fucking hell where is the god damn m1a3 abrams? what happened to it?

File: IMG_1523.jpg (91KB, 1022x680px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1022x680px

>>33490425
Instead of changing the A2 to A3 they are changing the SEPv2 to SEPv3.

>>33490425
It needs another trillion on funding silly go-.... uhh, guy!

Most of the US's adversaries are Air/Naval threats rather than ground threats, and a lot of the ones that are ground threats are insurgents.

>>33491801
And they need a nice cheap medium tank with a low velocity cannon to deal with these insurgents

File: Countershaded_Rail-mounted_Gun_Camouflaged_by_Hugh_Cott_1940.jpg (37KB, 349x285px)

37KB, 349x285px

DAMN countershading works like THIS

File: 523453245.jpg (133KB, 800x1048px)

133KB, 800x1048px

>>33490425
>what happened to it?
Eric Shinji and his FCS boondoggle happened.

>>33492701
Cheap tanks are just atgm fodder.

>>33492972
I've seen Israeli tanks with little Phalanx CIWS style anti-missile things mounted on their tanks. Seem to recall them working too.

>>33490931
What are the weird things attache to the M2 barrel?

>>33494045
Barrel shroud. It is upgrade to reduce barrel's end vibrations and make fire more accurate. You can see same things on modern autocannons like 30 mm MK 30-2/ABM of IFV Puma.

>>33492972
shouldn't be a problem now that obama isn't able to supply them anymore ;)

wasnt there a pic of one on a rail car early last year?

>>33494045
Blank firing adapter for the M2.

>>33494386
It's a BFA you twat.

>>33490425
Ran out of gas

File: 13701086_10157306281045294_3366490885775313803_o.jpg (230KB, 2048x1367px)

230KB, 2048x1367px

>>33494408
That was the old Thumper 140mm testbed.

>>33494398
They still have Potin.

>>33494431
>>33494429
You are no fun.

Reminder that the US Army will still use Abrams when other nations moving to next gen tanks.

Sad

>>33494658

Does it really matter when aircraft rule the battlefield, and there will be endless drones with standoff capability and also kamikaze drones that can kill a tank easily? Not to mention modern ATGM? Real tanks aren't Bolos. They are targets.

>>33494658
>Other nations
Such as...? You build a tank that can be upgraded to meet demand and keeps running, you'be built a pretty good tank.

>>33494674
>Does it really matter when aircraft rule the battlefield

Yes

>>33494691
Exactly, it's a good, solid tank.

>>33494867
I heard it

>>33494456
underrated

>>33493981
>I've seen Israeli tanks with little Phalanx CIWS style anti-missile things mounted on their tanks

What the fuck are you smoking

File: 20160126_LAUGHINGimage-696x413.jpg (29KB, 696x413px)

29KB, 696x413px

>>33493981

>>33492965
If the admin would have listened to him on Iraq a lot of things would be fucking different.
I don't blame him from trying to push anime tech.

>>33490931
You spread this myth every thread with no sources.

I'm calling you out faggot

>>33494045
>>33494386
the knot


>fucking new guys

>>33494045
Ballast to move the center of gravity

File: Dalekgun.jpg (13KB, 550x350px)

13KB, 550x350px

>>33494045
american-made Dalek gun, for EXTERMINATE sand niggers

>>33493981
>https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy

?¿

This?

>>33492965

FCS would have worked out fine if not for Iraq sucking up the budget from the next decade and a half of Army procurement in addition to money needed for updating neglected equipment from the last decade.

>>33496375
>actual naming scheme being used
>myth

>>33494658
Reminder that by the time other nations replace their current MBT's the US will have replaced the Abrams.

>>33497408
FCS got canned in part because Iraq showed the vulnerabilities of such a light vehicle.

>>33497408
This desu

File: jennyigotyournumber.jpg (49KB, 470x706px)

49KB, 470x706px

>>33497474
>people always forget that everyone is much much poorer than the U.S.
>our rate of production literally won a world war, back the fuck off retards
This is the only thing that really triggers me, why the fuck do idiots talk about shit they have no fucking idea, armor isn't a field that makes leaps and bounds with single designs, rather a single design is improved upon over time leading to new developments
Fucking /k/ is probably full of underaged sassy children
Thank you anon

>>33497506

The planning the army did in the 90's and early 00's did not plan for anything like Iraq, no amount of planning did.

FCS was cancelled because surprise, it was not that great for fighting a war that no sane person would have fought in the first place.

What it would be fantastic for is fighting groups like IS.

>>33497583
>armor isn't a field that makes leaps and bounds with single designs,
The T-64 would like a word.

>>33497816

depends, T-64's armor is not any better than say, IS-7 in terms of effective protection.

But it is a lot lighter, on account of being on a much smaller tank.

>>33490931
Damn and I was hoping for a M1A3E8 in our future. There's enough history buffs in the military to get this done

>>33497797
Erm... we were fighting groups like IS--including its progenitor--in Iraq.

They used IEDs because we stomped on them any time they tried to use the slightly more conventional tactics that IS can get away with against lesser opponents today.

>>33497816
The T-64 was a result of the continuous evolution of Soviet armor development, not a sudden leap from say the T-34.

The most noteworthy aspect of the T-64's design is how compact it is compared to other Soviet tanks.

>>33492965
Told you, we should have cloned Evangelions instead.

>>33497451
Prove once and for all that there's no M1A3 being worked on despite the mountains of evidence saying otherwise you dumb nigger.

>>33497506
FCS was a re-hash of the strategic mobility concepts from the '60s and '70s. It came about in no small part because we had no strongly-defined enemies in the '90s, and were looking at the possibility of keeping troops based in CONUS to save money, and rapidly deploying them both at the strategic level, and then again at the tactical level, where C-130s could move a CO or BN-sized formation hundreds of miles to do deep raiding or maneuver against the types of enemies that we expected to face within the next 20-30 years (from the '90s, remember).

So, that's the background that produced the CONOPS that would later lead to many of the requirements for FCS. From that vantage point, the program does make more sense, although it was still in many ways "a bridge too far"; combat vehicles with reasonable firepower, mobility, and armor just couldn't be squeezed into a 20-ton, C-130-sized package without too many compromises.

Take the Crusader, for example--it was publicly derided by all the "smart" people for being 80 TONS, MORE THAN THE M-1 TANK!!eleven (even though it was really 40 tons + a 4-ton resupply vehicle). So, it got cancelled when it was nearing production, and development on NLOS-C started. By cutting down armor, suspension, ammo load (which means needing more resupply vehicles, not fewer), etc., and chopping off several feet on the gun (reducing range), designers were able to come up with a totally new vehicle that weighed ~20 tons (plus a 20-ton resupply vehicle) and still was "good enough" for most uses.

This, of course, got cancelled along with the rest of FCS, even though it could have been built by itself. So, we're still stuck with M-109s with large crews, slow RoFs, and no MRSI capability.

File: maneuver material strategy.jpg (265KB, 872x1274px)

265KB, 872x1274px

>>33498089
By all means share some of this mountain of evidence, bonus points for it not being a decade old citation.

In the meantime have a graphic from the US army that no longer makes reference to the A3.

>>33498097
err, 40-ton, not 4-ton, sorry.

Also, FCS never had a good solution for a tank, because even the best armor is still too heavy. Instead, there would have been an assault gun like the one used (poorly) on Strykers. This whole concept was one of the most-handwaved parts of FCS (and there were many).

>>33497971

Don't worry, in 100 years they'll have the M1A4E5 SEPv4 PIP3 TUSK-I2

File: 1693368_-_1.jpg (390KB, 1362x850px)

390KB, 1362x850px

>>33498097
Which raises the question of how the changes to the M109A7 compare to its predecessors, especially once they start getting retrofit with the new lengthened gun being tested on M777A2's.

File: SuT5455005.jpg (336KB, 1430x982px)

336KB, 1430x982px

>>33497871
>T-64's armor is not any better than say, IS-7 in terms of effective protection
IS-7 had 440/575 APFSDS/HEAT protection?
>>33498014
Yes it was. But in itself it was a revolutionary design.
>The most noteworthy aspect of the T-64's design is how compact it is compared to other Soviet tanks
What other Soviet tanks do you have in mind here and how do T-44, T-54/55 and T-62 fit into your narrative?

>>33498584
>But in itself it was a revolutionary design.

How was it's design revolutionary beyond the new technologies implemented?

>What other Soviet tanks do you have in mind here and how do T-44, T-54/55 and T-62 fit into your narrative?

I think you are too caught up in your own narrative to think about how it relates to its contemporaries instead of its predecessors.

>>33494658
Reminder that when other nations have replaced their current tanks they might be comparable to current M1SEPv3 versions.

>>33498674
Through all the new and perspective technologies being put together into one design.
>how it relates to its contemporaries instead of its predecessors
It's Soviet contemporaries were T-54/55 and T-62. I am asking you to explain your narrative, since T-64 is not too much more compact compared to them.

>>33498584

Pretty close, the hull of the IS-7 was 150mm of armor @ 68 degrees combined for around 400mm LOS RHA.

The 80+composite+20 @ 68 degrees glacis of the T-64 should actually be somewhat weaker against KE and stronger against CE. The early fiberglass composites were basically useless against KE.

>>33499148
The T-64's Soviet contemporary was the T-72 and T-80.

>>33499519
You know what contemporary means, right? T-72 and T-80 appeared years later. Anyway, my question remains.

>>33499831
By your own logic the T-55 and T-62 are not contemporaries of the T-64. And you are ignoring the fact that the T-64, T-72 and T-80 were all produced into the 1980's.

>>33500400
Yes they are, since they were in service when T-64 went operational. The question remains. What other Soviet tanks do you have in mind saying that "the most noteworthy aspect of the T-64's design is how compact it is compared to other Soviet tanks"?