and scattering. And he won't break apart or take a crewman's arm off at the slightest hint of trouble.

File: 1483559003089.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>32788785

Russians aren't arming themselves to fight American front-line units.

Their forces are tailored against regional enemies, so Soviet T-72 tanks, Leopard 2A4s etc.

Their T-72B3 upgrade is perfectly adequate at addressing those threats.

>or take a crewman's arm off
>people STILL believe this meme

>>32789246
>Their forces are tailored against regional enemies

T-72B3's exist because the bulk of Russia's tank force for the foreseeable future is going to be T-72's, and they need to be kept competitive.

Houthis managed to penetrate Saudi M1 from practically the front. They had a slight angle and hit where the smoke grenades are. Seems to be a weakness of western turret design, it only takes a slight angle to be able to aim at the side of the turret.

File: CyIK1J1XgAQe9qe.jpg (139KB, 886x783px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 886x783px

>>32789287

Yes, the late-pattern T-72Bs they had in surplus were the ideal candidate for upgrade, but only because Russian doctrine does not envision going toe-to-toe against American armored cavalry and heavy mechanized forces.

Have you read any Russian defence literature lately?

The Russians are preparing for Georgia and Ukraine-style conflicts at their borders.

>>32789407
The easiest way of telling you are talking out your ass is a slight angle makes the side armor of an Abrams turret equal or outright thicker than its frontal armor.

>>32789241
>take a crewman's arm off at the slightest hint of trouble.
WEW LAD if your crew isn't in an armoured compartment that's completely isolated from the rest of the tank

that's the whole fuckin point of autoloaders lad - you don't have to be near them

So what is the mathematically best angle for glacis slope anyway?

If you had a tank shaped as a 3d diamondular prism (?) with all the angles at 90 degrees (ignoring the problems of movement and stuff, just considering the armour), would it be effectively invincible?

>>32789692
Depends on what your armor is made of.

>>32789708
Diamond

>>32789407
The most absolute retarded thing I've read all day. Have you passed elementary yet?

>>32787402
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHIWYaghKAM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovxz1_hPJKQ
These should give you a glimpse. Short answer not well. Russians, and vatnik wanabes will always quote the protection of the tank as the maximum value at the thickest part of the armor and ERA. If attacked from a non standard direction, like from the front hull, or the side or rear, or bottom, or top, or side hulls, the Russian tanks are quite inferior due to their proclivity to completely explode. For example take >>32788151 he seems to say all T-72/80/90 with K5 can take TOW-2A from front, but it really is only from the front on the hull where the K5 is. Anywhere else on the tank, and the tank will be penetrated.

Remeber this:>>32789436
>>32789246

>>32789407
what

>>32789217
Just type Kornet in Wikipedia, they might not be a the most credible source, but still.

File: id7561-05.jpg (145KB, 951x534px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 951x534px

>>32790499
>The most absolute retarded thing I've read all day. Have you passed elementary yet?
I have no idea how it happened, somehow it hit near the smoke grenade launcher and managed to start a fire inside.

>>32781381
> best in the world
> destroyed by goat fuckers
there is stupid and then there is american stupid

>>32790886
Even if the tank can be destroyed by insurgents, that doesn't make it any worse of a tank.

It's still better than every other tank which is much easier to destroy.

>>32781503
We have pretty good nigs though.

>>32784162
>>32784388
>>32789135
>>32789241
WE

>>32781381
literally worse than the Sherman.

>>32787646
Thanks for long and interwsting read, but I think that NATO would never be able to pierce WP defences that fast, 1 month to Moscow seems like a rather big overestimation of Europe's offencive capabilities. Ofc the second any side starts gaining more teritory nukes start flying, so it's just sheer speculation, but I think russkies and the satelite state could hold their ground well.

>>32788422
EU has no support capabilities. They just don't.

>>32781568
Abrams and Leo use the same canon from Rheinmetall.

>>32791665
no they do not,the M256 and the Rheinmetall L44 have the difference of a coil spring recoil system rather than a hydraulic one for the M256.

>>32788806
Better than the Saudis, though it's not hard to do.

The UAE seems pleased with their Leclerc. AFAIK, as of now, none were lost, with the worst being a killed driver when an ATGM perforated its vision ports. The tank was fine though.

>>32790668
>Russians, and vatnik wanabes will always quote the protection of the tank as the maximum value at the thickest part of the armor and ERA
And the force opposing the vatniks are not doing so with their tanks?

You are being rather hypocritical now.

>>32781386
this

>>32792227
The difference is that the super-hard Russian ERA only covers small portions of the tank and thus can easily be destroyed from the front just by shooting the parts not covered in it.

Western tanks don't have that problem since their NERA is actually built-into the tank.

>>32792227
>And the force opposing the vatniks are not doing so with their tanks?

To a large degree they are not. In every single one of these threads, I see vatniks with only one number for the total protection of their tank despite this:>>32792400 , whereas the rest of the world talks about front Glacis armor level, side turret armor level, front hull level, rear armor protection etc. For example when talking about the Leclerc and its performance in Yemen, we have even gotten into discussions about the protection provided by the vision port due to:>>32791764

File: 35433ee9fd[1].jpg (105KB, 654x525px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 654x525px

As we can see here with the T-80U:

Not-so-impressive RHA equivalents around the K-5. It's the best the Soviets ever had before their collapse, but still doesn't come close to the protection level of even the M1A1.

Note the central area around the gun... you have an average thickness there of only 300mm. Even old 105mm rounds can easily penetrate this from 2km.
Doing the same thing to an M1A1 requires you to practically be point blank with the best 125mm ammunition the Russians had... which was still in small numbers and only with the most elite units by the end of the cold war.

>>32792577
You are missing the steel beasts crowd.

File: 1428981537637.jpg (83KB, 623x497px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 623x497px

>>32781381
>abrams
>surviving a thermobaric round.

>>32793134
>thermobaric
>doing anything besides damaging external equipment

>>32793134
Abrams have pretty decent NBC protection, and tend to be outside.

>>32785494

>Implying there's only one person who's made an incredibly common observation on /k/

>>32794138
Notice how that applies to both posts.

>>32793134
Do you know what thermobaric rounds are?

Because they only work on soft targets, by design.

>>32793134
thermobaric munitions are not that good for penetrating armour anon. usually when we employed the SMAW against mud huts in afghanistan we had to weaken the wall with HEDP or HEAA first

File: 5366728321854312.gif (761KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 320x180px

If you believe that OP, i have some very good cures for cancer, only $1000 each!

>>32794783
An IED that huge would tank out any tank.

>>32794807
it's a tow

File: T14 Armata Russian Main Battle Tank.jpg (23KB, 720x389px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 720x389px

>>32781381
>borscht
/k/ once again proves their stupidity. The T14 Armata Main Battle Tank is the most advanced and most powerful tank ever to be created on our planet. It has no equal and is at least 30 years more advanced than its closest competitor. This is not up for discussion.

>>32781381

B/c fuckers who are using tanks that are peer or near peer to the M1 series are either a) allied to the United States, b) the US has no current interest to knock over in the name of FREEDOM AND MURICA AND COCKMISSILES and c) are too big to take out w/ using nukes (and chances are they have nukes as well).

Modern tanks and expensive as fuck, bitches. And the money train the monkeys to man the things ain't cheap either.

File: 371[1].jpg (61KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x600px

>>32781386
>his tank isn't stealth
get outta here

>>32795005
you've just made your own threat to shitpost in dimitri. go back to your bathroom vodka

>>32789246
Thats a T-64 Variant...