Lets have a thread to celebrate the most advanced and powerful

File: Nagatoro-san_pfft.jpg (320KB, 855x1050px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 855x1050px

>>32795072
>20 years more advanced than the next best main battle tank.
Subtle.

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

23KB, 720x389px

>>32795150
OP is right. Say what you want about Russia but their tanks are a fucking work of art. The only tank I see coming close is the new German Leopards.

T-14 a shit and ugly
Let me know when Russians go back to beautiful dome turrets and actually test their shit in combat

>>32795072
>T-14 "HOMOERATA"
>Ever entering service
Pick one, loser

>>32795072
>20 years more advanced than the next best main battle tank.
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
T-14 Armata
Country of origin Russia
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) ?

>>32795072
Picture not related.

>>32795386
Shitty leopards crew needs a doctorate to drive this over complicated piece of shit.

>>32795230

The 3D artist forgot the gunner's sight.

>>32795524
ok...so is that a problem?

File: 1396822648450.jpg (278KB, 1612x1009px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1612x1009px

>>32795072
The T-14 is so disappointing. Soviet armor was designed to be as small as possible and were very efficient in terms of weight and dimensions. However with T-14 we get none of those things. The tank is absolutely massive. In many ways I'm reminded of the T-35 in just how inefficient this thing is in terms of its use of space.

>>32795524
yes tovarisch your tank may be of compose by plywood and staples but when yuo are only use handlebars and pedals for control brain can be focus onto shooting americyanski

>>32795230
this looks a billion times better than >>32795072
too bad it was complete fiction.

>>32795230
>miniguns
fuck off with your autistic imaginary chode tank

>>32795072
>"we don't need armour on the turret because it's unmanned and just won't get hit in the first place"

>>32795072
The K2 and Type 10 would like to have a word with you.

>>32795948
The Type 10 has nothing out of the ordinary about it besides having really shit armor.

>>32795072
>30+ years older than its competitors
>Is still inferior
Topkek

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

108KB, 900x722px

>>32795072

Already been done.

>>32796060
The Type 10 has pretty good armor for a mid 40 ton tank.

>>32795824
That's an autocannon

>>32795617
The T-14 is actually very light for its size and alleged armour.

>>32797114
Light for its size? The size is the problem, its massive.

>>32797207
don't really understand, its non ballistic skirt so whats about it ?

File: 1434116791004.jpg (746KB, 1435x1600px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 1435x1600px

>>32797137
meh

crew survivability should be massive.

>>32795072
>>32795230
After years of cool cgi and vatnik endlessly telling how awesome it is going to be, i am seriously disappointed how that thing looks, the real thing looks like cheap movie prop of what it was supposed to be.

>>32795320
>>T-14 "HOMOERATA"
Did chukle more than i should have .

File: Falcon_Turret_KADDB_Jordan_Sofex_2004_01.jpg (84KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x600px

>>32797292
you expected a gundam when in reality the big point of the tank is an unmanned turret. gur khan doesn't have any inside sources and if you believed/expected he did you are as stupid as he is....

>>32797279
The technology for making compact, safe tanks has been around for decades.

>>32797315
>The technology for making compact, safe tanks has been around for decades.

really? why are all western tanks 60+ ton behemoths then?

>>32795524
Got evidence for that? Also Germany understands how to train tank crew.

>>32797225
the point of a skirt is to be ballistic protective

japan need their tank to be light because of terrain so might as well remove them to save some kilos ...

File: T-80-2.jpg (96KB, 647x340px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 647x340px

>>32797398
>>32797225
these rubber things like most prominently featured on T-80s are supposed to trigger HEAT warheads outside of their optimal range, thus weakening them.

>>32797336
Compact refers to volume, not mass.

>>32797336
I'm fairly certain they're all smaller than T-14, I know the Abrams is.

>>32797427
>>32797434
the very principle of chobham armour depends on empty air space in the armour. so you always get volume. sure, if you want to minimize voume, just make the whole thing from DU only. you'll end up with a minivan weighing 60t....

>>32797311
Its just looks unaesthetic, like something that had been build together on a weekend. Nothing of that russian charme or anything. Just ugly.

File: syrt467kek8r.jpg (181KB, 1036x691px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1036x691px

>>32797499
the t-14 turret is, must be, a provisional mock up. with all that exp from syria, nobody can hope to send such a thing into urban combat where literally buildings are coming down on tanks tearing ever piece of externally mounted equipment that's not 3 inch thick armoured steel to pieces. that would srsly fuck the APS ordnance up. everything you see on the turret is just sheet metal suposed to obfuscate the gun and pre-trigger HEAT charges. that's what I love about the abrams: it's glockish smooth surfaces. elegant and beautifully simple.

File: t-14 without turret covering (2).jpg (143KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1600x1066px

>>32797499
>>32797553
ITT dumbasses think casing is armour.

>>32797664
>ITT dumbasses think it isnt just ugly

>>32797664

Still a big target; gun and main sight are about a meter across.

Hit anywhere in that meter, and you've effectively killed the tank.

They should have put the sight on the top of the turret, and put the APS on the hull sides.

File: 1430794528001.jpg (1MB, 1306x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1306x2560px

>>32797664
>ITT dumbasses think casing is armour.
I just described >>32797553 the exact opposite....

otoh, it is (standoff) armour....

>>32797553
>send such a thing into urban combat
Don't you have a war to fight, Bashar?

>>32797823
ww2 tier tank battles ain't happening ever again. the natural habitat of the MBT in 2017 and onward is the city.

File: Puma Turret Sights 2.jpg (85KB, 1097x900px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1097x900px

>>32797553

Look at the Eurofaggot AFVs like the Puma or the newest Leopards.

The things are coated in delicate sensors and lenses that have the battlefield durability of a household toaster.

Look at this shit. All that shit is getting ripped off with the first mortar detonating within 20 feet.

>Eurofaggot weapons

>Ever

>>32797854
>the natural habitat of the MBT is the city.
enjoy getting Grozny'd dipshit

>>32797861
true. stuff should have at least 4 inch thick quick change LEXAN shields in front of it as well as APS quick reaction armored steel shutters.

>>32797279
That's a big tank

File: Sm3uJxT.jpg (953KB, 3430x2278px) Image search: [Google]

953KB, 3430x2278px

>>32797861
Lol.

>>32797398
>the point of a skirt is to be ballistic protective

Just like you were told the last time you posted that image, all of the tanks you are comparing to the Type 10 have just as thin a skirt at the rear.

File: 1481002888585.jpg (583KB, 1808x1000px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 1808x1000px

>>32797114
>The T-14 is actually very light for its size and alleged armour.

The size and weight make the armor claims suspect.

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

30KB, 636x453px

>>32798027

File: 2gt4rdl.jpg (55KB, 750x800px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 750x800px

>>32798173
soviet armour was always top notch, problem is, usually the tanks have less of their surface covered in it. t-72/90 turret armour is amazing - where it's present.

>>32798173
What are a bunch of guesses at protection levels supposed to imply?

>>32798282
the us tested the t-72 and shat bricks. it led to the introduction of segmented LRPs with the US.

>>32798282
That Soviet tanks have always had vastly superiour armour to weight rate.
>guesses
No need to be upset.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-01-28T02-19-03.167Z.png (145KB, 529x349px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 529x349px

>>32798218
It's just that a huge rectangular box isn't a very good shape for a turret. See the difference?

>>32798481
yes, t-90 tries to avoid hit with geometry. great idea but that doesn't always work out so well....

>>32798520
I mean it works out with having more safe turn angles at less weight expense which your picture kinda overlooks. It's not how much is covered with armour, it's how you shape it to be able to cover less.

>>32798481
It is a very good shape if you want to keep the ammunition out of the crew compartment.

>>32798559
It actually has less safe angles, as beyond a shallow frontal angle it has relatively thin steel for armor.

>>32795824
You do realize that infantry is the greatest threat to a modern tank?

>>32795240
I must admit, it is fucking hideous, unlike all the aesthetic T-series stuff that came before it

>>32799288
You realize that a minigun is a sub optimal weapon choice for dealing with infantry as a tank?

>>32797336
Because Westerners refuse to think war logically. They want to send the message to their people that the tank is invincible, so they toss in everything to make it as strong as possible, even if that means it's not air-mobile and unable to cross bridges. Russia had the right idea with 40-ton tanks, they don't pretend to be invincible, accept that losses happen, but make tanks they can afford to lose in enough numbers to win the battle.

>>32799317
You say that in a thread with the T-14 in the OP.

>>32799185
It's thin and penetrable on any tank, Russian turret just has better safety angles from the front and smaller silhouette from the sides.

File: 1396802173676.jpg (1008KB, 1200x933px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 1200x933px

>>32799317
That was old, tested and true Soviet era philosophy. Modern Russia being the disgrace it is throws all this out of the window and builds the biggest tank it can, tops it with everything they think is super modern and calls it a masterpiece.

File: HK416A5.jpg (757KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 1600x1200px

>>32799568
Fuck the Soviet, modern Russia can actually win war.

>>32799317
Yes being Air-Mobile is a nice side effect of being too poor to build proper tanks

>>32799590
Kuznetsov's wild ride says otherwise.

>>32799635
Who controls Aleppo? Say the line, cunt.

>>32799847
You mean whats left of it? Syria and Russian allies, not quite their finest hour though.

>>32799868
>what's left of it
Literally every wars ever.

>>32799868
Oh is that so? The government controls two largest Syrian cities. Terrorists control Idlib and a bunch of villages. Tell me again about how "Kuznetsov's wild ride says otherwise".

File: Kiev.jpg (2MB, 2359x2900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2359x2900px

>>32799898
Eh, I just thought it was a good example of how hard the Russian military has fallen. They used to operate their Kiev's all the time.

>>32799868
>not quite their finest hour though.

From a western perspective.

File: abrams_turret_armor_cavities.jpg (153KB, 1051x716px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1051x716px

>>32799543
>It's thin and penetrable on any tank
>It's thin

>>32799847
You actually think the Kuznetsov was a major factor?

>>32799931
So hard that it actually productively helps its ally to win a war. Please.
>They used to operate their Kiev's all the time.
That's because their Kievs didn't have to survive the dissolution of the country at the time they operated them.

>>32799931
Oh please, even the Soviet's navy wasn't impressive.

Russia has never been known for its navy.

But unlike the Soviet, modern Russia can actually win in conflict.

>>32799981
No, I actually think "Kuznetsov's wild ride" doesn't "say otherwise".

>>32799997
>Soviet's navy wasn't impressive
Bitch, please. Having the second largest navy in the world is not unimpressive.

>>32799966
Welcome to the real world, where even shitty 70s RPG-7 grenades can penetrate that side armour.

>>32800043
>RPG-7

Except they can't.

>>32799315
Out of curiosity what is the right choice

>>32799981
No, I just think it sums up whats wrong with the Russian military. Disregard for what worked in the past while simultaneously being dependent on old equipment.

>>32799997
Second largest navy in the world that was fully capable of accomplishing the tasks it was entrusted. Maintaining deterrence through SSBNs, keep NATO naval assets away from strategic assets up north, be able to fight a defensive naval war. Was surprisingly innovative considering the resources they had.

Sure it was loosing its footing during the latter half of the 80's but that was just the way the cold war was going.

Also the modern Russian army is a joke compared to what it once was. Win a conflict, what a joke! You can't lose against these guys in Syria if you've got any air force at all. And what do you know? They're using old Soviet planes for it.

>>32800103
Autocannons and grenade launchers, you can make better use of the stability a tank offers.

>>32800070
1972 PG-7VS - 400 mm, 1977 PG-7VL - 500 mm, 1988 PG-7VR - 650 mm behind ERA. Yes they very much easily can. And that's a dirt cheap hand-held weapon any towelhead squad has.

>>32800104
>They're using old Soviet planes for it.
Everyone is using old planes. The US uses B fucking 52, so what.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-01-28T05-26-19.527Z.png (328KB, 588x455px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 588x455px

>>32800070
Also, Abrams' roof is a fucking joke. You think T-80 preformed badly when sent into a city with a towelhead carrying RPG-7 on every roof and woth no infantry support? M1 with its paper thing glacis and roof would've been annihilated in such a situation.

>All these Tankfags stuck in mid 20th century ideas.
>Not realizing that cheap drones will blot out the sun and either drop tank-busting munitions or be themselves a guided drone bomb.
>This isn't even mentioning aircraft that can kill a tank without the tank ever even knowing it's there. It's comfy blowing up tanks at 30,000+ feet.

Tanks are shit. Take that to heart. Especially you Russia fellating circle-jerkers. It's giant Jabba the Hutt T-14 is just a fat target. You are delusional if you think this "supertank" isn't extremely vulnerable to cheap drones and sand niggers with hand held rockets.

File: 2k22 tunguska-m1.jpg (146KB, 1194x820px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1194x820px

>>32800236
>M-muh drones

>>32800103
Katanas mounted on the tip of the cannon like a tank bayonet.

File: this havoc is so fierce it has a bayonet on its cannon.jpg (923KB, 1200x908px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 1200x908px

>>32800266
Helicopter cannon bayonets are cooler.

>>32800161
The issue is most of the aircraft haven't been changed and are dropping unguided iron bombs. Essentially running aircraft the same way they would have thirty years ago in the same configurations since when they were made.

>>32800137
So the 1988 version, which isn't a 70's grenade, might have the penetration to get through older variations of Abrams turret side armor.

>>32800204
Thankfully the American's aren't retards and actually know how to clear urban centers, like they did in Fallujah.

If the Soviet Union or Russia actually developed a top attack missile you might have seen thicker roof armor on Western tanks.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-01-28T05-38-13.298Z.png (222KB, 1703x890px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1703x890px

>>32800280
Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>32800287
No, so 1972 version, by a margin.
>If the Soviet Union or Russia actually developed a top attack missile
So pretty much any helicopter launched ATGM. The issue with western tanks is that they are glorified self-propelled tank destroyers for Fulda Gap scenario.

>>32800305
All those Su-24s and 25s.

>>32800370
>Su-24 and Su-25
>"Most"
So are you?

>>32800323
>No, so 1972 version, by a margin.

Protip, line of sight thickness is not a measure of tank armor effectiveness. Nor do tanks have a meter or more of armor on the turret face.

>So pretty much any helicopter launched ATGM.

Oh, you are just pretending to be stupid. Carry on then.

>>32800305
I see a lot of unguided bombs listed there.

>>32800389
Protip: either bring in solid numbers to base your argument on or quit implying implications and shitposting. Carry this sage.

>>32800401
The only unguided ammunition there are the first four aerial bombs listed. And it;s not like they just throw then around, there's SVP-24 guidance system.

File: 154135345235.png (13KB, 126x491px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 126x491px

>>32800305
In terms of CAS it looks like only about a third are anywhere close to modern.

>>32800452
Quit shifting goalposts, please, this is just pathetic. Should I remind you Americans use A-10, B-52 and B-1B for CAS? Everyone is using old planes. Stop being retarded.

Towards the end of the war, Russian tanks would find it better to just lob HE rounds at enemy tanks as while their AP rounds (even 3BM-46) were useless against NATO MBTs, HE rounds could still have a chance of mobility or mission killing the enemy tank.

High arc of HE rounds at range also allows them to hurt top armor of the tanks. I for one don't like having only 50mm of steel between me and a 125mm HE-FRAG explosion.

>>32800445
SVP-24 is just CCRP bombing equipment, the Russians like to say its as good as GPS or laser guided but it isn't.

>>32800577
>SVP-24 is just CCRP bombing equipment
No, it is not, since it's a fully automatic system that completely removes human errors, while CCRP is ancient and requires the pilot to actually aim into the target.

>>32800591
Can't find any reliable numbers on it. A lot of sensationalism though, sounds interesting none the less. One article claimed it was even more accurate than guided munitions.

>>32800591
>completely removes human errors
It doesn't remove the human error of crawling into a flying coffin called "Russian aircraft".

>>32800686
>One article claimed it was even more accurate than guided munitions.
That's bullshit. There's nothing super sensational about it, it just makes dropping dumb bombs more precise and is much more cost effective than JDAM.

>>32800828
The articles were sensational, I just thought the system sounded interesting.

File: su-34 (14).jpg (83KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1500x1013px

>>32800782
It does however completely eradicate the human errors that still for whatever reason appear to carry their futile fight in the shadow their wings.

>>32795072
(You)
Don't you guys get it, american pretends to be vatnik, shilling t-14 just to get (you)
How did this thread even get 117 replies

>>32800577
>the Russians like to say its as good as GPS or laser guided but it isn't.

you're dropping the bomb through the air where wind speed varies by altitude. theres no way a bombing computer, no matter how advanced, can perform as good as a GPS or laser bomb that can correct its fall after being released

>>32800591
No, it is not, since it's a fully automatic system that completely removes human errors, while CCRP is ancient and requires the pilot to actually aim into the target.

even if it is human error-free, its still a CCRP.

>>32801184
dammit
>>32800577
>the Russians like to say its as good as GPS or laser guided but it isn't.

you're dropping the bomb through the air where wind speed varies by altitude. theres no way a bombing computer, no matter how advanced, can perform as good as a GPS or laser bomb that can correct its fall after being released

>>32800591
>No, it is not, since it's a fully automatic system that completely removes human errors, while CCRP is ancient and requires the pilot to actually aim into the target.

even if it is human error-free, its still a CCRP.

>>32799997
she can't beat even lame 300 million budget ukr army

>>32799898
Kuznetsov's wild ride says otherwise

>I'm fighting the vatniks by acting like a vatnik!
Why do people do this?
Armata is the best tank today, at least on paper.
It will enter service in big numbers and it will most probably work as designed.
It's a rather innovative project.
Not liking Russia is not really a reason to act like a total imbecile.

>>32801691
>Supplying 3.5 tanks and 1.5 APCs to rebels can't beat even lame 300 million budget ukr army
If it could it would deem ukr army more useless than even barefooted towelheads.

>>32801691
Yeah that's why Donbass is now under Ukrainian control.
Oh wait, it's not, and Putin achieved his goal in Ukraine.

>>32801946
UA is full of incompetent cadre and even Russian agents.
But in any case, Putin got what he wanted.
Just ignore retards like that, I swear it's one guy posting same shit over and over.

>>32801196
Claiming it's as good as JDAM is retarded, because it obviously is not. It is still good enough to make sure every time you drop a handful of piss cheap FAB-250 they hit the target. It's not something new or extraordinary, they had computers that could fully automatically throw bombs into a 900x900 m square from 22 km at Mach 2 in the 1970 not requiring any human interaction.

File: 142874047.jpg (139KB, 807x605px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 807x605px

>>32795072
>Lets have a thread to celebrate the most advanced and powerful tank ever invented.
Wrong tank m8.

>>32801985

Turret doesn't really look thick enough.

M1 Thumper with 140mm would probably be the best.

>>32800204
>>32800287
>city with a towelhead carrying RPG-7
More dangerous threat is not towelheads but steel rain.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russias-superior-new-weapons/2016/08/05/e86334ec-08c5-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html?postshare=5281470930714055&tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.80d3c328e787

>>32801954
>Putin got what he wanted
On a sidenote, I sincerely doubt this Novorossia stuff is in Russia's interest. They kinda got trapped with it. Not supporting it at least verbally would make worse ideological impact than doing nothing but an airborne mission to Yugoslavia. Supporting it would lead to direct confrontation with Ukraine. So they are now stuck with helping them here and there and hoping it all resolves by itself or gets forgotten as a frozen conflict no one cares about anymore.

>>32800591
>i don't know what CCRP is

>>32801985
You do realise this is basically just beta version of T-14, right?

>>32801976
>Claiming it's as good as JDAM is retarded
No its not for Russina (((precision))) munitions. Their GPS aided bombs have 30 meters CEP so unguided bombs could be quite comparable. 90 meters CEP is only 3 times more.

>>32802003
Putin wanted a frozen conflict.
Bonus was the fact he sent all the trash there to die, so they don't bother him at home.
It was an adequate geopolitical move to counter Western meddling in Ukraine.

>>32801998
>Two-thirds of Vladimir Putin’s 800,000 soldiers are one-year conscripts
>2016
It's was less than a half by the end of 2015 or so.

>>32802009

Looks like they figured that all or nothing was a much better approach to the turret, and I agree, so the production went with a light turret.

>>32802018
>Their GPS aided bombs have 30 meters CEP
As claimed by a CNN analysis? Bitch, blease.

>>32802009
T-14 is a different tank, only common thing is layout.

>>32802048

Hull looks similar.

I wouldn't be surprised if the hulls between the 2 are pretty close.

>>32802048
Hence I said beta, not prototype. There's not a single way 195 is better than T-14. The latter is simply more mature design.

>>32800524
wimp

>>32802063

It, the T-95, doesn't have 152mm?

I always thought it did.

>>32802063
>There's not a single way 195 is better than T-14.
>152mm gun
>30mm coax
>radar aided FCS
>*it is not even my final form*: nuclear round

>>32802097
152 mm is a complete overkill and hinders the amount of ammunition.
>>32802102
Incarnation of inefficient Soviet WWIII La Mancheism.

>>32802102
>radar aided FCS
>HARM's become ATGM's

>>32802129
>152 mm is a complete overkill
No it is not. It forces opponent to "lose-lose situation":
1. Try to counter 152 round with armor and end up with 100+ tons Mouse tanks .
2. Accept inability to protect AFVs from such threat and end up with Leopard 1 concept "tank protected from small arms only".
Object 195 is OP and has no counters.

>>32802161
>A P S
>P
>S

>>32802164
152 mm is enough to blow Abrams turret off its ring. Modern 125 mm ammunition is good enough for every single threat the tank is to face in next couple decades. Object 195 is the same as XB-70. It looks cool and dandy. But in reality it is inefficient.

File: m1a2_abrams.jpg (28KB, 600x356px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x356px

Still the best looking tank around and has actually seen real combat unlike any of the other shit tanks in this thread

>>32802186
>real combat
>vs apes manning ancient T-72s firing training rounds and civilians firing old RPGs

File: object 640 (1).jpg (112KB, 1061x669px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1061x669px

>>32802186
>Rectangular barn
>the best looking tank around
Please. Learn to aesthetics.

File: Abrams_in_formation.jpg (164KB, 780x585px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 780x585px

>>32802187

still better then everybody else though

>>32802164
Yes, it is.

Current ammo kills tanks just fine. You are cutting your ammo in half for nothing.

>>32802164
>has no counters

Here's your problem. Combat doesn't work like this.

File: Challenger 2 BATUS.jpg (175KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1024x768px

>>32797398
>japan need their tank to be light because of terrain so might as well remove them to save some kilos ...


Bullshit

>>32802167
>huh... one didn't work...
>better ripple fire 3 for good measure

>>32802230
well they are a defense force, they built it to be fighting on their terms on their land, which can mean they want it to be as efficient as possible in combat and logistics

>>32802247

The British and the Japanese don't use ballistic side-skirts during peacetime.

>>32799847
SAA?
You think Russia's tugboat hand any impact on that?
They might has well have just flown the fucking jets there, would have lost less

>>32800494
>Americans use A-10
Do they though, do they really?

>>32801939
>On paper
Oh boy

File: m1-sp-ar-05.png (212KB, 816x658px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 816x658px

>>32798173
>M1, 54 tonnes: 350-470 mm vs APFSDS

BS
⩽350
not more

>>32802363
>M1A1 initial armour package.
you've basically grabbed the initial production vehicle and gone "look they're all shit, armour never changes!"

>>32802375
we talking about base M1
in anons list there different lines for M1 and M1A1
you moron

File: 1471242329577.jpg (576KB, 2552x2180px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 2552x2180px

>>32802375
hurr durr m1a1 is not the same!
ooouh yeah

>>32795524
As someone who have driven one, and currently struggling through mech.engineering, nah.

>>32795824
It's a cannon with a fluted barrel you autismal fuck.

>>32802412
M1A1 HA is where shit got real anon.

File: 1330133757212.jpg (28KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 251x242px

>>32801939
>It will enter service in big numbers

File: Armata Thread Bingo.png (245KB, 1380x1600px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1380x1600px

>>32795072
its that time again

File: image.png (595KB, 886x763px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 886x763px

>>32802588
>vatniks got so mad they made a shitty bingo with memes they made and false flag with

I love it. You can't get more BTFO than this

File: tttt.jpg (21KB, 489x333px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 489x333px

>>32795072
nevah been dun befoe

>>32795072
im celebrating

>>32795230
if I am not mistaken the bottom part if a turret looks like a shell trap

>>32802628
crap let me correct that wrong words. that shell trap of the bottom turret looks danger in design

File: 11118.jpg (80KB, 735x490px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 735x490px

>>32802641
>>32802628
every turret ring is by nature a shot trap. in that example it's minimal though. apfsds rounds don't skid off though and the idea of shot traps plays no major role in tanks design today. pic related, massive shot trap in the same general area.

>>32802791
that pic
>"crows is too tall and bulky silly americans"

>>32802938
it uses the AA gun to stop jihadis from grozny-ing you from buildings. not that bad an idea for low intensity urban conflicts in the cat shit box.

>>32795072
>builds new tonk
>"hurr, our tonk bestest, 100000 mm armor, 100000000 mm penetration of our refurbished cold war gun!!!"
>don't shiw any pictures of new ammunition, no demonstration of capability to fire on the move or even any kind of stabilizer
>produce a token dozen new tanks, give to some propaganda unit to drive on parades
>start to quietly upgrade fucking T-80s and T-90s in greater numbers and hope no one will notice
GG russia, you sure got the world scared by your fancy new potemkin tank.

File: armata-oil.jpg (34KB, 599x398px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 599x398px

>>32795072

File: object 477 (1).jpg (140KB, 807x605px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 807x605px

>>32802605
>nevah been dun befoe
Did TTB even fire a single round?

File: t-14 (14).jpg (395KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1920x1080px

>>32803135
>stabilizer
We meed again, retard. Good that I bookmarked the video and don't have to look for it for minutest to rekt the shit out of you yet again.
http://hlamer.ru/video/666214-Tank_T-14_Armata

File: 1449871677001.jpg (101KB, 959x854px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 959x854px

>>32803193
>misses the center by 20cm when 50meter away
I cant stop laughing.

>>32803313
>Shitty editing
It's a different target, idiot, you can see it from the one on the screen having a black mark at the bottom right quarter.

>>32803170
The gun was fired hundreds of times in testing to prove reliability.

>>32803515
Are there any good documentaries I could check out?

>>32802377

can an annon explain how this armor works?

File: you seem upset.jpg (42KB, 586x334px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 586x334px

>>32803370
>it-it-it's just bad editing!

>>32804881
Plotwist: It is edited, that was the best shot they made on a 50m target all day long.

>>32804866
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html

>>32805329
>http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html

Thanks ma, nigga

File: Scots_DG_and_Challenger_2_MOD_45150506.jpg (807KB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 4288x2848px

*blocks your way*

>>32805099
It was also the second tank they'd used that day, the first one exploded.

>>32804866
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/TB611523.pdf
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/terrorism_and_pyrotechnics/explosives/Shaped_Charges_Penetrators/Disturbance%20of%20Shaped%20Charge%20Jets%20by%20Bulging%20Armour.pdf

>>32797891
You wouldn't be able to see through Lexan with a thermal viewer.

File: wjG8Do8.jpg (89KB, 640x479px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 640x479px

>>32806033

>>32797861
Don't really clear what yellow squares x20 times larger than sight apertures should represent.

File: 1393972734207.jpg (526KB, 692x960px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 692x960px

>>32806033
*liberates you from the rule of the britbong*
You are free now. Thank me later.

>>32800591
So it still works even if the pilots hands have rotted off due to krokodil use? Maybe Russia is adapting.

File: mi-24p good morning russia.jpg (921KB, 1500x1076px) Image search: [Google]

921KB, 1500x1076px

>>32807173
Yes indeed, even krokodil infested junkies can remove terrorist allies of the US. I think you will need to try harder.

>>32807970
Sorry, busy actually bombing isis.

File: aleppo-liberated.jpg (638KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 1280x720px

>>32807992
Sorry, busy actually winning the war bombing your terrorist allies.

>>32800445
>SVP-24

Something still in very limited use, but at least it is a thing now.

>>32808096
Remember when vatniks proclaimed Russia did more to stop ISIS in a week of bombing than the West did in a year?

Good times.

>>32808133
Remember when Russia helped its ally to liberate Aleppo from terrorist American allies? Good times.

>>32808133
This
And then we watched how they basically ignored ISIS, and how their carrier which was going to syria "any second now" for over a half year was to be found out to be practically useless. At least russians will have to deal with the fallout for a change now, even Iran isnt so stupid to claim responsibility.

>>32795386
>Crew 4 men
Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

>>32797279
t90 is a sexy little beast

>>32795386

if something goes wrong, leo-2a7 it's not a fighting machine, it`s a mass grave. additional armor on the turret does not give the driver to use his hatch. 3 members of the crew must leave the tank through only one hatch. it`s