Where are other nations response to the T-14 Armata?

>>33190388
no because m829a3/a4.

>>33190388
Chinas response was how much, The US and Germany responded with claims that the leo3 abrams 2 will be developed.

Aaaaaany day now....

>>33190388
There really hasn't been a new design in the works since FCS (which had a 2-man crew in the hull, with more gizmos than T-14, but sacrificed armor for "deployability") got canned. Right now, it's just evolutionary upgrades to existing gear.

That goes for artillery, too, although the railgun-derived HVP might prove to be a major war-changer, especially if it has multi-mode guidance.

>>33190388
Russia is trying desperately to modernize it's military and escape their Cold War era-image. They have reinvented the AK platform to be more tacticool, but it is not technically an improvement. Really only the only benefit that has been introduced that's better than modern tanks is an unmanned turret.

Again, this was probably a highly publicized reveal due to Russia's desire to appear more modern, and it was probably revealed too soon. There were several flaws that caused one of the tanks shown to break down.

I'm sure the U.S./NATO/China are developing their own tanks, but they are going to not be as hasty revealing them (if they even do reveal them).

There is a wait-and-see approach. Current NATO MBTs are adequate for the task with normal mid-life upgrades. Russia is not going to be deploying thousands of them, for the foreseeable future the majority of Russian tanks will be upgraded versions of tanks designed during the Cold War (T72B3, T80BV, T90M), just like NATO.

The F-35 is arguably the most credible response to the threat of updated Russian MBTs.

>>33190671
Hope they are going to have autoloader.
>>33190751
AK12 is nice it's a nicely sealed rifle rather than other AKs that can catch mud inside and stop working.
BTW tank has failed because of it's transmission I believe. So called transmission suppose to move the tank same speed in the reverse and forward. Also tanks is all agaisnt the Russian tank desings it has a very big silhouette while still having 125mm. Still it's not modern tank if it doesn't have hydropneumatic suspension like Korean and Japan tanks has. active protection is very good though.

>>33192663
>Current NATO MBTs are adequate
yeah its not like they get blown up left and right in snackbar land atm

>>33192663
They are gonna have one super heavy brigade on armata vehicles. Problem is not in fact that Russians will have next gen tank, problem is in fact that they will sell it. Russians already pretty own tank market, T-14 is going to be hottest toy for every potential buyer. And some of that buyers has not-zero chances to use their toys against NATO-allied countries in Middle East or Asia.

>>33190671
It would be nice to see some massive scale international tank project, combined with other vehicles, similar to the F-35 on that aspect.

>>33192774
>yeah its not like they get blown up left and right in snackbar land atm

When operated by subhumans anything will get zapped. Leaving them as static targets would get any tank without APS killed.

Everything that's valuable and rolls needs APS.

File: 0000.jpg (103KB, 838x476px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 838x476px

>>33190388
this one

>>33192809
>Leaving them as static targets
>68 tonnes machines
Dude, modern Western MBT are fucking pillboxes on tracks.

>>33192774

Fighting ATGM armed infantry is not the primary purpose of MBTs, and is not where the threat of updated Russian MBTs lies. Besides, as the Israelis have demonstrated, it is possible to upgrade existing MBTs with a hard-kill APS to deal with an asymmetrical enemy using ATGMs. There is no need to replace all your tanks just for this reason alone. There are bigger priorities for equipment spending.

>>33192781

I can't really think of any likely T-14 buyers (a country which both Russia is willing to sell a full-spec model and buyer able to afford) which are plausible enemies of close US allies that operate current NATO MBTs and share a land border.

Regardless, current gen MBTs with upgraded APFSDS & sensors will not be obsolete against the T-14.

>>33190388

Why would anyone bother?

It's nothing special. For all intents and purposes it's just a taller T90 made specifically for export.

>>33190671
>making shit up

Why?

>>33192852
Pillboxes that are designed to move at 60km/h with 1500hp engines.

Why bother? Russia is too poor to afford anything good in meaningful numbers. Wait a few years and they'll throw out another T-72/90 rehash and only a tiny quanity of Armatas will be used if at all.

File: Ky2TYSJVkaE.jpg (94KB, 842x595px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 842x595px

>>33192673
He's not talking about the AK-12, I think but instead the AK-74M Universal Upgrade Kit, which is hardly more than tacticool furniture on the same old 74M pic related

>>33192774
If you detonate a 500lb bomb under any tank it would destryoy it. The M1A1 and M1A2 have been involved in 3 major conflicts including one of the largest tank battles of the 20th-21st century(73 easting) and not a single tank crew member has been lost in direct combat.

>>33192852
>68 tonnes machines
>2017
>still using short tons

US military doctrine is moving away from the use of heavy MBTs since entrenched/fortified battles are a thing of the past. Urban built up areas are where most battles will be fought in the future and a 62 ton tank isn't best suited for that. US doctrine will is; control the air, degrade the enemy and cause chaos, Apaches and a10s handle lagre armor movements, light tanks and Infantry take and hold ground. Our massive defence budget goes to being ahead of everyone not matching others.

>>33192984
we have not faced atgm threats
put differently, our tanks have not faced the single greatest tank threat besides airpower, despite their existence and use for 30 years now. you think that is not on purpose? it is 100% on purpose

>>33193019
>>33192984
atgms have #shreckt Merkavas which are tanks with princly armour. Abramses would be puking their DU guts out if they were ever hit by a kornet.

>>33193023
But kornets we're used against m1s and challenger 2s in iraq

>>33192980
Why would they upgrade from the weapon system when it's so good?

>>33193019
ATGMs are much less destructive than a round from a main gun from a MBT. Abrams armor is still classified TS after all these years, trust me there is something in there that works. The Abrams most likely face ATGMs in the future anyway. read my post on future us doctrine. a 62 ton MBT is a sitting duck in future warfare so I'm guessing you will not even see the Russians waste the money on the T-14

>>33193023
The T-14 would be a yard sale if it was hit by a Javelin. so your point is what?

File: 1485016995011.png (2MB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1063px

>>33193054
>ATGMs are much less destructive than a round from a main gun from a MBT.

why is this sort of shitposting still allowed/accepted on k?

File: kolpak.jpg (127KB, 800x387px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x387px

>>33193061
Maybe. But only if. and the turret, you know, that part why the javelina is supposed to attack from the top, is unmanned and is one huge blow out panel.

>>33193068
pic related, welded T-72/T-90 turrets are immune to (the russian) sabot rounds.

>>33193068
Shit post?? If I'm going up against a MBT, give me a 120mm DU Sabot round with a gyro stabilized gun over a piece of shit Russian ATGM any day

>>33193082
The Jav has 2 attack modes, Top attack and Direct Attack. Top attack isn't because it "has" to hit the turret to be effective. Top attack is designed to take out tanks dug in with only the turret showing like the soviets were trained.

>>33193090
and then you get shreckt by a piece of shit Russian gun launched ATGM from almost twice your DU round's range. That's the real advantage T-90s would have: basically beyond visual range ATGM combat.

>>33193082
You do realise that a T-14 with a destroyed/out of action is a mission kill right? That tank is no longer in the fight, doesn't matter if the crew aren't dead, they'll be bailing out anyway.

>>33193068
that picture is shit. Steel and Plastic? I could put a 5.56 through that. Trust me, the armor on the Abrams is classified. the public info out the is that it has DU, Ceramics and air pockets but other materials are classified TS,

>>33193017
>entrenched/fortified battles
>Urban built up areas are where most battles will be fought in the future and a 62 ton tank isn't best suited for that.
>light tanks and Infantry
>US military doctrine is moving away
>US doctrine will is; control the air
Before we ignore you what is the "mobile" in MPF?

>>33193129
Kornet max range is for AT is 8000m. Abrams 120mm smoothbore max range is 8700m. I'm done

>>33193204
>Russian gun launched ATGM
>gun launched

>I'm done

I can see that. Maybe you wanna read up on the ammo options available to a T-90 crew?

>>33193156
>Trust me
No, I'm not trusting is as far as I can throw an Abrams tank mate.

>>33193082
I've never seen that image before, that's fucking nuts. I was starting to get the impression that modern APFSDS rounds pretty much punched straight through anything with how many tanks are getting blown the fuck up.

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

746KB, 1435x1600px

>>33193148
really? why will they bail if the tank is still mobile? to be moved down by mg and small arms fire? I always thought crew survivability was the main goal of a tank. or at least that's what you ppl used to claim when T-72 were blowing up all over the place. now crew survivability seems to be a "nice to have but not really important" feature?

>>33190388
>response to meme tank
Let's be real, Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country. They not have any industry anymore. All their tech was made in Ukraine or China.

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

55KB, 750x800px

>>33193236
T-72/T-90 have frontal armour at least on par with Leo2 and other western MBTs, they just have less of it which in turn makes them somewhat lighter and more vulnerable. The rest the engineers tried to protect with smart geometrics.

>>33193257
curse you geometry

>>33193225
I don't care if you do or don't. The M1 has been more than battle tested in Tank on Tank and against an insurgency and 5 havnt seen a single one turn to dust like Russian tanks. Hur Dur "exportable". Also I'm not worried about it one bit. maybe when another country can project power further than 5 miles ill worry about how powerful a Kornet is but until then ill just listen to other country's worry about an abrams rolling into their land/

>>33193061
Wasn't it supposed to have like a ton of obscurant mortars just facing up top? WP smoke rounds burn so hot they appear opaque to thermals so its going to be quite effective in that regard.

>>33193054
>a 62 ton MBT is a sitting duck in future warfare
bull. Practically every tank out there is much heavier than their predecessor, and even with APS as we've seen the Russians thought it fit to increase the weight limit of their newest MBT still, even accounting for the much more specific armor concentration and efficacy of the unmanned turret and crew in frontal hull arrangement.

>you will not even see the Russians waste the money on the T-14
The Russians are spending their Rubles on things that are much more expensive than a new tank fleet like a bleeding edge nuke arsenal, and newer airforce and navy fleets and IAD systems, on top of investing some of those money in rebuilding their MIC, as well as creating new formations from scratch. They'd find the money to waste on the T-14, and other Armatas, Kurganets, Bumerang, etc.

>>33193249
I really wish there were flags here so we could see 99% of these posts originate from butthurt belt.

>>33190388
There has been no real response as of yet, mainly because the T-14 is a potemkin vehicle for propaganda purposes. Russia claimed that they would replace their entire armored fleet with Armata based vehicles but instead they are working on T-72/T-90 upgrades and have quietly begun modernizing their cold war stock of T-80s.
http://www.janes.com/article/65580/russia-may-upgrade-and-return-t-80bv-tanks-to-service

Had the T-14 really worked it would have been a far better investment to build as many as possible instead of trying to make garbage slavshit less garbage.
The gulf war showed that a few strong modern tanks will beat many older weak tanks and the russians know that, the fact that they don't believe their new T-14 is strong enough to be the powerhouse on the battlefield is quite telling.

File: T-90_1.gif (29KB, 800x754px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 800x754px

>>33193287
>Countryballing: The movie Trilogy

>>33193277
>curse you geometry
not really, if you manage to keep the gun pointed at the target as you should according to the doctrine, you will be protected by a basically impenetrable LOS or composite armour and ERA.

>>33193114
>Top attack is designed to take out tanks dug in with only the turret showing like the soviets were trained.
bullshit. They don't even have the gun depression for it.

>>33193129
>and then you get shreckt by a piece of shit Russian gun launched ATGM from almost twice your DU round's range.
HEAT penetration potential is a function of calibre, and 125 mm even triple charged is barely enough hence why 152 mm tandem warheads exist.

>>33193301
...or it will take time to produce thousands of T-14's and fix teething problems while upgrading T-80's is cheap and quick.

>>33193148
>You do realise that a T-14 with a destroyed/out of action is a mission kill right? That tank is no longer in the fight, doesn't matter if the crew aren't dead, they'll be bailing out anyway.
Tanks are actually ridiculously tonka-tough and resilient pieces of equipment. Knocked out vehicles more often than not are repaired even before the battle is over.

>>33193204
>Abrams 120mm smoothbore max range is 8700m.
With an unguided projectile that is fired at a pretty much parabolic "to whom it may concern" trajectory? You'd be lucky if it even hits within 100m of a tank-sized target.

>>33192807
The US should buy the Puma family of vehicles. CBO recommended it, Textron can produce them in CONUS, but political blockage means it won't happen despite them being ready now, highly versatile, and a natural fit with our NATO allies.

>>33193325
>HEAT penetration potential is a function of calibre
well, that's why they'd be ideally attacking the top where armour is thinnest and a 125mm is plenty here.

>>33193204
the FCS of the abrams doesnt allow shots at 8,7km you dork
its capped at 5 iirc

>>33190388
>Where is the response from NATO/US/China?

Any existing top-attack ATGM can destroy the T-14, so there's no need for a response.

>>33193354
you must be a high ranking Russian general to be so intimately familiar with T-14 APS capabilities... I wish I was you....

>>33193204

>8.7 km

You're high af.

>>33193301
>and have quietly begun modernizing their cold war stock of T-80s.
>http://www.janes.com/article/65580/russia-may-upgrade-and-return-t-80bv-tanks-to-service
That's easy to explain away: They are introducing or are set to introduce several large (think Army sized) formations in response to past developments. Right now the vast bulk of mainland Western MD formations are located on teh Ukrainian border- there isn't much parked on other border areas. Unless UVZ magically grows a couple more assholes to shit Armatas with, they aren't going to reequip or rather equip such a force in any workable timetable. Hence the various upgrades that the other factories like Omsk and LKZ can do in the meantime. Plus, its not even a waste, since thesse upgrades will introduce their crew to 21st century netcentric warfare (the upgrades are oriented towards this capability incidentally, not towards traditionally staple improvements in hard stats like armor and weaponry and mobility) and when they are ready to be replaced with newer vehcles will cascade to lower tier units on the bottom rung or go into reserves, refreshing it with NCW capable tanks.

>>33193301
>Had the T-14 really worked it would have been a far better investment to build as many as possible instead of trying to make garbage slavshit less garbage.
>The gulf war showed that a few strong modern tanks will beat many older weak tanks and the russians know that, the fact that they don't believe their new T-14 is strong enough to be the powerhouse on the battlefield is quite telling.
You just contradicted yourself in two sentences.
Its quite telling.

File: ORD_AMOS_on_Patria_AMV_lg.jpg (258KB, 1024x694px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1024x694px

Unironically shit like this. Guided top-attack munitions from a high angle, especially several at once to defeat ADS

>>33193346
You mean like the Sokol-1 guided round? Its not exactly an ATGM, but rather a 125 mm version of an Excalibur or Krasnopol- its unpowered flight all the way jsut with corrective impulse thrusters.

>>33193298
Name a Russian computer, a car, a fridge or a washing machine, which sold close to you

>>33193425
are modern Mortar shells even capable to penetrate a modern Tanks top?
or are you just suggesting to saturate the ADS on top of the tank to destroy/impaire it, while slamming the tank with a tank shell or atgm meanwhile

>>33193456
they are not exactly Mortar shells
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(weapon)

>>33193471
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strix_mortar_round
Only problem is that its IIR, meaning its vulnerable to WP based obscurants as part of Soft-Kill system.

>>33190388
>Where are other nations response to the T-14 Armata?
there is none. that should tell you something.

>>33192917
well that just means that MBT winhout active protection arent adequate anymore

File: STRIX.jpg (44KB, 800x278px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x278px

>>33193456
>are modern Mortar shells even capable to penetrate a modern Tanks top?
Well, it's an 18kg 120mm shaped charge grenade.

>or are you just suggesting to saturate the ADS on top of the tank to destroy/impaire it
I meant that most current ADS has trouble with high angle projectiles and multiple projectiles within a short time frame. The AMOS and other similar systems combine both of those things with long range, no requirement of LOS and high accuracy.

You need to support them with forward spotting though.

>>33193489
>there is none. that should tell you something.
that denial is not just a river in Egypt?

>>33193483
Yeah, strix specifically might be outdated because of IR dependency but the concept still has a lot of merit I think.

>>33193540
well nobody would wet their pants about a dozen tanks even if they were actually superior to their stock. if russia used it's armata fleet solely to invade any eastern block country they wouldn't get very far. combined arms terms they mean very little (again assuming they actually work and actually good).

>>33193442
The fact they lack in consumer industry doesn't mean their arms industry is shit. This is a board about weapons and warfare. Stick to that.
I'm not some Putinboo but you butthurt belters are rabid here, you try to kill any discussion with butthurt shitposting, and there's 10 times more of you than vatniks.

>>33193621
What? Armata is not just a tank, its a whole family of vehicles with various missions like tank, APC, IFV, arty, command, engineering, etc. etc. Its the FCS concept realized.
Practically every modern military out there is organized along the lines of combined arms warfare doctrine.

>>33193325

>they don't have the gun depression for it

world of tanks shitter pls go

>>33193496

Not necessarily, MBTs in the service of competent military powers used in high intensity warfare will be supported with suppressive artillery and battlefield obscurants.

There is also the question mark over how mature APS systems are, for example how survivable the APS radar systems are, or whether the use of a radar transmitter gives away the position of the tank

File: F35 - weapons bay 2.jpg (169KB, 1147x1200px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1147x1200px

>>33190388
The West's response to the T14 is a dual-seeker JDAM dropped from a F35.

>>33190388
Mostly in laughter over Russia's failures and posturing with superweapons that break down in parade.

>>33194371
But it is not breaking down in parade, senpai

File: screenshot0453_0019_screenshot0411.jpg (744KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 1920x1080px

T-14 has no competitors around the globe for now and will not have at lest in next 10-15 years.

If you want to compare your rusty abrams or leo of latest modifications then you should do it to the best current tank i.e. T-90 and its latest version T-90MS.

The T-90 and its variants is the most successful and most produced modern MBT and its keep winning contracts and many countries.

>>33193442
Actually, if you live in Europe, then you have non-zero chance to buy everything you listed, either made in Russia or with a some parts from there.

File: M1A1 turret armor.jpg (133KB, 659x631px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 659x631px

>>33193156
>classified
In the 90's maybe.

Not today.

Dumping Abrams armor pics. (spoilers, a lot of it is Steel / Rubber / springs).

Armata is a piece of shut.. We don't need a response because the Abrams o a still superior

File: M1A1 Turret armor 2.jpg (153KB, 1051x716px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1051x716px

>>33193156
>>33193257
Nice
>>33194664

File: M1A1 Turret Side Armor.jpg (459KB, 2456x1808px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 2456x1808px

>>33194672
>>33194664

>>33193322
>not really, if you manage to keep the gun pointed at the target as you should according to the doctrine

The premise that you will always have your turret facing everything shooting at you is only viable in large scale maneuver warfare.

File: M1A1 Turret Bustle Armor.jpg (576KB, 2552x2180px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 2552x2180px

>>33194672
>>33194684
The DU inserts go behind these Metal/Rubber/Metal plates of course

>>33194688
Or very careful semi-static warfare (aka: not letting the enemy be beside you, Having a solid front line).

>>33194664
>spoilers, you don't know what the materials in those pictures are

>>33194667
>fatnik intensifies

>>33194735
>static front line

Artillery says hi.

>>33193082
>no image of the interior
>immune

That's not how proof works

>>33194572
It did.

File: Tank Armor Merkerva Turret.png (1MB, 1024x982px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x982px

>>33194838
Oh but we do. This stuff has been declassified for a long time.

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.ca/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html?m=1

RHA Steel & Aluminum alloys, Elastomer (fancy rubbers), Plastics, Ceramic/Tungsten/DU plates, shock absorption system, and of course air / fluid pockets (the S tank used fuel tank compartments as part of its armor system for example). Listing every single variations would be tedious as all hell because every nation uses something slightly different.

The newest stuff is classified, but we can readily assume it's just more developed versions of what we had.

Such as instead of using RHA steel as a breaker/buster plate (the front layer), the US Army was trying out Ti-5553 alloy few years ago on the range, and they fucking loved it.. so expect it in the next tank / M1A3 iteration and among other things.

>>33194356
Actually, it's a SDB-2, which has 4-5 modes (GPS/INS w/ datalink, MMW, IIR, SALH) depending on whether you count the datalink as a separate mode (it operates by updating the GPS coordinates of the target, not by sending movement commands to the weapon).

>>33193340

Considering at 4000 meters the M1A1 could put a round through the door of a hind while moving. I'd be willing to bet that it could hit a lot closer than that.

>>33194980
>Oh but we do.
>proceeds to explain that we don't know and are making guesses

>>33194622
>T-14 has no competitors around the globe for now and will not have at lest in next 10-15 years.

And it's still not in service.

>The T-90 and its variants is the most successful and most produced modern MBT and its keep winning contracts and many countries.

That does not mean that its a top tier MBT.

File: 14880521991670.jpg (173KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1366x768px

>>33195263
> And it's still not in service.

It's in pre-serial production already and full scale production just begin in next year.

> That does not mean that its a top tier MBT.

This is exactly definition of top-tier. Successful engineering solution combined with good PR.

Armata stronk best tank abrams worst tank XAXAXAXAXA abrms armor making from paper mache Armata T14 armor from glorius Russian steel fold 10000 times youre stupid weak abrams tank is not compete. 5,45 from glorius Russian rifle destroy many tank in Iraq, how can abrams armor hope to stop ATGM when cannot of stopping rifle round? XAXAXAXAXAXAXA waek pathetic XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA Russian ATGM range 300000m abrams gun only 200m XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA NATO WEAK if wanted Russian soldiers would be in berlin 3 days XAXAXAXAXAXA US cannot stop with WEAK abrams tank

>>33190388
What's the need?

That turret looks like a one hit quitter with that giant ass optic fitted right next to the gun. And no I don't mean the commanders optic on the top of the tank.

File: t-90ms (6).jpg (259KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1600x1200px

>>33194622
>and its keep winning contracts
Speaking of which.
http://tass.com/defense/931917

File: T-90 vismod.jpg (168KB, 704x469px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 704x469px

>>33195324
>It's in pre-serial production already and full scale production just begin in next year.

They say that every year.


>This is exactly definition of top-tier. Successful engineering solution combined with good PR.

>no separated ammunition stowage
>limited gun elevation/depression
>shitty reverse speed
>doesn't use a modern infinitely variable hydrostatic steering system
>cannot neutral steer
>T-72's suspensions
>successful 1960s engineering

>>33194954
is there a vid of that?

File: 1488493358284.jpg (62KB, 374x767px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 374x767px

>>33192673
>autoloader

>>33194699
>implying DU are not these sandwiched metal sheets

File: Depleted Uranium + Polyurethane armor.jpg (25KB, 300x350px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x350px

>>33195679

>>33195673
it was a practice run, to be fair

>>33195263
>The T-90 and its variants is the most successful and most produced modern MBT and its keep winning contracts and many countries.

As an Abramsfag I would like to point out that the Leopard 2;

>exists in greater numbers than T-90's
>is used by a wider number of countries than T-90's
>keeps winning new contracts

File: 1200px-Abrams-transparent.png (547KB, 1200x538px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1200x538px

I think America responded about 30 years ago.

USA USA USA

>>33196107
they responded with a German gun?

Germany Germany Germany

File: 1430001079827.jpg (26KB, 440x586px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 440x586px

>>33196120
I suppose that is close enough for the quality of this thread.

>>33196178
so what's the implication of your post here?

File: 1478663667747.jpg (47KB, 920x691px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 920x691px

>>33196120
It is pretty nice having allies that aren't 3rd world countries :^)

when Obama said NATO must have full spectrum dominance, some generals thought he meant the autism spectrum so they sent people to shill and write these posts

>>33196190
The M256 is physically different from the Rhm120.

>>33196226
>The M256 is physically different from the Rhm120.
...but race and sex are social constructs without biological basis amirite? You have literally become the eternal jew.

>>33196107
>Abrams
That's 40 years ago. And what does a response to T-64 have to do with T-14?

>>33196213

xdddd vodka russians haha

Russia has shown to the world that it has declared war against international law, against vulnerable communities, and against US allies, values, and the very institutions of democracy enshrined in the blood of heroes.

The tools used by the Russians to achieve their dark goals of evil must not be praised or venerated. If you have to post it, keep the focus on their flaws, and of the abuses they will be used to accomplish.

>>33193342

Why support Muslim industry?

File: дiiiтько.jpg (110KB, 604x529px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 604x529px

>>33196429
Hohol, pls.

File: article-2380055-1B050B2D000005DC-68_964x619.jpg (144KB, 964x619px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 964x619px

>>33190388
>Where is the response from NATO/US/China?

Nobody who knows anything about anything is going to respond to it seriously, for the same reason Nork parades don't warrant a response.
At most it's going to be used by the DoD to beg for more funding.

>>33196255
this is your brain on /pol/

>>33196255
A fascinating argument given you are the one asserting two things that are different are the same because of your feels.

>>33196295
>response to the T-64

You mean M60 upgrades?

>>33196641
>liberal tries and fails to parody /pol/

File: t-64bv (8).jpg (383KB, 2000x1332px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 2000x1332px

>>33196651
No, I mean M1. First Americans failed to implement composite armour, then Americans failed to put a gun stabiliser, then Americans failed to develop a next generation tank, then Americans failed to develop a proper gun and had to opt for the German one. This chain of events assured M60 remaining an overweight T-55 rival and American armour lagging about 15 to 20 years behind Soviet armour, by all means making Abrams a late response to T-64.

File: 40009.jpg (186KB, 1024x1446px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1024x1446px

>>33196740
>First Americans failed to implement composite armour

The Soviet Union being the first to adopt an early incarnation of composite armor is not the West or American's failing to implement composite armor.

>then Americans failed to put a gun stabiliser

America had stabilized guns in WW2.

>then Americans failed to develop a next generation tank

I assume you mean the MBT-70, whose development was dragged out by Germany, which evolved into the Leopard 2 and Abrams. Two tanks that 30+ years later are still superior to what Russia uses.

>then Americans failed to develop a proper gun and had to opt for the German one.

You mean the American's modified a gun that itself was based on an a co-operative German-American development. And this is not even addressing the capabilities of the Soviet 125mm or Western 105mm and 120mm gun/ammunition combinations in a given time frame.

>Tanks
*unsheathes drone*
Nothin personnel, tanker
*flies behind you*
Heh, too easy
*blows you into a million pieces*

>>33197186
>Drones
>Anywhere you don't have absolute air supremacy

>>33193795
i'm saying what russia actually has of them wouldn't get very far on it's own. to their military strength the armata is inconsequential.

>>33194622
>T-14 has no competitors

It doesn't need any. Its still only a generation 3 tank hyped up into being the "worlds greatest MBT" based on absolutley zero substantiated arguments other than that its "new".

The russian's are now doing with tanks that can compete with what we had 16 years ago, anyone who thinks like you honestly has to be a troll.

File: t-55m & cuties.jpg (154KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1200x800px

>>33197137
>not the West or American's failing to implement composite armor
>Limitations in manufacturing capacity and the added cost however lead to this special armor being dropped and all M60 series tanks were protected with conventional steel armor.
No, they quite literally failed to.
>America had stabilized guns in WW2
And if Americans wanted to hit anything on the move they obviously had to resort to using their WWII tanks, since M60 did not have gun stabilisation till way into the 70s.
>which evolved into the Leopard 2 and Abrams
15 to 20 years too late to barely outmatch T-64.
>Two tanks that 30+ years later are still superior to what Russia uses
Sorry, Russia does not use T-54/55, T-62, T-64 or early T-72 and T-80 models to which the said two tanks are superiour anymore.
>You mean the American's modified a gun
Yes, I mean Americans had to opt for the German gun.
>the capabilities of the Soviet 125mm
Even the shittiest 60s Soviet steel sabots were deadly for the anachronistic relic of the 50s that M60 was.
>Western 105mm
Became irrelevant the very moment T-64 entered service.
>and 120mm
Regarding which it took Americans 8 years and the fall of the USSR to put in service a sabot capable to even attempt to scratch the armour behind Kontakt-5 ERA.

>>33197363
>Sorry, Russia does not use T-54/55, T-62, T-64 or early T-72 and T-80 models

Sorry these threads are stupid but this pulled me out of lurking to comment on. This is a straight up lie.

Russia only has a few hundred of both T90 and T72 models that aren't "early" generations. For fucks sake, russia still has bunkers full of deteriorating T34s as war stock. Not to mention the earlier versions of their tanks would primarily serve as a cannibalization service to keep the new ones working anyway as Russia's logistics is shit. When it comes to "new tanks" Russia is outmatched 3:1 by the USA alone, if we go into The later Leopard users, Challenger, and Leclercs that would surely go toe to toe, the ratio is even higher.

File: 105mm20apds20in20sectino20001.jpg (63KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x480px

>>33197363
>No, they quite literally failed to.

Yes, they failed to be the first to adopt composite armor.

>And if Americans wanted to hit anything on the move they obviously had to resort to using their WWII tanks, since M60 did not have gun stabilisation till way into the 70s
>on the move

If we are moving goalposts then we should bring up the almost complete lack of thermal sights on Soviet/Russian tanks until the last decade.

>15 to 20 years too late to barely outmatch T-64.

Curious given that M60's outmatched T-64's when the Leopard 2 and Abrams entered service.

>Sorry, Russia does not use T-54/55, T-62, T-64 or early T-72 and T-80 models to which the said two tanks are superiour anymore.

Which is why I was referring to the T-90A and T-14.

>Yes, I mean Americans had to opt for the German gun.

A German gun that was itself an adoption of a German-American gun.

>Even the shittiest 60s Soviet steel sabots were deadly for the anachronistic relic of the 50s that M60 was.

Which is why the Soviet Union had such a preference for HEAT rounds, wait what?

>Became irrelevant the very moment T-64 entered service.

So irrelevant that old M60A1's were still killing T-72's with it thirty years later.

>Regarding which it took Americans 8 years and the fall of the USSR to put in service a sabot capable to even attempt to scratch the armour behind Kontakt-5 ERA.

You mean a round that made Kontakt-5 irrelevant.

>>33197363
>way into the 70s
>mfw 1972 is way into the 70s

>>33197710
You're arguing with the armatafag, in a moment he'll just resort to screaming FATNIK and ignoring anything else that's said.

>>33197710
>M-60 outmatched T-64
Fatnik please stop. I know vatniks say dumb shit but this is too much.

>>33197509
Do you know the difference between "being in use" and "laying around in storage"? This is not 00s anymore, T-54/55/62 are mostly scrapped, as well as T-64. Early T-72 models are long out of service and only a handful of T-80 remain in use. As for the tanks in actual service, they are T-72B/B1989/BA/B3, T-90A and T-80U.
>When it comes to "new tanks" Russia is outmatched 3:1 by the USA alone
Sorry, this does not appear to be the case, as the US operates 1200 M1A2, while the amount of T-72B3 alone is over a thousand, not even counting T-90A or T-80U.

File: t-90a & cutie.jpg (141KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 960x960px

>>33197710
>Yes, they failed to be the first to adopt composite armor.
>Limitations in manufacturing capacity and the added cost however lead to this special armor being dropped and all M60 series tanks were protected with conventional steel armor.
No, they quite literally failed to implement it.
>If we are moving goalposts
Sorry, manoeuvring around won't change the simple historical fact that M60 lacked such an obvious thing as gun stabilisation.
>M60's outmatched T-64's
In being anachronistic relic of the 50s. The only thing M60 actually outmatched was T-62. And even that was only by a margin.
>Which is why I was referring to the T-90A and T-14.
To which neither Abrams nor Leopard 2 are superiour. The latest models of these tanks might be outmatching pre-T-72B3 models, I give you that.
>A German gun
Glad that we agree on this.
>Which is why the Soviet Union had such a preference for HEAT rounds, wait what?
Soviet Union had a preference for a main battle tank being an actual main battle tank capable of preforming multiple roles. This is why the ammunition for Soviet tanks was a variety of different types of rounds that includes APFSDS, GLATGM, HEAT-FS and HE-FRAG-FS. In contrast, Abrams was essentially a self-propelled anti-tank gun.
>So irrelevant that old M60A1's were still killing T-72's with it thirty years later.
In real life however it were monkey model T-72 operated by barely trained towelhead apes who kept slaughtering M60 and other pieces of western armour it met in combat in Lebanon and Iran-Iraq wars during the last decade of the Cold War, while most T-72 losses in the Gulf War were due to missiles fired by flanking IFVs.
>You mean a round that made Kontakt-5 irrelevant.
I mean a round that took Americans 8 years and the fall of the USSR to put in service.

>>33197731
The means of add-on stabilisation were only introduced by the late 1972 which is essentially 3 years into the 70s and did not appear on all tanks overnight anyway. The actual production of M60 with stabilisation did not occur until 1978.

>>33198051
>No, they quite literally failed to implement it.

Before the Soviets.

>Sorry, manoeuvring around won't change the simple historical fact that M60 lacked such an obvious thing as gun stabilisation.

You are confusing gun stabilization with multi-directional stabilization that allowed a modest chance to hit with APDS.

>In being anachronistic relic of the 50s. The only thing M60 actually outmatched was T-62. And even that was only by a margin.

Besides having a better gun than the T-64, and later on actually having thermal optics.

>To which neither Abrams nor Leopard 2 are superiour. The latest models of these tanks might be outmatching pre-T-72B3 models, I give you that.

The latest models of the Leopard 2 and Abrams are what the T-14 attempts to match.

>Glad that we agree on this.

That the German gun was derived from a German-American gun.

>Soviet Union had a preference for a main battle tank being an actual main battle tank capable of preforming multiple roles. This is why the ammunition for Soviet tanks was a variety of different types of rounds that includes APFSDS, GLATGM, HEAT-FS and HE-FRAG-FS. In contrast, Abrams was essentially a self-propelled anti-tank gun.

Few Soviet tanks actually had the equipment to fire GLATGM. Western armies preferred HEAT over HE because of the expected numerical superiority of Soviet AFV's.

>In real life however it were monkey model T-72 operated by barely trained towelhead apes who kept slaughtering M60 and other pieces of western armour it met in combat in Lebanon and Iran-Iraq wars during the last decade of the Cold War, while most T-72 losses in the Gulf War were due to missiles fired by flanking IFVs.

In real life T-72's on par with what the Warsaw Pact used were slaughtered by thirty year old M60A1's in Kuwait.

>I mean a round that took Americans 8 years and the fall of the USSR to put in service.

The round that made Kontakt-5 irrelevant, not the round that could scratch the armor behind Kontakt-5

>>33197363
>>33198051
Armatard alert.

>>33190388
None. They don't need it.

The T-14's design principles are incredibly divorced from it's predecessors. Basically Russia is telling the world "We're changing our army to a counter-insurgency force instead of one meant to engage in symmetrical large-scale warfare"

>>33192774
in your opinion which one would get knocked down more a SAA T-72 or an Iraqi Abrams?

>>33197204
ISIS seems to be doing just fine in that regard

>>33190388
A laugh

>>33198066
>The means of add-on stabilisation were only introduced by the late 1972
yes, that was my point. all the other dates you've been using are when something initially appeared, not when something "had appeared on all tanks anyway"

>>33197204
>Russians
>capable of challenging American global air supremacy

File: t-84u & cutie.jpg (615KB, 1499x1000px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 1499x1000px

>>33198373
>You are confusing gun stabilization
I am not confusing gun stabilisation that prevents a tank from being a completely useless anachronistic relic with anything.
>Besides having a better gun
Which of course only applies to T-55 gun. Barely.
>The latest models of the Leopard 2 and Abrams are what the T-14 attempts to match.
This does not seem to be the case, since the latest Abrams and Leopard 2 models are barely matching T-72B3.
>German gun
Glad to see that you are so persistent in agreeing with me on this matter.
>Few Soviet tanks actually had the equipment to fire GLATGM
Which of course contradicts real life, where every T-64 since T-64AK, T-80 since T-80B and T-72 since T-72B could fire GLATGM.
>In real life T-72's on par with what the Warsaw Pact
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Iraq operated neither T-72B1989, nor any T-72B at all, and the monkey models it had in service were destroyed by means of flanking. What did happen in real life however was that T-72 monkey models operated by towelheads kept butchering every western tank they met in service during the last decade of the Cold War.
>not the round that could scratch the armor behind Kontakt-5
It was however indeed the exact round capable to at least attempt to scratch the armour behind Kontakt-5 that took Americans 8 years and the fall of the USSR to put in service.

>>33198852
>I am not confusing gun stabilisation that prevents a tank from being a completely useless anachronistic relic with anything.

Considering that the two axis gun stabilization on the T-64 and A was definitely not intended to be used for firing on the move accurately, your point is moot.

>>33198784
Well, "way into the 70s" was probably indeed a bad wording on my side. But the point remains nevertheless. It is really pretty astounding for a tank built in the 60s to lack gun stabilisation. But then again, M60 was generally behind its time.

>>33198918
Considering even T-55 was perfectly capable of accurate fire on the move, I do not see where you got this idea from. Is this some sort of an attempt to justify the total and undeniable backwardness of M60?

>>33199053
> even T-55 was perfectly capable of accurate fire on the move

u fuckin wot m8?

This is just getting pathetic at this point.

>>33195679
>>33195697
DU is Pyrophoric though, how do they stop an armor cell from bursting into an inferno when struck by a round?

File: commi.jpg (43KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 644x598px

>>33199053
Did an M60 kill your parents? Why do you hate them so? Sorry the Soviet Union collapsed :/

>>33199002
i do agree that the m60 received stabilization pretty late in the game, especially with the us using it in ww2 even, but that's not quite a fair statement. neither leopard nor amx-30, for example, had stabilization in their initial versions either

File: 1309340418037.jpg (36KB, 358x473px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 358x473px

>>33199053
>T-55 was perfectly capable of accurate fire on the move

File: t-55 (3).jpg (312KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1680x1050px

>>33199066
This indeed is getting pathetic. I did not expect people to go damage control enough to start defending the lack of gun stabilisation.
>the tank could fire accurately despite the lack of ballistic computers if the tank was moving at lower speed, or if heading straight towards its target
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/55_Fire_Controls

>>33199134
>source is just wikipedia

Ah, this all makes sense now

File: no_frosted_side.jpg (22KB, 465x349px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 465x349px

>>33193204
>Being a shitposter
>Being an unironic naive uninformed nigger with posts perceived as shitposting.

>>33193037
just like those upgrades, its just for looks.

>>33199116
>neither leopard nor amx-30, for example, had stabilization in their initial versions either
I actually didn't know about that. Only makes more sense of how Swedes went with the Strv 103 design - if everyone around is getting rid of gun stabilisation you might as well just go with a self-propelled anti-tank gun.
Still it's a strange thing to think about. It's such an essential thing, did it really never occur to them that getting rid of stabilisation might not have been the brightest idea out there.

>>33199252
and the genesis of the strv 103 goes back to the early '50s, when stab was nothing to write home about anyway

File: entering_the_state_of_denial.jpg (66KB, 691x691px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 691x691px

>>33199143
Indeed it does.

>>33193017
>US military doctrine is moving away from the use of heavy MBTs
people have been saying this since before the MBT existed, it still hasn't come true

>>33199091
No, its just that a "50's relic" being able to keep pace with Soviet tanks triggers the fuck out of him.

File: 1485202086642m.jpg (54KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1024x576px

>>33192774
Hello my friend :^)

>>33200887
BYLIAT

>>33197363
>Became irrelevant the very moment T-64 entered service.

Updated rounds like the Hetz gave it a fighting chance against early Soviet composite arrays. Get your head out of your ass

>>33197363
>Regarding which it took Americans 8 years and the fall of the USSR to put in service a sabot capable to even attempt to scratch the armour behind Kontakt-5 ERA.

It was my understanding that K5 was not equipping the vast majority of tanks on the WW3 battlefield

>>33198852
>Which of course only applies to T-55 gun. Barely.

The 105 had nontrivially higher working pressure. Are you high?

>>33200887
blyn)))))))))))))))

didn't chinks push out some VT4 tank or some shit, claiming that it's better than the armata a few days after the 2014 parade?

>>33200887
What's going on in that image?
The hatches are open, turret traversed to 7 o'clock, stopped in a ditch, fire only coming out of the commander's hatch and with no sign of anything like an ATGM hit.

>>33197363
>t-55m & cuties.jpg
I was there

>>33202770

have you never seen a knocked out tank before?

>No modern MBT is protected against top-attack ATGMs
>Javelin and Spike have been around for +20 years now.
How can this be a thing? Even the new trend of APS don't have them in mind.

>>33203218
Javeline is overrated and Soviet Union who could develop and implement countermeaser in a matter of few month is dead.

>>33203247
>Javeline is overrated
How so?

>>33203264
isn't it incredibly costly? vs an AT-4 for example

>>33203280

The AT-4 is a completely different weapon, it is; unguided, shorter ranged, and lacks a ERA defeating tandem HEAT warhead.

>>33200887
Are you trying to imply something with this image?
>>33202770
Arabs got spooked without a reason again.
>>33202860
>MG ammunition on fire
>Knocked out tank
Lol.

>>33203264
It's very expensive (you're literully shooting IR-matrixes into enemy)
Range of fire is short
Ir-seeker is not most reliable
Penetration from above is not guaranteed
It's slow

If you found yourself in situation when you need to fight tanks in Javelin effective range and you don't have TOW-2 prepared, you did something wrong in first place.

File: apfsds & cutie.jpg (503KB, 1050x700px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1050x700px

>>33203340
>SACLOS wire-guided anti-tank missile
>unguided
>shorter ranged
>2000-2500/4000 m is shorter than 2500 m
The most modern Javelin versions do have 750 m longer range, I give you that. But it still costs 1/4 a million and was not introduced until recently, while 9M111M was around since 1970s.
>lacks a ERA defeating tandem HEAT warhead
>The Faktoria is an improved version of the 9K111 Fagot ATGW, the primary difference being that its missile has a tandem warhead for defeating explosive reactive armour (ERA) fitted to some tanks.
http://www.janes.com/article/59374/us-arms-shipment-to-syrian-rebels-detailed
>War head type Tandem
http://www.tulatoz.ru/en/production/detail.php?ID=55&SECTION_ID=6
Literally everything you said is wrong. Read a book.

Armata is not a response to modern western MBT.

It's a response to catastrophic cook-offs, to man-portable antitank weapons, and a step towards fully robotic MBT as ultimate safety solution.

The west is free to do whatever about addressing the same question on their side. It should not necessarily be in shape of a tank.

These threads are retarded and bait.

Why are they still so huge?

>>33190388
France and Germany are working together to build a next gen tank.
Germany is designing a new 130mm gun.

US is welding plates to the Abrams and puckering their buttholes.

>>33190751
The AK-12 is on trials alongside the 545, both have massive improvements over the AK-74M (ergonomics, quality control, sight picture, accessibility, balanced recoil systems).

The Armata didn't break down, just they had a random driver from the armoured corps drive it, but didn't give him time to familiarize himself with the tank and so he accidentally put on one of the emergency brakes that he didn't know how to disengage.
The engineers showed up to recover the tank and when they inspected it they were able to disengage the brake and drive off.

>>33203392
>fight tanks in Javelin effective range and you don't have TOW-2 prepared, you did something wrong
No. You are an infantryman defending. You are in range of the Javelin. You did EVERYTHING right.
>>33190388
Response? Not buy it and laugh as it breaks down every time it is on display?

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-03-05T11-29-26.530Z.png (251KB, 600x373px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 600x373px

>>33202701
Which is of course incorrect, since the Hetz story is an internet forum anecdote and even according to it the round allowed Israelis to have at lest some hope to penetrate a monkey model T-72 without the composite armour at acceptable range.
>>33202708
Russians had more tanks with Kontakt-5 than Americans have M1A2. What you are trying to say is that it was not equipped to the majority of Soviet tanks, which is true, since Soviet tank force was gargantuan. But then again, at the very same time American tank force consisted of 12000 M48 and M60 variants with only 3000 M1 produced, the latter itself barely being a match to bare T-80B without Kontakt-1, let alone Kontakt-5.
>>33202716
I'm not, but D-54T is. A third higher than L7, as a matter of fact.
>>33202840
That feel when jealous as fuck.

>>33193298
>butthurt belt
But then we could see that 99% of posts using the phrase 'butthurt belt' originate from Serbia.

>>33192851
I wish I could be involved in designing a tank gun :(

Any close-ups of the multi-lug breech ring?

Looks like some round channels in the square piece hanging off the back there. Possibly what they mean?

Just seems like an odd design needing the breech block to have radiused lugs like that, assuming they're half-round.

File: butthurt belt1.jpg (320KB, 997x580px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 997x580px

>>33203611
Serbs are bros, but they themselves are a part of Turkey's butthurt belt. They do have a petty butthurt belt on their own. However none of these compare to the Saturn's rings of rectum annihilation Russia has managed to create around itself throughout its history.

File: PT76andObj292-09.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>33192851
Watch out, buddy. They might reactivate LP-83 gun.

>>33203452

I thought you were talking about the Swedish AT-4 recoilless launcher in US service, you should have specified the USSR AT-4 ATGM.

Regardless, they are different systems still, the USA doesn't operate a light wire-guided ATGM (only the heavier TOW) and Russia doesn't operate a fire and forget IR seeker ATGM

>>33203685
I'm not the anon who originally referred to AT-4 and he might have meant Swedish AT4, but I believe it's quite strange to compare a recoilless rifle to an ATGM.

>>33198036
>Sorry, this does not appear to be the case, as the US operates 1200 M1A2
US Army has 1600 to 2100 M1A2 SEP. A1 is mainly used by USMC.

>>33203730
Yep, my bad, MB 2016 specifies 1593 M1A2 and 791 M1A1 in the Army with another 447 M1A1 being in service with the USMC.

>>33203370
>MG ammunition on fire
This is how an MG ammo cook off looks like.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Li6RFLLg2M0
A small ball of flame followed by some light burning, not even enough to threaten the gunner just inches away.
That T-90 is knocked the fuck out.

>>33203392
>It's very expensive (you're literully shooting IR-matrixes into enemy)
Still it was procured by US Army in large numbers.
>Range of fire is short
2500 meters is normal effective range for ATGM with such weight.
>Ir-seeker is not most reliable
>It's slow
It is controversial as it sensible affects effectiveness.
>Penetration from above is not guaranteed
It is just controversial.
>If you found yourself in situation when you need to fight tanks in Javelin effective range and you don't have TOW-2 prepared, you did something wrong in first place.
TOW-2 is a different class, it is battalion level ATGM and battalion has fewer of them. Javelin actually closer to RPG and Metis in Soviet army as regards organization.

>>33190388
Unless russia builds at least a few hundred of them they can be disregarded as insignificant.
The vast majority of russias tank forces are T-72 and a couple of hundred T-90s, both of which are markedly inferior to M1A2s, Leo2A5 and above, Leclercs and similar western tanks.

>>33190388
M1A3 is under development and already new ammunition is supposed to be able to defeat its armor and completely bypass reactive armor of all types. Rheinmetall also claims their new 130mm gun can defeat it. Weather those are K-Kill or knockouts is unknown

>>33203778
It depends on the amount and type of the MG ammunition in the box, as well as on how it was set on fire. It is perfectly visible how the rounds are bursting around in the video, and even the screenshot shows the lack of visible damage to the tank, the complete and utter lack of fire or even the slightest bit of smoke from the second open hatch or gun, and the gun itself remaining elevated.
This is MG ammunition cooking off and spooked arabs abandoning an intact tank. Deal with it.

>>33192774
do you have a singlicious satisfact to snack that up

>>33203800
>M1A3 is under development
>The M1A3 Abrams was in the early design period with the U.S. Army in 2009. At that time, the service was seeking a lighter tank version with the same protection as current versions. It aimed to build prototypes by 2014 and begin fielding the first combat-ready M1A3s by 2017.
Yeah, being under development seems like the thing it does the best.

>>33190388
Rumors are that the turret only has roughly 90mm of high hardness steel for armor and the only real armor is found in the armored crew capsule. That would mean the turret is vulnerable to RPGs and recoilless rifles as well as larger auto cannons such as the 35 mm or 40 mm cannons found on IFVs these days.
While russia did have a cre survivability problem in the T-72, one wonders if they went a bit too far, without a turret the tank is useless after all.

>>33203854
hmm something happened in november that might change that i wonder what it could be hmmmmm i might have to think a little harder to remember

>>33203863
when the turret is gone maybe they can turn it into one of those ISIS battle boxes?

>>33203796
M1A2 itself is barely a match for T-80U, while T-90A and especially T-72B3 are superiour to both.

>>33203849
Gunpowder burns for a few seconds and not with a bright yellow flame for minutes on end.
That tank has an oil fire, deal with that instead.

File: 10639624_1541646582721191_7041378867737178017_n.png (198KB, 960x637px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 960x637px

itt

>>33203871
>this is what Wargame: Red Dragon players believe.
The current iterations of both the M1A2 and Leo2 is superior to any T-72+++ and even the showroom models of the T-90 that russia can't even afford.

>>33203867
What? The cancelled it for another M1A2 upgrade kit so even being under development is no longer its strong suit?

>>33203873
You see, the thing is anyone can go, google the video and see the ammunition cooking off themselves, as well as simply look at the picture posted above and find out complete and utter lack of fire or even the slightest bit of smoke from the second open hatch or gun and the gun itself remaining elevated.
This is MG ammunition cooking off and spooked arabs abandoning an intact tank. Deal with it.

File: 1480776000715.png (834KB, 2000x1875px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 2000x1875px

>>33203884

>>33203882
And the only problem with that is that your fairy fantasy world of games and movies does not apply to real life, where M1A2 is barely a match for T-80U, while T-90A and especially T-72B3 are superiour to both.

>>33203894
You are right in the fact that ammo is cooking off, they usually do that when in an oil fire.
Small arms ammo usually don't burn on their own, they are designed to not cook off on their own. If one round burns in a box it usually won't burn the other ammo.
Maybe russia builds extremely shitty and unsafe ammo?
More likely the entire hydraulic system of the commander station is burning, knocking out the tank, deal with it.

>>33192984

>and not a single tank crew member has been lost in direct combat.

I'm on the side of the Western tanks here, but this is a direct falsity. Crew members were lost to penetrations, mostly RPG-29s to the side.

But the point remains. The western tanks have, every single time, proven that they perform better and protect their crew more.

File: oilprice.png (26KB, 446x392px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 446x392px

>>33190388
>Where is the response from NATO/US/China?

>>33203906
>fairy fantasy world
>all anyone here has to go off is speculation

>t-(whatever) series gets BTFO by US in middle east
>"muh monkey export models"
>M1A2 series getting BTFO in vids from islamic groups
>"muh monkey export models"

I want all of you to die

>>33203927
There is nothing more or less likely about the simple case of MG ammunition cooking off and arabs getting spooked out. It's just a fact of objective reality confirmed by a video showing MG ammunition on fire and the complete and utter lack of fire or even the slightest bit of smoke from the second open hatch or gun, as well as the gun itself remaining elevated.
Sorry, you will just have to deal with it and move on.

>>33203941
There's nothing remotely speculative about stating the simple fact that M1A2 is barely a match for T-80U, while T-90A and especially T-72B3 are superiour to both.

>>33203906
The T-72B3 is an desperate attempt to make the vast russian armada of T-72s anything else than battlefield chaff. It's barely working as it is so inferior to current western tanks.
The T-90 was a mistake which is why russia abandoned it in favor of upgrading more obsolete T-72s.

>>33200887
Syrian army claimed that tank was hit by ATGM and that fucked all the electronics in the tank, commander and gunner jumped out and rescued the injured driver 1 hour later.

If the sand niggers knew how to use the fire extinguisher and put out the fire, it wouldn't have spread to the ammo and detonated after 6 hours of burning,

>>33203942
Have you seen gunpowder burning? You can't have because you would have known that T-90 is suffering an oil fire. Deal with the fact that the T-90 got BTFO, kust like the russians and the soviet union.

File: object 187.jpg (44KB, 687x509px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 687x509px

>>33203950
This is of course not the case in real life, where M1A2 is barely a match for T-80U, while T-90A and especially T-72B3 are superiour to both.
but I agree that T-90 was a mistake. They should have gone with Object 187 instead. Mass producing it would have had assured unmatched Russian superiority in armour for another 20-30 years at the very least.

>>33203982
ukrainian militiamen have already destroyed several 72b3s and captured some too even comparing that old haggard piece of shit to an A2 is fucking shill territory

>>33203968
Have you seen the video or at least the screenshot posted above? You can't have because you would have saw the MG ammunition cooking off and and the complete and utter lack of fire or even the slightest bit of smoke from the second open hatch or gun, as well as the gun itself remaining elevated.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am afraid that there is simply no option for you other than to deal with it and to let it go.

>>33203961
It gets used when automatic fire suppression does it for them thank you Abrams. Apart from that their first course of action is to assume the worst immediately and bail, which makes sense for the t55,62,64,72 but the 90 I feel is good enough to shrug off a lot of the hits thanks to k5

>>33203997
Seeing how now that Abrams finally began seeing the actual service the towelheads here and there began to knock it out out with something as old as Malyutka, your post gets rather ironic tinge.

>>33203982
It's a well known fact that T-72B3 crews would go into battle greatly fearing being burned alive by superior western tanks and that western tankers know that they will have to live with the fact that they would have to send russian tankers to a firey grave by the thousands.
The T-80 series is only used as a desperate stopgap by russians when they realize that the T-14 is a stillborn lemon.
http://www.janes.com/article/65580/russia-may-upgrade-and-return-t-80bv-tanks-to-service

>>33204017
those models are downgraded, not comparable vatnik

>>33203998
>commander station burns in blazing oil fire
>ammo caught in inferno cooks of
>"ammo is burning too, that means only ammo is burning, proofs proofs PROOFS"
Russians, every single time.
That T-90 is btfo, just accept it and the anal anguish will lessen, I promise.

File: IrakDesertStorm1991.jpg (4MB, 2860x1910px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2860x1910px

>>33204017
the export models aren't even A1 variants and have had their chobham armor packages removed dummy. not to mention they are being driven by sunnis who literally just get out of the thing and leave at the first sign of trouble. In the invasion and the gulf war they had literally a perfect kill ratio compared to your comblock shitheaps.

>>33204027
The only well known fact in this regard however is that the west was playing catching up with Soviet armour until the very end of the Cold War and only managed to match it as the Soviet Union fell and Russia ceased a lot of R&D.
As for the T-80BV modernisation, the very article you posted disregards your argument as laughable damage control, as it is specified that:
>The modified T-80BV tanks will be suitable for the climatic conditions of the Arctic, the Far East, and Siberia
See, you did not have to get this self-owned. But you did anyway. This is what happens when you are trying to open your mouth on the matters you have barely any clue about. Better go and read a book.

>>33204057
The only well known fact is that with the M1A1 and the Leo2 the west pulled past the soviets and left them in the dust. That lead maintains to this day despite the west putting anything military related on a shoestring budget.

>arctic, far east and siberia.
So russia built a new tank but has to modernize obolete garbage because their new garbage is so trash it can't operate in cold weather?
GG russia, bravo!

>>33204044
You keep repeating your clueless claims despite the simple fact that it is perfectly visible how MG ammunition is cooking off and fire or even the slightest bit of smoke from the second open hatch or gun is completely and utterly lacking, as well as it is visible that the gun itself remains elevated.
There's just no way of putting this gently, you will have to deal with it.
>>33204038
>>33204047
>Muh monki modulls!
I see where you are trying to go with this burst of desperate damage control, but the thing is even if it was true, the point remains that an outflanked tank, was it rusted overweight backwards american junk or the top notch Russian armour, will get knocked out.

>>33204073
Which is of course not the case in real life, where M1 was barely a match to T-80B and got completely outclassed by T-80U that remained unmatched until M1A2 introduction.
>So russia built a new tank
Which together with getting self-owned by the article you yourself posted seem to put you in a rather uncomfortable state of mind.

>>33204081
And you keep ignoring the fact that the video of the T-90 burning looks NOTHING like an mg ammo fire whatsoever despite evidence being posted in this very thread. Sorry that your tankfu is SHIT but thats the breaks son.

>>33204096
The lack of reading comprehension is staggering in this one.
Explain why russia would need to upgrade obsolete garbage if their new tank was remotely capable of performing the tasks this new T-80 upgrade is supposed to do.
Also explain why russia rushed the immature T-14 into service if the existing T-72 is more than enough?
Let me spell it out for you, all current russian tanks, T-72B3, T-90A and T-80s is nothing more than roadbumps when faced with western tanks, firey coffins for thee malnourished slavs apiece is what they are.
Deal. With. It.

>>33204096

Didn't Russia need French exports and technology transfer to catch up to western MBT topics and fire control? Just because a gun can penetrate armor at range, doesn't mean you can hit with it

AFAIK the longest range tank vs tank kill was made in ODS 1991 by a Challenger 1 at around 5 km. I'm sceptical of claims that Warsaw Pact tanks were qualitatively superior to NATO ones right to the end of the Cold War, especially once the USSR fell behind in technology like microelectronics.

>>33190388
US went "congratz, you finally hit parity with a tank designed in 1979, hope you can build more than 10 of them since we have thousands.."

At most, russia will build 200-400 T-14, just like england, france and italy did with their newest mbt

>>33204164
You should be skeptical. It took until 1989 for the soviets to figure out they should put passive thermals on the T-72 then to top it off they used smoke that wasn't IR opaque, meaning that even second gen NATO Mbts could target Soviet vehicles and they couldn't do anything in return.

>>33204135
You see, the thing is simply going deeper in denial won;t change the very simple fact that it is perfectly visible how MG ammunition is cooking off and fire or even the slightest bit of smoke from the second open hatch or gun is completely and utterly lacking, as well as it is visible that the gun itself remains elevated. These are facts of objective reality that you are of course free to proceed denying, but will eventually have to deal with and let it go.
>>33204154
But Russia is not upgrading any obsolete garbage, as it doesn't possess any. What Russia does is upgrading the T-80BV that by itself outmatches M1 for it to now outmatch M1A2. Essentially the same thing Russia was doing with its T-72B, only now to equip the units stationed in arctic regions with a more suitable option for the climate.
>Also explain why russia rushed the immature T-14 into service
No such thing happened, as T-14 is neither immature, nor is rushed into service. Russia is developing it because the technology has advanced enough for it to become a viable option.
So let me now spell it for you. American tanks were a laughable load of backwards anachronistic junk up until when in 1979 M1 was introduced as a late response to T-64. Naturally by that time other tanks were developed in the USSR, which assured unmatched domination of Soviet armour till the very end of the Cold War. With modern upgrades like T-72B3 Russia simply returns to the pedestal of the leading armour developed that already rightly belonged to it for the most part of the XX century. And America will have to deal with it and let it go, since while Russia rolls out upgrades easily outmatching America's best armour and develops new tanks that will remain space magic for Americans for another 15 years, much like T-64 previously was back in the days Americans thought plain steel tanks with 105 mm "guns" without stabilisation were the next big thing.
Just don't get too sad. You have 4 more stages to go.

why are massive tanks still a thing? when will this meme end already?

>>33204164
More like to catch up on its lack of R&D in the 90s. Now that it is back in business it easily rolls out upgrades to its tanks that outmatch their western counterparts.
>AFAIK the longest range tank vs tank kill was made in ODS 1991 by a Challenger 1 at around 5 km
That would be hitting a tank used as a pillbox, which is a huge thing among arabs due to their ineducability.
>USSR fell behind in technology like microelectronics
>During the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project the processing of Soyuz orbit parameters was accomplished by a BESM-6 based system in 1 minute. The same computation for the Apollo was carried out by the American side in 30 minutes.
Wouldn't be too sure about that.

>>33204474
>perfectly visible how MG ammunition is cooking off
Still, there is a video in this thread showing how a pure ammo cook off looks like and it looks NOTHING like the fire on the T-90.
You have not adressed this and I know you won't because it clearly shows you are dead wrong and that it's the commamders station that is burning.

>>33204027
>T14 is stillborn lemon
Where so people get this idea?
It's a solid idea for improving tanks beyond 3rd Gen, it uses technology and materials that are plentiful in Russian industry, they shouldn't cost too much more than a new production T90, it's only failure was a new driver accidentally putting on an emergency brake in the middle of a parade rehearsal.

>>33204553
>Apollo was designed in the early 60s
>last flight was in 72

They better have been able to do better after a decades worth of development

File: t-14 (9).jpg (172KB, 1280x911px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1280x911px

>>33204555
The video shows MG ammunition cooking off from a hit by a sniper rifle round, not from a hit by a missile. You however indeed did not address the fact that any fire or even the slightest bit of smoke from the second open hatch or gun is completely and utterly lacking, as well as the fact that it is visible that the gun itself remains elevated.
>>33204557
>Where so people get this idea?
They are upset.

>>33204474
>T-72B3
Is a desperate attempt by russia trying to keep the vast stocks of obsolete T-72s relevant.
They barely got it to compete with M1A1 and Leo2A4 but is nothing compared with more modern western tanks.
The base for the electronics on the T-72B3 is french knockoff, very crude compared to current western gear. Even during the 80s the soviets where facing an increasing gap where they where left behind in electronics and now when tanks like the Leo 2A6 with LAHAT, the west is better of in every single area by a big margin. Better gun, better FCS, better cannon, better ammo, better protection better thermals, better everything compared to the T-90A and T-72B3 by far.

File: putin is a liar.png (453KB, 551x413px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 551x413px

>>33204602
>The video shows MG ammunition cooking off from a hit by a sniper rifle round,

Stop, my sides can't take anymore!

>>33204474
Jesus, who let the drunk Russians in here? You know that russian armor is a joke right? Just like russian submarines? Just like Russian aircraft? Just like russian anything?

It's over Ivan. Finish your vodka, and fall asleep remembering when your country could do anything right.

File: K2 firing line.jpg (559KB, 1600x1060px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1600x1060px

don't need to, worst korea gooks are already making one

>>33204607
You see, the thing is there was nothing to "barely get" about T-72B? as this is the tank M1A1 desperately tries to complete with, however failing halfway there. And T-72B3 like I said outmatches M1A2 with ease.

>>33204602
Gunpowder burns for a few seconds.
The clip shows a T-90 burning for minutes. Gunpowder won't burn for minutes no matter how much nor how you ignite it.
Cue you not responding to this because you KNOW you are wrong yet you can't admit to it because SLAVA ROSSIYA is ingrained in your mind to the level that you cannot comprehend that russian tanks are bad.

>>33204632
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li6RFLLg2M0
>Sniper Hits HMG Ammo Box - Iraq War 2015
Wow, I didn't expect you went so deep in denial for you to start denying your own proofs.
>>33204633
Oh oh, what is it, did I invade your safe space, Eugene? Deal with it.

>>33204642
The T-72B3 is a roadbump to any western tank, woefully lacking in every relevant area. This is why russia hurried the T-14 into production, because they know that the T-72B3 is just a cold war relic with makeup to make it easier for the crews to pretend that they are not sitting ia a death trap waiting to be ignited by wastly superior western tanks.

>>33193242
>in tank
>turret gets completely blown off
>ear drums fucked
>smoke everywhere, cant breathe
>its fine, I'll just sit inside this metal box with a gaping hole in the top that's on fire
No, you'd bail out and run for it.
>>33193340
>Can be repaired
Sure, its still fucked for the duration of that engagement and its no good being repairable if you can't repair it because its in enemy territory now.

>>33204659
>thinking there's only one person making fun of you
>not even capable of reading any other posts to see where you've been BTFO

incredible. I love vatniks so much

>>33204644
The response to this would be to once again point you at the video that clearly shows MG ammunition cooking off. You however indeed did not address the fact that any fire or even the slightest bit of smoke from the second open hatch or gun is completely and utterly lacking, as well as the fact that it is visible that the gun itself remains elevated.
There is not reason to be upset. You just have to deal with it.

>>33204659
You know that the video in your link gives waterproof evidence that you are wrong, right?

>Eugene
There has not even been any frenchies in this thread, what are you talking about?

>>33204662
The case is of course the opposite in real life, where T-14 was not hurried into production in any way and the west is yet to develop an upgrade to its overweight cold war relic pyromangals that matches even T-72B3, let alone T-14 that is as of mow space magic to backwards westerners.

>>33204673
>Thinks his demagogy will get him out of this
>Sniper Hits HMG Ammo Box - Iraq War 2015
Incredible, who knew fatniks can keep hitting the new bottom with every next post.

>>33204677
>clearly shows MG ammunition cooking off.
Except that this is dead wrong. Ammo cookoff looks nothing like the fire in the T-90.
Deal with it.

>>33204702
>space magic to backwards westerners.
there is nothing in the t-14 that western, asian, or even mudslime countries can't replicate

>>33204713
>links to the evidence proving himself wrong.
Russians are apex retarded.

>>33204678
You know MG ammunition being hit with sniper rifle round and with a missile are two different circumstances, right? You know that anyone can go and check the video of T-90 to see that it is indeed the MG ammunition cooking off? What are you hoping for with these desperate attempts to fool around the simple fact that the tanks was abandoned by a crew of spooked arabs and not destroyed? It's right there on the video. Everyone can see it. Everyone saw it. It is clear from even the few seconds that MG ammunition is cooking off.
>There has not even been any frenchies in this thread, what are you talking about?
you don;t have to be French to be a Eugene, Eugene.

>>33204714
Except that it is perfectly visible in the video that the MG ammunition is cooking off.
>>33204731
>The video shows MG ammunition cooking off from a hit by a sniper rifle round
>LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!
>Sniper Hits HMG Ammo Box - Iraq War 2015
>NO U!
This fatnik is broken.

>>33204713
>improper use of demagogue

Ah, it's you! I should've known you're the armatard. I bet you're also the same one that cries about the PAK-FA not having S-ducts as well!

>>33204720
You are sure free to have delusions. It will not make your tank industry any less backwards though. But then again, this was its natural state for the most part of the XX century, so go figure.

>>33204748
>The video shows MG ammunition cooking off from a hit by a sniper rifle round
>N-N-NOOOOOOO! LIEEEEEEEEEESSS!
>Sniper Hits HMG Ammo Box - Iraq War 2015
>LLLIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEESSSS! NO UUU!
Oh well, stay mad.

File: come on boy.jpg (83KB, 355x369px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 355x369px

>>33204754
my tank industry isn't so backwards that i have to rabidly defend it's latest shitheap from fatniks

>>33204748
>>improper use of demagogue
Anyone noticed how about 90% of the times it is used (wrong) on the internet, there is just another butthurt russian behind it?

>>33204773
You've already fallen back on "muh broken fatnik", signaling you've given up and reached the breaking point. Just eat a few pickle spears and a couple of shots of vodka and things will be alright. I promise that poor little Vassily will not have polonium in his beat juice ration this evening. You're doing a good job!

>>33204677
You seem pretty upset that the T-90 in question was left to burn until the fire reached the ammunition.

>>33204702
>we iz advanced tankz n sheeeit
There is nothing remotely advanced about the T-14, save for the russian mental gymnastics behind the retarded design choices.

>>33204734
Of course mg ammo cooks off if you put it in an oil fire from a burning T-90.
Ammo only burns for a few seconds on it's own though. As luck would have it, there was a burning T-90 under it this time.

>>33204743
>angry squealing from an agry vatnik who has never seen small arms ammo burn: the post

>>33204938
>Ammo only burns for a few seconds on it's own
>agry vatnik who has never seen small arms ammo burn
Well, you guys definitely have a no idea about it

>>33204678
>There has not even been any frenchies in this thread, what are you talking about
Of all the generic Russian names he gets called in these threads (Ivan, Dmitry, etc.) Yevgeniy seems to have triggered him hard because now he seems to think it's some kind of insulting perjorative.

>>33205038
The gunpowder in an individual round will burn for half a second if ignited. In addition, small arms ammunition igniting does not propagate, only in a continuous external fire does it cook off.
https://youtu.be/3SlOXowwC4c
Note that in the sniper video they used tracer which is much better at igniting spilled gunpowder yet we did not see the characteristic popping of ammunition in fire.
In conclusion, the T-90 had to be on fire in order for the ammo to cook off.
Probably hydraulic oil from the commanders weapon station.

>>33195676
what is this meme means?

>>33205199
>armatard thinks Yevgeniy is an insult so he copies it and uses the westernized latin version to insult Americans
The inner machinations of the vatniks fractured mind is truly an enigma.

File: 19158919_401.png (98KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 700x394px

America puts a single armour brigade in poland . A brigade, Not evan a division. Single fucking brigade. Less than 90 tanks, and some IFVs and support vehicles. Hell, burgers havent even bothered to repaint them from desert camo.

And guess what happens? Russian government immediately starts screeching about dire threat to russia's national securty, starts threatening with nukes , and deploys entire divisions as counter.

All this because 6 companies - not 6 divisions, not 6 brigades, not even 6 battalions , but whole_6_fucking_companies_ of Abrams tanks appered in neighbouring country . 18 platoons! Dear mother of Lenin, together with cavalry troop thts over 80 tanks! And with accompanying infantry ! A combat juggenaut!

And this literally tells everything you want to know about what russians government and military leaders _really_ think about "obsolete burger tanks that would be slaughtered superrior russian armour. "

Russkies may beat their chest and scream Russia Stronk all they want , but their reaction about mere few dozens of fatnik tanks parking nearby tells you all you need to know about the true combat value of russian military.

>>33204553

>More like to catch up on its lack of R&D in the 90s. Now that it is back in business it easily rolls out upgrades to its tanks that outmatch their western counterparts.

As far as I'm aware, they are still licenced copies of French designs. Sure, the end result is decent, but the point is it isn't Russian developed technology.

>Wouldn't be too sure about that.

An anecdote from 1975 during a publicity operation isn't indicative of the industrial tends. The microelectronics issue was one that became increasingly pronounced over the 80's, along with several other examples of lagging behind. The USSR didn't feel the need to attempt to reform (and ended up splitting up) out of nowhere.

File: 1462592712613.jpg (59KB, 604x404px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 604x404px

>>33205404
It's honestly kind of weird, most vatniks just settle for Jamal/Tyrone but he seems fixated on Eugene, it must be some personal thing.

Why do you guys bother arguing with vatniks? I just feel sorry for these bastards who will have to ride in one of these tanks they love to defend, but in reality, will end up as their fiery coffin.

>>33205404
>vatniks fractured mind
having nothing to look forward to in life other than your next bottle of vodka will do terrible things to your psyche.

File: SPIKE_ATGM.jpg (71KB, 600x384px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x384px

>>33203247
>>33203392
How about the Spike?
Lot cheaper than Javelin, decent range, TV seeker, F&F.
>Penetration from above is not guaranteed
What MBT has more than 500mm RHA of roof armor?

>>33204748
>Ah, it's you! I should've known you're the armatard.
Been out of the loop for a few month, who is the armatard? Tripfag?

>>33198590
Makes sense, any "large scale symmetrical warfare" that Russia engaged in would result in a shit ton of tactical (possibly nuclear) surface to surface missiles being flung, and then nuclear ICBMs and ALCMs launches.

So why not adjust away from the "huge standing army" and turn into a more effective "little green men" force.

>>33205568
The Mammoth & Apocalypse series tanks.

>>33205364
>Probably hydraulic oil from the commanders weapon station.
More like plastic explosive in the ERA bricks

File: image.jpg (155KB, 750x602px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 750x602px

>>33196509
>t. kremlin stooge

File: 1486090739939.jpg (215KB, 1500x1142px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1500x1142px

>>33193037
mud

>>33205615
He's an exceptional shitty vatnik who frequented Armata threads and tried to claim that the Abrams was taller than the Armata. He got BTFO in short order with multitudes of evidence whereupon he usually started to post bad reaction pictures, dtale fatnik based insults, repeating his points in bad english, heavy use of implication and lacking any kind of source to back up his claim.
He became known for his catchphrase "this fatnik is of broken" which he doled out when he got bantered too hard.
He is also known to frequent S-400 threads, F-35 bashing threads, AEGIS vs ballistic missiles threads and such, any thread that might relate to russian military might compared to NATO.
He has a thing for taking insults that burns his anus extra bad and trying to reuse them against Americans, no matter how nonsensical they are when used by him. See fatnik, Eugene and similar.
A good case in this thread is the T-90 RWS fire. Notice how no evidence is forthcoming from the vatnik, he simply states his case over and over not trying to add anything whatsoever to back up his point.
Most who argue him just uses the same tactic against him, any evidence procured will be ignored in any case.
He does not tripcode because he would be filtred by any sane user.
Many vatniks follow his pattern though, it can be hard at times to tell the real deal from the copy cats.

>>33205408
>and deploys entire divisions as counter

it's more politics on both sides than anything else. America moved their brigade to keep the eastern NATO nations from shitting themselves. Russia moved the division to make America weary of moving brigades to those nations.

File: T-90_turret_side_view.jpg (183KB, 775x515px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 775x515px

>>33205765
The ERA is mainly located in the centre of the turret, there is no ERA on the weapon station itself. That being said, between ERA, hydraulic motors, electric gear and whatnot, there is plenty to burn up there.

>>33205983
>Russia moved the division to make America weary of moving brigades to those nations.
Is it not more to try to intimidate the host nation not to accept US troops?
The US fears nothing from russia except nukes.
I imagine russian machismo also plays a huge part, putin has to put on a show every time someone defy them and make them look impotent.

>>33205904
Actually i was expecting something like 1-2 sentences for an answer, this makes it look like he is one exeptional annoying fuck. Thanks for the info, will probaly save me from wasting too much time on him in the future.

>>33206078
Profiling vatniks is a hobby of mine, I hope to one day gian insight into these small sad minds, to become the Jane Goodall of vatniks, the vatnik whisperer.

>>33206055
the thing is that it makes russia look even weaker. If you act like 100 tanks is a direct immediate threat to your nation you are taking a gamble. Others nations might think

>wow , russia reacts this way to something so completely unthreatening... this means russia is dangerosuly unhinged and paranoi, better not make them angry!

but they just as well might come to the conclusion

>wow , if russia reacts this way to something that seems completely unthreatening - it means they are even weaker and less stable than we thought!

>>33204633
Russia has some weird shit going on in the science field actually. Especially MS and other niche fields relation to petrochemical industries.

It was surprising to read about considering I'd literally never heard anything (majorly) innovative about the country until recently. Can't speak to what they're like outside of chemistry though.

File: AH-64D_Apache_Longbow.jpg (14KB, 300x221px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x221px

Pic.

Russia needs excellent tanks due to enormous open border. Same is not necessarily true for NATO.

>>33193242
where did this fucking retard come from?

>>33206323
With such enormous open border you would think they would invest more on helicopters.

>>33194653
Thats a lie, fuckhead.

>>33192663
>F35
>credible response
Thread hijack!

>>33197761


>>33197967


kek

>>33203700
But then this is /k/ after all.

>>33195646
underrated

>>33205408
I imagine if Russia deployed 90 tanks to Mexico it would be met with a stoic and measured response from the US.

Then again, with your current president, maybe it would

>>33206501
>implying Russia has any effective counters to the F-35

>>33206960
>Ehhhh, Donny baby, don't worry! Tanks just there for friendly joint training, da?

>>33190388
Better question is where are all the Armatas? :v)

File: proofs were a mistake.png (36KB, 537x416px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 537x416px

>>33205514
Occasionally posters who really knows what they're talking about show up to assblast them six ways to siberia while being very informative on the topic at the same time. Doesn't seem to happen much in tank threads unfortunately though, these kind of just peter out.

>>33205408
Kaliningrad.