Tank Thread

>shit against missiles
>shit against helicopters
>shit against attack aircraft
>shit against bombers
Why do we have tanks again?

>>33631028
pretty to look at

File: 1457173286055.jpg (321KB, 1000x751px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1000x751px

>>33631003

Rainbow tanks!

Does anyone have the info graphic with the Soviet improvised armor with the "infantry protection?

>>33631028

Because none of those things work in a confined space or bad weather.

>>33631028
For breakthroughs and speed? It's superior against Infantry, IEDS, and other tanks. It also provides cover in a charge for soldiers, making it necessary in charges.

File: Challenger 2 lewd.jpg (46KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x480px

>>33631003
Challenger 2's get my dick hard

I don't even know why, but I think they're sexy as fuck.

File: Snii0jkD3SI.jpg (166KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1280x720px

Best tonk in the world

File: is-3 & isu-152.jpg (417KB, 3000x2374px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 3000x2374px

That feel when no armour directly in your neighbourhood to let your children play around.

File: 200.gif (1011KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 200x200px

>>33631385
Tfw your kid throws a bitchfit and locks themselves inside an Is3.

>>33631028
Because they fuck up infantry

File: young liberator.jpg (46KB, 599x399px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 599x399px

>>33631407
>Kid locks themselves inside of an IS-3
>Am raising a true liberator
>Am of proud

>>33631347
>>33631351
>>33631372
>Viking Longship
>Allfader

I like it.

>>33631028
Idea of tank was born with something can go through the harsh terrain while infantary and cars cannot. Then it became why aren't they carrying a big gun then why don't they have some armour to protect the people operate it.

Modernd APDS systems fucks up most of the attack on tanks. And as the anon said >>33631059 tanks are good at operating under worst conditions and carrying a good amount of HE to fuck up things. You could use aerial offense but while tanks are cheaper and reliable to operate they always going to be the first choice. Also they are the closest support to the infantary and you don't need an airfield to make them move.

File: 1491287062562.jpg (108KB, 800x415px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x415px

Best tank coming through

>>33632192
What is that?

>>33632200
The Patton Starship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGVa4EC6HLA

>>33632247
Thanks, you got my dick hard.

>>33631028
>shit against missiles
>shit against helicopters
>shit against attack aircraft
>shit against bombers
Applies to all ground units.

Why do we still vehicles?

File: MK IV Female 005 - Mk IV Female beute.jpg (116KB, 825x587px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 825x587px

Old tonk

File: IBM202f.jpg (143KB, 1141x706px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1141x706px

>>33631003

File: russian-scarecrow.jpg (154KB, 518x640px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 518x640px

>>33632482

File: 1389825408956.jpg (1MB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2272x1704px

>>33632491

>>33632491
kek at file name

File: Chally 2 scrotum armor.jpg (149KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1280x720px

>>33631003
>inb4 fatniks and vatniks shit up the thread with their usual "MUH TANK IS BETTER THAN YOUR TANK" shit

I want this to be a comfy thread, please.

File: SdKfz_234_1_Fu_unbekannte_Einheit.jpg (79KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x450px

Does this count? (Sd.Kfz 234/1)

>>33632491
T-26 is cute!
Cute!

File: 9ff-GTronic-gegen-Leopard-2-1200x800-b47eaccdf17caf4f.jpg (134KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1200x800px

Good thing this tank is completely waterproof. It makes really fucking wet.

>>33632655
Padded exterior, Damn this a really comfy thread. I want to ride that tank.

File: Challenger1.jpg (1MB, 2840x1860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2840x1860px

>>33631323
Chally-2s are great, but I like the Challenger-1 better

File: T-90_2.jpg (171KB, 700x524px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 700x524px

>>33632655
>that filename

the fuck...

>>33631382
is this the final design for armata? it looks unprotected, will it get armor around its turret ?

>>33631050
It's OK TO BE GAY LET'S REJOICE WITH THE BOYS

File: b42548_7979c5ae00474f9d93bdd3a2437595d1.jpg (379KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 2048x1365px

M1A1 > Leopard II and PT-91
Australia will conquer SE asia.

File: 1457707787812.jpg (1MB, 2548x1672px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2548x1672px

She ain't the prettiest, but she gets the job done, and done well.

File: Tank_on_Flamenco_Beach.jpg (398KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 2048x1536px

YOU MANIACS!
YOU BLEW IT UP!
DAMN YOU!
GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

>>33631003
>Tank Thread
You done fucked up, anon.

File: 19e39361c54679cfa3fa205a1af4dbf2.616x446x1.png (233KB, 616x446px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 616x446px

>>33638260
>Australia will conquer SE asia.
with tanks?

>>33637488
>(((t-90)))

It appears it's a T-80BV.

>>33637605
Think it's just a LEWD pic of Armata-chan without her skirts on.

>>33632655
10/10, would cuddle.

File: 24Sd6uM.jpg (115KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x533px

>>33638260
Singapore says HI and PREPARE TO DIE

>>33632255
>>33632255
>>33632255

Them digits

>>33631003
>Warning: Don't post shit tier tanks
You already failed on this count, OP

File: 65680af66d6c09b77914666b244992d5.jpg (38KB, 478x310px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 478x310px

Beep beep motherfuckers

>>33632677
>ywn get to enjoy this view during your matzo break after a long day of mowing down hordes of Syrian armor

Feels bad, man.

File: British_tank_design.jpg (125KB, 600x575px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 600x575px

>>33640431
JUST

File: CR1kad1420ub2_zps30721a34.jpg (116KB, 692x1024px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 692x1024px

FUCK

File: 1403946464-fk0dj.jpg (77KB, 611x430px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 611x430px

MY

File: BnxlRQvN97k.thumb.jpg.95ff5d143a590ea92b8a079899c88d50.jpg (106KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1000x665px

SHIT

File: auzezH-9KoI.jpg.b8ed20d0efe5a839b53cead3cbd2fdef (2).jpg (63KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 604x453px

UP

Daily reminder that the T-54 is the most beautiful tank that has ever existed

File: falcon turret .jpg (299KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1024x768px

>>33637452
All Challengers are cool - even Jordinian unmanned turret Challengers

>>33632655
Weird. Padding looks comfy though

File: Tank Biathlon.jpg (132KB, 800x521px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 800x521px

>>33631050

>>33631028
>shit against guns
>shit against grenades
>shit against artillery
>shit against explosives in general
>shit against any and all vehicles
>shit against aircraft
Why do we have infantry again?

>>33640236
by paradropping cases of carlton drought and winnieblues andwaiting till they get trollyed then waltzing in casually

File: tank.jpg (216KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1920x1280px

Imagine the face of Hamas people when they see this.

>>33641164
Bonus points for anyone who can say which Merk is that.

>>33641164
they're pretty over the moon with their t-62's to know how fucked they are

>>33641164
Mahmud, bring the kornet!

File: doing my job.jpg (2MB, 3008x1960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3008x1960px

>>33641170

File: doing my job(2).jpg (442KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 2000x1333px

>>33641176

>>33641164
It's a Mk.3D. Gib shekels now.

>>33641175
>Shoot kronet at Merk 4m
>It shoots it down
>Automatically aims at you
WHERE IS ALLAH NOW
>>33641182
Nice. Most people would say 4 I imagine.

>>33641168
mk3d baz

>>33631454
Welcome to Norway

File: t3jlLkE.jpg (480KB, 1812x1182px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1812x1182px

Name a sexier tank

Ill be waiting

File: S.jpg (997KB, 3600x2160px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 3600x2160px

>>33641197
gee, that was hard

>>33641205
Eww

File: S103.jpg (435KB, 2500x1875px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 2500x1875px

>>33641211
i dont like fat girls. the S is like a petite, athletic girl

>>33641218
with downs

File: 8514c8f0d8a6faa416f93b8e12be4564.jpg (79KB, 736x483px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 736x483px

>>33641228
those are fat. S is slim

File: Challenger 2 OC AJAX3.jpg (190KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 2048x1536px

>>33631323
CR2's are beautiful tanks.

Whatever happened to /thg/? I havent been here for about a year or two

File: Challenger 2 OC AJAX5.jpg (299KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 2048x1536px

>>33642141

>>33641241
>>33641218
>>33641205
Seems like what's missing from this is a small turret to fire TOW missiles.

File: Abrams destroyed compilation 2003-10.jpg (2MB, 1962x1582px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1962x1582px

>>33641045
SENPAI

>>33642143
/thg/ guy is busy irl and only makes them sporadically

File: Challenger 2 Megatron.jpg (79KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x533px

>>33632655
I think that's the testbed/theatre standard reference vehicle at Bovington - the one nicknamed Megatron

>>33642620
It is. Was at bovington last year, spoke with the crew and asked them what life was like in the RAC, because I was thinking of joining

Asked them what the wrinkly jacket was for and they told me it removes most of the vehicles' thermal signature. Also told me it'll most likely never actually be fielded, due to the sheer effort required to put it on\take it off.

>>33641218
>>33641228
it does look like a sad downs tank girl now that you mention it.

File: iDU7cGOGSeU.jpg (82KB, 1384x825px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1384x825px

>>33642199
>Posts images of MBTs taken out from the sides or destroyed to prevent capture
>This has nothing to do with the fact that Challenger 1/2 have few cm of steel separating turret ring from enemy projectiles, and their only defense is then enemy not being able shoot straight.
All Western tanks have had applique armor kits added. Challenger 2's TES-H, M1 Abrams' TUSK, Leopard 2's AMAP.
TES-H still doesn't do anything about that driver's periscope weak spot.
Challenger 2 hasn't had it's integrated armor upgraded since it entered service while Abrams, Leo 2, Leclerc have at least twice

>>33640431
>spot the american Abraham fanboi

>>33642990
Real tank combat isn't a video game where you aim for weakpoints and hope you get a decent damage roll.

The drivers viewport "weakspot" is so not an issue that the MoD ignores it because it's just that; not an issue. An actual valid, and justified problem would be the TOGS II system being mounted directly on the gun barrel, making it slightly harder for CR2 tank gunners to aim HESH rounds, through thermals, over long distances (approx 3km).

Not to mention, the Challenger 2 is technically NATO's "Newest" Main Battle tank, being put into service in 1998. In contrast to your statement, the M1 Abrams has had only 1 (one) intergrated armor upgrade (M1A2 SEP) which came a year after the CR2 was introduced. The Leopard 2 still retains it's 1990 armor configuration (see Leo 2A5 armor upgrade), and has yet to be proven in combat. All in well order, considering how poorly the 2A4 is doing in Syria, against ATGMs and RPGs.

The Leclerc, I don't know much about. Most of the information about that tank, I get from Wikipedia. And, from what i can gather, the Leclercs armor package has only been upgraded once, four years after the introduction of the CR2. So, it's fair to say most, if not all modern NATO MBT's share a similar generation of armor values of the CR2.

However, only the M1A2 and CR2 have actually been proven effective in tank\tank and tank\AT combat. Please don't interpret this as me being "biased" to the Challenger 2. I like the vehicle a lot, however I'm also well aware of the bad aspects of the vehicle. Yet, every modern MBT has bad aspects, respectfully.

Quick question, I'm planning a trip down to the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland but I've also heard they moved some of the stuff to Fort Lee. How much stuff is still left at Aberdeen? All I could find were just articles and form posts from a few years ago during the move too fort Lee.

>>33642199
Of course the Abrams is going to see losses in combat.

It's the only one deployed in any significant number these days.

File: M48.jpg (993KB, 3528x2036px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 3528x2036px

Classic Cold War

File: 1489856364125.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>33631028

>>33632749
No, but is nice

>>33631014
fpbp, best fucking tank

>>33646002
I hope filename is a joke that I'm not getting.

File: 5dbf0324-dd71-4caf-a700-8c5ddb2ae059.jpg (123KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1200x800px

>>33648071
It's not the worst fuckup I've ever seen

>>33648094
Well, I mean, that is a UC, and kind of looks like a Stuart, which in North Africa was used by the Commonwealth nearly more than the US.

>>33648220
If people are riding on the top of tanks, why the fuck don't they have shields up there to protect those guys from small arms fire

>>33648071
it is

File: vietnam armor 2.webm (3MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 853x480px

>>33648220

File: 1492114767268.jpg (41KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x550px

Obj. 279

File: Apc+evolution_6aafdd_5569405.jpg (53KB, 410x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 410x640px

>>33648322
it would just make it harder to dismount troops fast and make an excellent target for rpg's. also the only reason they are riding up there is to give themselves a better chance of surviving running over a anti-tank mine.

>>33641087
pacman is fucked now

>>33631059
Also

>average air unit has a budget in the tens of millions of dollars

>average tank battalion requires like twelve dollars and some energy drinks

>>33648876
That pic is dumb.

It should stop after 7. due to the fact most modern APC's have autocannons equipped with rounds capable of knocking out main battle tanks.

>>33642161
IT AIN'T ME

>>33651442
No, you are dumb.

>capable of knocking out main battle tanks.
By which you mean "capable of knocking out main battle tanks, so long as the shot is taken from behind the target at no more than half a kilometer."

File: 1487915347854.jpg (667KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 1920x1440px

Anyone got more tank art?

File: 1491883540464.png (1MB, 1600x831px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x831px

>>33651618
Like this?

File: france-1944-year-the-field-fight-tanks-sherman-panthers-fire-flame-sky-plane-ww2-picture.jpg (505KB, 1920x1268px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1920x1268px

>>33651618
And this?

File: 1485160873972.jpg (540KB, 1152x1195px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1152x1195px

>>33651637
>>33651639
That's the stuff, post more

>>33632677
Is that picture taken in Israel? Didn't realize it had so much green

File: MerkavaMK3.jpg (258KB, 978x638px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 978x638px

>tfw you operate one irl

feelsgoodmane

>>33651663
It was taken by Merkgunner IIRC, so yeah.

File: UDES.jpg (92KB, 886x607px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 886x607px

We Halo now

>>33648004
Big cannon to compensate for Hitler's micropenis

>>33651793

What made the Tiger I so heavy? It had a pretty poor protection to weight ratio, especially when compared to the T-55.

>>33651865
pre t-55. bigger gun and engine and thicker armour than any heavy tank at the time it saw service. transmission problems aside it was a scary fucking thing to know was out there. could have used sloped armour on the upper glacis but whatever they didnt

>>33651865
Probably has something to do with the fact its a big metal box

File: 1312913772709.jpg (68KB, 1400x970px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1400x970px

>>33651865

What >>33651881 said

It had a complex track design and had armor up to 5 inches thick in places.

File: IMG_0350.jpg (154KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1200x800px

>>33651865
Technology, it's a late interwar design.

File: udes_xx_20_swedish_articulated_tank__by_futurewgworker-d9a0x3r.png.jpg (84KB, 602x1326px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 602x1326px

>>33651706
patent drawing

File: unnamed.gif (2MB, 384x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 384x216px

A E S T H E T I C

>>33651442
>capable of knocking out main battle tanks

Which ones?

File: Lf2003-0834.jpg (87KB, 450x321px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 450x321px

>>33651865

>Fuck huge cannon with fuck huge recoil compensator
>Retarded armour profile means you need more plating to have the same effect as sloping
>Fuck huge engine and transmission


Just look at it, everything about it says heavy.

>>33652207
What tank? Hard to tell. T-90? Doesn't have the shape of a t-90 though, but it looks russian.

File: Leopard 1_2.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>33652216
Leopard 1

>>33652262
THANK YOU!

>>33631028
>shit against infantry that can run sideways

>>33652087
Looks like a plastic tank. Seriously if that tank had some real armour it's tracks wouldn't be that narrow

>>33652319
It is a CV90 with a fake exterior.

>>33652568
It realy does look like. Thanks anon

Tanks are for cucks

File: t90 with shtora.jpg (7KB, 173x109px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 173x109px

>>33651632

>>33651604
>>33652159


Scimitar's knocked out multiple T55 and T62 frontally in the gulf with SABOT rounds fired from their 30mm RARDEN

>>33653648
No they didn't.

File: FV107 Scimitar.jpg (2MB, 4064x2704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4064x2704px

>>33654143
LCoH Mick Flynn was decorated for engaing Iraqi MBT's with his Scimitar troop on two ocasions.

>The commander of a Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle of D Squadron of the Household Cavalry Regiment, LCoH Flynn was involved in several notable actions against enemy heavy armour. In particular, he located an enemy tank battalion and supporting artillery. Despite coming under heavy Iraqi fire, he called in artillery and air support with devastating accuracy which destroyed the enemy units as effective combat formations.

>An Iraqi tank threatening the evacuation of the wounded was held off by
LCoH Mick Flynn in another Scimitar and CoH Dave Telling in a Striker. For 30 minutes,LCoH Flynn drew both tank and artillery fire while himself firing 140 30mm rounds. Days later, he was in a four-hour battle with five T55s.LCoH Flynn receives the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross

Get fucked.

>>33654200
So what part of that says he knocked out T-55's frontally?

>>33654252
the part where it doesn't say

File: isthatkimchi.jpg (42KB, 410x440px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 410x440px

>>33654200
>>33653648
>T55 and T62
nigga u srs?

>>33654488
They have about 200mm of frontal armour, hardly much for modern ammunition.

Meriting special mention here is the APFSDS-T 30mm Rarden round (L21A1), which features Rheinmetall components. This innovative ammunition is based on proven Rheinmetall sub-calibre technology. Completely inert and entirely non-toxic, the round displays outstanding ballistic characteristics thanks to its sabot. Its extremely resilient long-rod penetrator, made of tungsten alloy, is effective against all known and anticipated types of armour, even at glancing angles of impact and long ranges of engagement. At a range of 1,000 metres, it can penetrate a 50 millimetre steel armour plate (RHA) at 60 Degrees NATO obliquity. This significantly enhances the combat effectiveness of the Warrior infantry fighting vehicles now in service, some 800 of which are currently armed with Rarden cannon.

150mm of RHA pen at 1,000 yards you can bet it can get 200mm at 5-600m

>>33654747
Tungsten is toxic, 50mm at sixty degrees is 100mm not 150mm, and the British only ever had APDS for the Rarden.

>>33654711
200mm is more than any 40mm cannon can overcome at combat distances, let alone a 30mm.

>>33654252
>>33654290

>In the First Gulf War, 16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers, with attached reinforcements, fought as a regiment during this war and was equipped with Scimitar. A troop of Scimitars engaged and knocked out Iraqi T-62s, penetrating their frontal armour with sabot rounds. One Scimitar was engaged and hit by an Iraqi T-55 and the penetrating round passed through the thin aluminium armour without injuring the crew.

>>33654711
The only place where 30mm damages a main battle tank is Battlefield 4. Anything a 30mm does frontally to an MBT can be fixed with a can of spray paint

>>33655029

Where is that from?

>>33654916

>Tungsten is toxic

Pure tungsten is almost biochemicaly inert as well as majority of its minerals (if not, then fucking Sweden will be death long ago from Scheelite caused poisoning), only dust of tungsten carbide is harmful (lung cancer). But you have to fucking use a lot of energy to create WC dust, since it have Mohs hardness above 9, boiling point of 6000 centigrade and Poisson's ratio over 0.3
In fact the best and most expensive surgery blades that are used in MIS are made from tungsten carbide.

File: t-90 jump.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>33655104

>>33655048
Wikipedia

Allegedly. Take it with a pinch of salt, as it's most likely as accurate as "All Abrams tanks knocked out during the gulf were due to friendly fire."

File: Uran-9.webm (1MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 854x480px

>>33655124

>>33655124
the resonance of the wheels has always impressed me in this video. they flop back and forth amazingly fast for their weight

Anybody got the British Pathe webms of the Conqueror Mk.2?

File: t-14 interior.webm (2MB, 566x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 566x360px

>>33655157

>>33652262
Leopard 1A5NO.

File: Sprut water.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>33655194

>>33655048
>>33655130
An uncited blurb from wikipedia is meaningless.

File: biathlon flip.webm (670KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 640x480px

>>33655219

>>33654916
>Tungsten is toxic

So is lead

>50mm at sixty degrees is 100mm not 150mm

might want to check your maths.

>and the British only ever had APDS for the Rarden

the Rheinmetall website disagrees with you.

> Anything a 30mm does frontally to an MBT can be fixed with a can of spray paint

A modern tank yes, but we're talking about T55, Type 59 and T62.

>>33655130
>>33655220

The guy was literally given a Conspicuous Gallantry Cross for knocking out tanks in a scimitar, how desperate do you need to be?

>>33634173
if i was in the second panzer division i would definitely pain a ghost commanding a tank on the side of my tank

File: Oh+shit+it+s+hypin+time+_84d49a06d17960a9e39cf48e799ceab2.jpg (438KB, 992x1250px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 992x1250px

>>33641197
good choice

>>33655557
THEY ARE THE PANZER ELITE, BORN TO COMPETE - NEVER RETREAT
GHOST DIVISION

>>33649536
You forgot the titty mags

File: 1487957489026.jpg (255KB, 1500x942px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1500x942px

>>33631056

>>33653648
>most modern APC's
Scimitars aren't most modern APC's.
Hell, Scimitars aren't even APC's at all.
You are clueless.

File: mfw.jpg (18KB, 409x134px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 409x134px

>>33655707

what is on k's bookmark list for good tank info?

>>33655695
Like something straight out of an old Popular Science cover

File: 1449157737166.jpg (1MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2250x1500px

So is the T-90A the best model of T-90?

And are there T-80s that are better than T-90s?

>>33655460
>So is lead

I assume you simply didn't read the post that was a response to.

>might want to check your maths.

Please share where you found the math that told you a sixty degree slope triples effective thickness.

>the Rheinmetall website disagrees with you.

Rheinmetall's website says they created an APFSDS round for the RARDEN (which is comparable in performance to 30x173mm APFSDS), not that the British bought any.

>A modern tank yes, but we're talking about T55, Type 59 and T62.

None of which can be frontally penetrated by a 30mm cannon with modern ammunition.

File: British Army Kosovo.jpg (2MB, 3600x2384px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2384px

>>33655714
Might want to check the list of vehicles that mount RARDEN

>>33655826
>Rheinmetall's website says they created an APFSDS round for the RARDEN (which is comparable in performance to 30x173mm APFSDS), not that the British bought any.

hurr they made it for fun, for free not so that the British army could use it. keep clutching.

>None of which can be frontally penetrated by a 30mm cannon with modern ammunition.

real life disagrees with you.

>>33655870
This is where you explain why you think a Warrior is an APC.

>>33655870
I know that there are other vehicles with the RARDEN, but he didn't mention the Warrior or anything else, only the Scimitar.

And again:
>most modern APC's.

>>33655768
The guy that ran the /thg/ had a dropbox filled with shit.
I have one as well which was used to make his, but am away from my pc so I can't give a link.

>>33655768
>>33655918
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y4oultwtpsurrny/AAAF5YQlmMyQ7Ef6JcLRwqQua?dl=0

>>33655892
Rhienmetall offers a lot of stuff that no one has bought yet, and no 30mm APFSDS is capable of 200mm or more RHA penetration at any range.

You can't let real life trigger you so badly.

File: uk_FV432_raden-031.jpg (79KB, 600x510px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x510px

>>33655901
>>33655913

FV432 has a RARDEN variant.

>>33655932
>FV432/30 Infantry Support Vehicle

File: tank overhang.jpg (256KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1680x1050px

>>33631003

File: tank crossing trench.jpg (396KB, 1600x1291px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1600x1291px

>>33656018
another

File: female tank knocked out.jpg (342KB, 1212x771px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1212x771px

>>33656036
3

File: Tank Mk 1.jpg (1MB, 5376x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5376x3264px

>>33656044
4

File: tank vs flamethrower.jpg (756KB, 1500x1039px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 1500x1039px

>>33656054
5

>>33655826
>>33655220
>>33655130
>>33655048
>>33654961
>>33654488
>>33654290
>>33654252

It's literally in the Brigade history, a guy was decorated because of it. Keep throwing your toys out the pram.

http://www.qdg.org.uk/pages/Gulf-War-122.php

File: whippet tanks.jpg (560KB, 1500x1019px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1500x1019px

>>33656067
6

File: Sherman Korea.jpg (2MB, 2855x3503px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2855x3503px

>>33656081
7

>>33656016

>boo hoo the APC isnt a troop carrying APC anymore because they gave it a different name, regardless of it being deployed in 432 troops to add firepower while still carrying troops.

Imagine being this desperate not to be proven wrong.

File: naf tanks shadows.jpg (128KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1600x1067px

>>33656106
8

>>33656107
'AFV' would be better

>>33656073
Did you by chance actually read your link, because it does not support the claim of frontally knocking out a T-55 with the RARDEN.

>>33656073
>Keep throwing your toys out the pram.
Keep ignoring the multiple levels of irrelevancy it has to the original claim.

>>33656107
Would you also call a magazine a clip, or a destroyer a battleship?

File: syria urban tank.jpg (2MB, 4802x2352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4802x2352px

>>33656113
9

>>33656073
>Keep throwing your toys out the pram.
nice link. also, nowhere does it say that the tanks were destroyed from the front."In the meantime Lieutenant MacLennan's troop engaged and destroyed an Iraqi T55 tank and two personnel carriers"

File: KillDozer.jpg (25KB, 400x236px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x236px

>>33631003

Best tanks are the home made ones.

File: nork coloumn.jpg (421KB, 1627x1044px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1627x1044px

>>33656127
10

>>33652159
Bradley 25mm bushmasters knocked out T62's in 91' with turret ring penetrations from the front

File: killdozer.jpg (475KB, 1400x1191px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1400x1191px

>>33656144
11

>>33656142
yes

File: machbet.jpg (157KB, 1024x813px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1024x813px

>>33656107
This is an APC by your logic.

File: syrian T-72.jpg (554KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 2000x2000px

>>33656157
12

File: 144111177129.jpg (1MB, 5096x3344px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5096x3344px

>>33656167
13

>>33641185
>Automatically aims at you
>MPHE hits you and launcher before Kornet reaches Merk
>missile loses guidance and misses
Many such cases. SAD!

File: syrian tanks.jpg (687KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 2048x1536px

>>33656181
14

File: syria t62.png (4MB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1600x1600px

>>33656199
15

File: ISIS battle fort.png (1MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x900px

>>33656211
16

File: uk_FV432_raden-032.jpg.0d4b6338c126b6634b91d889863a4424.jpg (53KB, 600x250px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x250px

>>33656162
The RARDEN equipped FV 432 still carried 10 troops. It was deployed in infantry troops. It was not purely for fire support. it was an up gunned APC.

keep clutching.

File: chomma ho manpads.jpg (179KB, 1024x673px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1024x673px

>>33656219
17

The tanks in yesterday's parade had ATGMs, MANPADS and dual machine gun/grenade launcher things mounted on the turrets.

>>33656140


>i need exact details in a URL of an engement 25 years ago

>i wont accept the British army decorating the commander for it

>I wont acceot the regimental history

>i won't accept his testimony in his book

BTFO hard. i love your delicious tears

File: chomna ho.jpg (2MB, 3000x1883px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1883px

>>33656235
18

>>33656246
i don't doubt that old tanks can be defeated by modern autocannons. from the sides and rear.

File: ethiopian T55.jpg (202KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1280x854px

>>33656253
19

File: Sudanese T-55.jpg (466KB, 3500x2333px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 3500x2333px

>>33656266
20

That'll do for now.

>>33656266
baby shit green isn't as good of a look as olive drab

>>33656281
i know it's an old soviet tank in the hands of savagaes, but holy shit that's a lot of exhaust smoke to the top right

>>33656265

Not all of the front is 200mm

Turret ring, hatches, sights, lower glacis are all less than 50mm on T55 and T62

File: jesus tank.jpg (406KB, 1920x1277px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1920x1277px

>>33656302
It could be spraying diesel into the exhaust to make a smoke screen, but I think the smoke is white when they do that.

>>33656227
>The RARDEN equipped FV 432 still carried 10 troops.

No it didn't.

>>33656316
>I think the smoke is white when they do that.
that is typically correct

>>33656246
No one is denying that his unit destroyed T-55's, the claim that is not being supported is that they did it frontally with the RARDEN.

Especially when the evidence given notes that ATGM's were used.

File: Scimitar at speed.jpg (2MB, 4064x2704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4064x2704px

This story has spiralled through ungodly amounts of chinese whispers. The guy claiming the full knockouts...stop it.

The Scimitars, similarly to Bradleys, engaged tanks with the autocannon. They did some pretty gnarly damage to them because (as you yourself said) the frontal area is not all 200mm thick. But there are no CONFIRMED knockouts from that weapon. The regiments own site details that both Scimitar and Striker were in the troop at the time, and Scimitars often spot for Strikers.

The Scimitars were accompanied by Strikers, equipped with Swingfire ATGMs. Those are almost certainly the vehicles that knocked out the tanks. The reason this gets compounded was people used to say "CVRTs knocked out tanks", which is accurate. But a lot of people think CVRT = Scimitar, so the story started to spiral and change.

tl;dr - We don't know exactly what happened, other than a fuckload of RARDEN and Swingfires went out, and T-55/T-62s went down. We know that autocannons like the RARDEN or Bushmaster could mess up tanks from the front due to weak areas, but the chances of this being the cause and not the Swingfires/TOWs are very unlikely. Or at the most, caused the tank to be abandoned from some unexpected damage/poor morale in the crew.

But for fuck sake, who cares if it did or didn't? CVRTs encountered vehicles four times their size and curbstomped them. Thats a good result from a good vehicle family.

Posting a CVRT because why not.

File: Egyptian_SA-2_SAM.jpg (3MB, 2840x1880px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2840x1880px

>>33656433
>CVRTs encountered vehicles four times their size and curbstomped them

Shows the importance of proper training and professionalism really. 3rd world countries should spend less on sophisticated systems and more on training.

>>33656457
??
Except they defeated the obsolete tanks through sophisticated sensors, optics, networking, and ATGM's

If the iraqi'ss had had modern tanks, with modern optics, and working modern ammo
There would have been much greater losses.

>>33651723
back to the shower pls!

>>33651671
>Carpet rug on tank.

I like it.

>>33656142
I would kill to watch this piece of shit get hit by a WW2 russian 152mm concrete buster shell

>>33657544

It wasn't built for that sort of thing. Heemeyer built it to deal with the small arms he was expecting to be deployed against him. The Governor of Colorado was even rumored considering deploying the national guard to try and kill it with either a Hellfire or a Javelin.

File: psm-spz.de PUMA_03_2015_1.jpg (71KB, 516x373px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 516x373px

time to get 60t APC on track

File: 1474217389173.jpg (142KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 960x640px

no k tankthread without warhammer 40k orc Marder

File: LemanRussTank00.png (912KB, 802x513px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 802x513px

>>33631003

Leman Russ is best tank.

File: e02079575156ddbf.jpg (271KB, 1052x789px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1052x789px

> chief! the germans bring troops per chooper in to the mountaints!
> only chopper?
> of courcse!
> send the rangers
> mfw crawling the hills, see this
> mfw i have no face, bc i am dead af.

File: 1477781904077.jpg (159KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1024x768px

leopard is not battleproven eh?

Any more Leopard 2s? Ive been looking for more Higher res shots.

File: ghmf.jpg (2MB, 1574x1060px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1574x1060px

>>33651618
>Anyone got more tank art?

>here

File: 1486369931638.png (2MB, 1584x1057px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1584x1057px

>>33657995

wait no more.

File: 1456619875312.jpg (426KB, 1079x1003px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1079x1003px

>>33657995

File: bc163d0f13c305da.jpg (408KB, 1882x1255px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1882x1255px

>>33657995

File: OP is a faggot.png (627KB, 684x479px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 684x479px

>>33631028
You forgot:

>shit against ATGM shooted by a single soldier.

File: jf06qCDgUj4ahAa7.jpg (54KB, 500x398px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x398px

does this count?

File: i.imgur.com qA4m17k.jpg (340KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 2048x1365px

side2side the new best friends

>>33631040
I'm not a fan of being a static target

>>33658229
you bitches have been predicting the end for tanks since tanks were first invented.

good luck under the treads, batty boy.

>>33642990
Weakspot sniping requires specific spot aiming. To hit Chally 2 driver periscope you don't need to aim anywhere specific, just aim for center like you would normally.

Brit bongs are lucky that they haven't faced an enemy that can shoot straight.

>>33658783
Meant for
>>33643369

>>33658159
Any more info on what terrifying thing that is? Leo 2 but what prototype or test subject or whatever,

>>33659251
Kampfpanzer Leopard 2PS

>>33632463
Why the Iron Crosses? That's a Mark IV British tank.

>>33660293
because the fucking germans stole it

>>33643369
you know jack shit about Leo 2 I see.

>>33659251
it's a photoshop

>>33656775
true, but you have to consider that Iraq couldn't properly defeat Iran even when laden with high tech western equipment

>>33661385
Not him, but he isn't wrong. the Leo 2 still has a 30 year old armor configuration equipped on their latest models.

>inb4 the triangular external armor package on the front of the turret is "extra armor"
It's just RHA plates on the turrets. Turkroach Leo 2's are getting btfo'd in Syria by sandniggers.

>>33662164
extra armour is extra armour homeslice
>btfo'd in Syria by sandniggers
dunecoons can't into tanks. theres few tanks that could survive that hit
why did i fall fir this bait post..

>>33662164
The armor packets(as in "filling" of the turret armor") has been changed two times. The first leos(Known as the "Leopard 2A0") has the welded ammunition hatch. These have/had the poorest and oldest type of armor, when the A4 was produced it came with the third generation armor packets. Turkey's tanks are the old "A0", and they may not have been upgraded.

TL;DR Turkish Leo 2's may have the old "Leopard 2 A0" armor.

>>33662224
>extra armour is extra armour homeslice

The extra armor is literally 2cm of angled steel on the turret. It's only effective against HEAT.

>>33662243
>literally using the "muh monkey model" regarding the leopard 2
holy shit I thought I'd never see the day.

T*rks don't have use "2A0", they use actual 2A4's, bought from the Bundeswehr, with Turkish modifications. The estimated protection value of the Leopard 2 is equivalent to 700mm RHA against kinetic.

>>33662262
As I said, only the first Leos had the ammunition hatch at the loader side of the turret. They were welded shut. Look it up. Yes, they are A4, but not every "A0" that was modified to A4 standard upgraded the armor packet. You can read this at below the turret rings' blog, "Turkish Leopard 2 in Syria - part one.

>>33655932
And a total production of.... 12 I think?

>>33662262
No it's way more detailed then that.
Seems to me like it is at least 3 layers of NERA

>>33662309
The author of the blog is the German equivalent to 'no Abrams was ever knocked out'.

we need a new thread

IMAGE LIMIT REACHED

>>33662309
That author is a fucking retard, chest beating moron. Like >>33662722 said, he's the German equivalent of "muh abrams no.1 never knocked out in combat!!!"

Turkish Leopard 2's are Bundeswehr Leopard 2A4's, which were sent to the Turkish Army in 2005. You can deny it all you want, but ~300 2A4 Leopards were sent to the Turkish Army, all which were used by the German Army. You can bitch and cry all you want, but multiple research facilities and, so called tank experts, claim that the armor value of Leopard 2A5+ is estimated to be 600mm\KE on LOS Hull and 700mm/HE on Turret front.

I like the Leopard 2 a lot, it's a beautiful looking tank, but it is very flawed.

>>33662622
Nope, it's literally just different thickness of steel plates.

I'd post pictures, but the image limit's been reached.

Can anyone explain why the abrams is so fucking THICC sitting at 70 tons while other MBT's get away with being >=60tons

>>33663127
The Abrams is not heavier than it's contemporaries, if you are comparing it to the ~45 ton late Soviet tanks those made compromises to get smaller.

>>33663127
Because Americans use imperial tons and everyone else use metric ton.

70 imp tons is about 60 metric tons

>>33663749
THICCest tank currently is Challenger 2 TES-H at 75 tonnes.

M1A2 SEPv2 weighs 63.5 tonnes.

>>33632655

Love the looks of challenger 2 and the fact that it has a thermal sight on top of the bore. Fucking parallax error sucks in most tank sights that are mounted to the side of the turret.

>>33658176

Holy shit thats me in that picture!
Imagine that huh...

>>33651645
Would those IR systems actually light up like that?

>>33656333
>10 Troops

Nigga what?

>>33631014
That's a big tank

>>33641205
>using gas tanks as armor

>>33664302
What's wrong? Worried that the TANK would be destroyed by an EXTERNAL FIRE?

>>33664130
No, the lights aren't that strong.

It'd be fucking demoralising as fuck though, if it were true.

>be infantry soldier
>ww3 happening
>deployed inna estonia
>squad patrolling through the trees
>notice something in the distance
>two red lights
>think it must be a civilian car reversing
>two more lights appear to the right
>and another two to the right
>hear start up of engines
>multiple couple red lights appear in the darkness
>get shredded to shit by 12.6 and 7.62

>>33657846
FUCKING PUUUMAAAAAAAAA

This AHEAD ammo system is nuts, and the armor is nuts, and the entire thing is basically a PzGren's wet dream. You make an IFV / SPz that exists to shred shit with an autocannon and tank literally anything you can throw at it. Boner inducing.

>>33664983
AHEAD is more of an AA round.

>>33665542
They have the exact same targeting system and ammo in use on the Puma for the purposes of shredding ludacris amounts of infantry.

>>33665557
You appear to be the type who thinks shotguns actually work like they do in video games.

>>33665709
No, I'm not. When it's a 30mm shell that bursts ten meters away from you and covers you from head to toe in tungsten shrapnel then that's a fucking huge shotgun bro. Haven't you ever heard of shrapnel shells from WW1, or grapeshot from even earlier? Same concept.

>>33660293
captured vehicle

>>33660293

Despite what Battlefield 1 may show you Germany had actually very few tanks. The ones they did have were battlefield captures due to break downs half way across no mans land killing the crew etc.