Meme tank or actually pretty good?

I don't think its ever seen combat and I've never seen reliability stats. It looks cool, though.

Nobody know.

>>33004640
stats are totally generic modern mbt

Autoloader makes it a meme
Another failure point but otherwise its a good tank

>>33005079
autoloaders are the future deal with it only the usa still uses niggerloader

File: t72_l1.jpg (154KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x533px

>>33004640
This kills the K2.

>>33005079
This thing has a leclerc sytle loader. Its not one o those retarded russian frying pan cooker designs.

That's the K2, right?
>Autoloading western 120mm
>millimeter band radar for ADS
>more importantly, the radar is hooked into the FIRE CONTROLS (JESUS HOW DID IT TAKE THIS LONG FOR SOMEONE TO THINK OF THIS)
>has ADS at all
>armor at least as effective as M1A1
>LSAT
It's what a 21st century tank is supposed to be.

>>33005079
This thing's autoloader is 3 seconds guaranteed reload under any circumstances. It's hardly a meme.
>muh niggerloader

>>33005396
Can it change a track?

The problem with the autoloader is that you lose a man to do shit OUTSIDE of combat.

>>33005411
There are tons of personnels that are not tankers that can help with that shit outside of combat.
The French pair each of their Leclerc with a recon vehicle, for example. Ta-da, you have all the manpower you'll need to do maintenance shit.
This is a non-issue.

>>33005432
Okay
But for armies that actually matter, having a truck full of panzerhelfers is correctly considered to be extremely silly.
>but the frogs do it this way
That is generally not a good argument when trying to convince people that something is a good idea.

>>33005466
>having a truck full of panzerhelfers follow around every single tank platoon is correctly
I accidentally half that sentence.

>>33005411
There was even a concept to integrate an autoloader on the Abrahams, and let the loader do something else.

Autoloaders doesnt force you to have less crewmembers, they just make one redundant, and If 4 crewmembers was a must, then tanks with autoloaders would gave kept them.

>>33005466
>>33005476
>I deploy my tanks in separate battalions without support

Enjoy getting Btfo by Israel.

>>33005481
On the flipside, ask any Russian tank crew how they feel about only having three people for all crew tasks, two when the commander has to fuck off to receive orders.

>>33005466
That must be why the US army has the highest ratio of support personnel of any army in the world.
Oh and of course tanks are employed alone.

>>33005509
Their tanks is built to be crewed by monkeys and is much smaller and lighter. If it would be so terrible then the would probably have stopped doing it by now.

File: AA4672A8-1CB4-4435-8F6A-36D98F902161_zpsv7ojdyzs.jpg~original.jpg (265KB, 1014x610px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1014x610px

>>33004640
>Basically a Leclerc copy
>but shitty acceleration
>with poor side turret armor

>>33005094
>only the usa still uses niggerloader

I guess Britain, Germany, Italy and Israel just threw away all of their tanks.

>>33005094

>posted as my peasant arm was ripped off by hungry autoloaders blyat.

File: 11416377_1684934818428958_4842523660829754183_o.jpg (105KB, 1444x694px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1444x694px

>>33005604

All of these MBT are 1970s design.

>>33005660
if the autoloader still requires you to manually feed rounds into it, its probably not actually an autoloader

>>33005550
Crew comfort and effort was never a Russian requirement. You can service a tank with three men. Nobody will tell you it's a good idea.

>>33005587
>Leclerc copy
In what fucking way
It's an overgrown K1 with a ton of radars and an ADS

>>33005587

>LeClerc
>Not having poor side armor
Honhonohh I made myself sad.

>>33005360
Russia and the US had proposed systems linking the FCS to sensors before the slants got on it
Slants benefit from right timeframe to introduce it without having a multi-million dollar update on each tank.

>>33005875
>LeClerc
Out out out.

>>33005852
>In what fucking way

The whole turret design including the layout and the autoloader.

File: Leclerc SXII turret armor layout.jpg (956KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 3264x2448px

>>33005875
>>Not having poor side armor

300 mm thick side turret composite armor isn't enough for you ?

File: ff.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

What do you think about its slightly larger knockoff without the autoloader?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6WYXIcHK0M

File: The engine will be the main stumbling stone .jpg (3MB, 2340x4160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2340x4160px

>>33006011
I fear they will not get a lot of value for the money they are spending.
In the end this will cost way above 10 million $
per tank if they really procure it.
And i guess the purges in the military and
more important the economic nepotism of erdogan and his bazaar-mechant entourage will cause some type of major league fuck-up.
It will fail for economic/political reasons.
The tank itself is fine.

>>33006011

Why is it larger if it is crewed by trained cockroaches?

>>33007325
>Why is it larger if it is crewed by trained cockroaches?
Please copy the contents of the post, open a new thread on /pol/ and add your comments over there as you would've known you were supposed to had you read the rules and stuff.

>>33005971

Once you account for the internal volume and not cherrypicking the inert area's thickness away from critical points, no it's not very strong side armor at all...even by side armor standards.

Leclerc has much bigger problems on the front anyway. The mantlet is a critical weakpoint, with an enormous centre portion with barely any protection compared to other modern vehicles. Giant non-composite area surrounding the gun, with another 'through armor' weakpoint just beside it on the sights.

Its frontal turret has its strong points, but it has large weak areas and is generally very inconsistent on all sides. Not to mention is stores its ammunition in one of the worst places imaginable in the very front of the tank, right in harms way.

>>33006712
I thought it had already gotten accepted and were under trials. What's the deal with the price?

>>33007576
http://www.janes.com/article/67104/turkey-s-altay-mbt-project-hit-by-engine-technology-transfer-issues

They don´t have an engine yet.
This will cause delays increase costs if it
enters service they will find that whatever solution they came up with was not sufficient
so they have to fix it then.
The Koreans have the similar problems
with the K2 and the K9.
If this was an easy thing to do many nations would pull it off.
The first 250-500 tanks will be extremly expensive because thay are low volume.
They need those exports to make it affordable
to themselves.
The F-35 did not die because they can export it
and the US can afford to absorb those types of losses.
The outcome of this project will be determined
by the development of the turkish economy in the next few years.
If they cut the military budget or the major contractors have political trouble with erdogan
it could be the end for the Altay.
Currently it is a very advanced dream.
4 prototypes is not the same as being in production or have signed contracts for export.

>>33007802
Interesting, thanks.

I thought the government was planning a total of 1000 I didn't think it was that crucial for them to be able to export it, but it seems so. Regardless I don't think they will scrap the project though, because Turkey doesn't have a modern MBT as far as I know. They have modernized M60s, Leo 1s and regular Leo2a4s. I guess the cheapest way would be modernizing Leo2s using local resources.

>>33005079
>another bootyblasted burger
Mark me surprised.

File: 26NeG0P.jpg (193KB, 640x465px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 640x465px

>>33005079

>Defends the Negro loader

Guess how I know you're an Americlap?

>>33005411

Why do you idiots who have no idea about anything, hear a meme on 4chan, then repeat the meme?

Downright bovine.

File: 1478575579001.jpg (12KB, 236x278px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x278px

>>33005604

How about show me a tank that isn't at least 40 years old that still uses a manual Negroloader?

File: DgDClAU.jpg (312KB, 1642x1141px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1642x1141px

>>33008161

File: 1454193271370.jpg (205KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1500x1125px

>>33005971
>huge mantlet
>square tunnel for the gun has minimal armor down the sides

>>33005971

Non. It's been one of the biggest concerns for the Frenchs modernization program of it.

It's RHAe equivilance was estimated at about 700-800mm-Perfectly penetrable by modern infantry AT projectors like the RPG-7s tandem Heat warhead.

That said though it's still a cracking good tank honestly.

File: IMG_8485.jpg (105KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x532px

>>33008161

>>33005667
Co-evolution.

File: Turkroach_8b444a_5943210.jpg (109KB, 900x739px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 900x739px

>>33007533
No one cares what you have to say Mehmet.

>>33008676
As an insider, do you know when the /pol/ leakage will end? I thought with elections over it would've ended by now, but I guess you guys are more insecure than that so you are seeking validation even more.

>>33005079
>tank has 3 tons of electronics and wiring
>add another couple hundred lbs of the same and suddenly it's an unreliable piece of shit with a "failure point"

Makes perfect sense.

>>33008042
In the short to medium term yes.
But Turks have a lot of national pride so from
the perspective of the government it is also
something to show to the people.
The Altay is an economic venture and a
potential domestic propaganda succes
not a military necessity.
Turns out the so called modern battlefield
is blowing up some jihadists in the desert from your chair 10000 miles away
or some slavs using up neverending coldwar milsurp and not classic nation state wars
which would be won by industrial output capacity.

All tanks are meme tanks until they've been successful in combat.

>>33008917
A tank force that succesfully deters an enemy
until it becomes obsolete is a meme to you?

>>33008997
The K2 wasn't introduced until quite recently though.

>>33009045
That was meant for the all tanks part.
I dont think the K1 has seen a lot of combat either.
Or those Japanese Tanks.
Or any up to date Leopards.
Or most of the military equipment that is build
nowadays.
A lot of value for many weapons comes from
the ability to deter conflicts which is higher
when you dont use them.
Like when best corea shells worst corea and
now for a fact that the K9 is a paper tiger.

>>33009192
Leopard 2's have most definitely seen combat.

>>33004640
Leclarc is better

>>33009218
Up to date Leopards in their intended role?
Not just alibi political presence for OTAN in some -stan.
I would love to know about that because i was
quite sure that was not the case.

>>33009308
Turkey used 2A4's in Syria, some of which were destroyed by anti tank missiles.

>>33009308
>Up to date Leopards in their intended role?
Define this please? You mean Leo2a6 which only has applique armor that would help against an ATGM.

Also what do you mean by their intended role? You mean the meme started here "hurr durr they're using tanks as pillboxes"? Have you seen where Turkish Leos got hit? Inside fortified positions where they were parked or during low intensity conflict. You're going to share the pictures of the ones that were destroyed on the road but there's enough reasons to doubt that those were actually abandoned and destroyed by airforce. So tell me what is their intended role? Move around for no reason 24/7? Because you also need to keep in mind not all of the ATGM engagements occur during active fighting and it's near impossible to see 2 dudes in desert that are 2+ kms away from your position through a tank's optics.

Yes you watched a lot of ATGM videos and you want to feel like if it was another army they wouldn't have gotten shot. Feel whatever you wish but it doesn't change the fact that tank's survivability is measured after all the other methods of defense against ATGMs fails and it gets shot anyway.

>>33009452
>Define this please? You mean Leo2a6 which only has applique armor that would help against an ATGM.
Let me correct this, side turret applique armor is pretty small compared to front.

File: pnk-4.jpg (32KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 604x453px

>>33009452
I was not aware of the fact that Turkey had sent leopard
tanks to syria and that they got fucked up.
And if the information you can get from the net
is correct no current tank would have done better under those circumstances.
And with intended role i mean concept wise
for the specific tank not tanks in general.
There is no use in comparing lets say the
specific characteristics of the s-tank with a tank
that had to fullfill different requirements.
I think for example the T-80 is shit not because
of Grozny but because of the T-72.
It has no real reason to exist.
In fact i am not sure if any vehicle that can be
called a MBT is sensible for that type of conflict

>>33004640
I got to see some in action at Yakima Training Center a few years ago. They were pretty badass.

But I'm intel, not a tanker, so I don't know how they stack up to an Abrams.

>>33005079
Murican here, autoloaders are the future. You're an embarrassment to our country for still supporting niggerloaders.

>>33005079
I'm offended, they're African-American loaders

>Be Abrahams
>Have 4 people
>Get hit with Kornet
>4 Dead Americans

>Be T-64
>Have 3 Syrians
>Get hit with Kornet
>3 Dead Syrians

>>33005106
>T-72
>killing anything other than its own crew

>>33006011
Altay doesn't have a autoloader

>>33012252
That lack of reading comprehension.

>>33005432
>There are tons of personnels that are not tankers that can help with that shit outside of combat.

Tons of people that probably aren't where tank is when it needs that help.

>>33012476
>VBL crews of the same platoon and maintenance team aren't where the tank needs help...
You're a retard.

https://youtu.be/Wluyo9M6ezU

>>33005509
Most manually intensive jobs you can simply get a bunch of guys from other tanks, or units you know.

>two when the commander has to fuck off to receive orders.
what kind of cretin are your commanders that they have to be out for an appreciable amount of time to receive their orders?

>>33005548
>That must be why the US army has the highest ratio of support personnel of any army in the world.
Its because its an expeditionary force primarily. A lot of the tail gets shaved when you are fighting just within 1000 km of your borders with land based communication all throughout.

>>33005838
>Crew comfort and effort was never a Russian requirement. You can service a tank with three men. Nobody will tell you it's a good idea.
Any gunner in the Abrams would vehemently disagree. And again, and again, there are a lot of extra hands to assist with maintenance.

>>33008869
>is blowing up some jihadists in the desert from your chair 10000 miles away
great for relieving the blood pressure, but does jack for winning wars.

>or some slavs using up neverending coldwar milsurp
most military equipment actually dates back to the cold war era.

>and not classic nation state wars
>which would be won by industrial output capacity.
But they all are. None of the wars of the last 30 years were fought with even a tiny fraction of the industrial output nation states put out against peers. Even the Soviet war in Afghanistan which is looked as their Vietnam didn't involve much more than the 40th Motorized Army for the bulk of the 9 years spent- and they have tens of those. It really speaks a lot to the fact that these foreign adventures are nothing more than that that there isn't much pressure to do more and a lot of pressure not to proceed when it gets funny.

File: 12511776_10153802064928187_263261098_n.jpg (6KB, 160x120px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 160x120px

>>33008340
>>33007544
>Once you account for the internal volume and not cherrypicking the inert area's thickness away from critical points, no it's not very strong side armor at all...even by side armor standards.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

>Leclerc has much bigger problems on the front anyway. The mantlet is a critical weakpoint, with an enormous centre portion with barely any protection compared to other modern vehicles. Giant non-composite area surrounding the gun, with another 'through armor' weakpoint just beside it on the sights.

Firstly, this isn't a mantlet, this is a composite gun shield, secondly, there are actually many other things behind.


>Not to mention is stores its ammunition in one of the worst places imaginable in the very front of the tank, right in harms way.

Stil much better than hull-mounted "winerack" of the Leopard 2.

>>33012809
>what kind of cretin are your commanders that they have to be out for an appreciable amount of time to receive their orders?
Right, because the TC gets a say about how long his PL will take to give out his orders ?
Or for that matter, because the PL gets a say about how long his CO will take to give out his orders ?

File: 1475502848555.gif (2MB, 278x342px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 278x342px

>>33005106
>T-72
>not a bunch of cheap T-55 copies

>>33015969

>Can't actually counter the arguement
>Just cries "Y-you don't understand!" instead

>Stil much better than hull-mounted "winerack" of the Leopard 2.

It's pretty much exactly the same. If it's any less, then it's like asking if getting shot in the head is worse than being shot in the heart. It's a retarded storage spot.

>>33015969
>Firstly, this isn't a mantlet, this is a composite gun shield, secondly, there are actually many other things behind.

Calling it a gun shield instead of a mantlet does not change how massive it is compared to it's contemporaries, nor does it change the fact that the protection there is significantly less than the rest of the turret face.

>>33005079
You can't fit human loader in K-2.

File: p1060317.jpg (204KB, 1824x1368px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1824x1368px

>>33005971
>composite armor

>>33018207
>>33019430
The gun mantlet is an assembly. The gunshield is mounted on the gun and act as pre armor (just like the three first skirt elements).
Regarding its thickness/efficiency, I won't comment on that. It is still a controversial thing.

>same as leopard 2 winerack
I don't think they've put a fuel cell around their ammo rack to maximize the protection.
Talking about the hull rack on the Leclerc is no longer relevant, the tank just rely on the ammo in the autoloader.

>>33021291
>Inbred talking armor and showing tool storages...

>>33005411
Not this again. If having an extra crewman was that important tanks would still have hull-mounted MG like in WW2

File: nigger loader.jpg (241KB, 1280x833px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1280x833px

>>33005079
>t.Nigger loader
Here, you forgot your signature.

>>33009810
seriously, no one is going to read your shitty structured sentences

next time, try not to type like a potato

File: 1442967334092.jpg (179KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 800x600px

>>33021291
this is a Le clerc turret without the storage box

>>33021291

the composite armor is the white bit in >>33026248

File: 6HbQSlr.jpg (184KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 800x600px

>>33026261

There are also different armor layouts depending on what version of Leclerc it is. The newer ones have thinner or no storage boxes and more armor...the same evolution that most tanks go through.

Here's another pic for people to argue about.

File: file.png (315KB, 895x640px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 895x640px

>>33026261
some what design similar to the leopard 2

M1 have a much better protected turret
only after the T-90A welded turret
the new T-90SM turret is shit

>>33026300
>some what design similar to the leopard 2

Yeah, they're all pretty similar at this point.

>>33026248
Without storage boxes AND turret bustle modules.

>>33026261
Carefull about what you mean with composite.
In french, composite, means "made of multiple materials"
If you are refering to the module as composite, you are right; it is indeed made of multiple materials.
If you are refering to the grayish part as composite material you are wrong.

>>33026295
What the hell you are talking about...
Series 1 & 2 have exactely the same storage boxes, the frontal one is just offset forward...
With the Serie 21, the boxe is shaped to fit the added armor but it is not tinier than the previous series.

>>33026300
No anon, the armor modules of the bustle have been removed...

File: 1429441910886.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>33026335
i don't understand
why wounldn't they add some extra armor around the autoloader?

File: 1448228215705.jpg (2MB, 3760x2502px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3760x2502px

>>33026379
>the armor modules of the bustle have been removed...
oh, thank

>>33026383
>why wounldn't they add some extra armor around the autoloader?

Because the autoloader is already behind the strongest part of the turret.

>>33026379
>In french, composite, means "made of multiple materials"

Um, that's what it means in English too.

>If you are refering to the grayish part as composite material you are wrong.

I'm just saying that's where the composite armor is located.

Let me guess - English isn't your first language?

>>33026453
>Not native english speaker
Correct.
On some military forums I encounter some people who consider "composite" as non metallic materials...

File: 2e4e6764.jpg (94KB, 1122x695px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1122x695px

>>33026391
Here a screengrab of a turret without storage boxes at all

>>33026469

Are you French? You seem to have a boner for the Leclerc.

>I encounter some people who consider "composite" as non metallic materials...

Are there composite armor packages that do not contain non-metallic materials? I was under the impression that all do.

>>33026552
>French
Yup! I indeed got a boner for the Leclerc (it is the one that clicked me into this addiction. I will never forget this day during the international fair of Metz in 1998 where the tank made a neutral pivot with its gun stabilized.)

>composite
AFAIK, most composite rely on ceramics and resines. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are some variation with mixes of ceramics and metallic powders.

>>33026597
>I indeed got a boner for the Leclerc

Me too. I'm an American, though. I just think it's a really interesting tank.

Do you know about Frenchfag?

>>33026606
Well, every tank is interesting per say. They answer more or less differently to different military requirements. You can clearly see some having some co-evolutions without having technological filiation.

Regarding FF, I just know him through his posts on /k/. I see that he is passionnated and that's a good stuff.

>>33026248
Oh my, now that's an oldie, it doesn't even have the AC. This version is not in service anymore FYI.

>>33026383
As with all tanks, most of the armour is found in the front of the turret, front of the chassis, and the foresides of both. Basically, where it is most probable to be hit.

>>33023089
Well obvisouly with the rack empty that's a huge blowing-up risk removed, but I feel it still is a point of weakness.

>>33028250
Yup, the first S1 (with the SYREF) not OPS (no addon armor for the TC) that were scrapped.