Remember when the US Army came 5/6th, in their M1A2 SEP v2, in

>>33813916
>The M1A2 SEP v2 lost to 1 Leopard 2A6, 2 Leopard 2A5's

I have absolutely no fucking problem with this whatsoever. Leopard is my most favorite modern tank.

>>33813916
>NATO tanks have competition, NATO tank is the winner
sounds good to me

>Leopard 2 destroyed in combat: At the very least 30
>M1A2 Abrams destroyed in combat: N/A
In the real world, the winner is clear

>>33814238
But, that's not true, both have taken losses in Iraq (mainly due to incompetence on the users)

>>33814238
In B4
>Muh monkey model

File: Leo ohne Ton 1.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>33813916
Only illusional ameriboos would say that the Leopard isn't the most advanced tank in the world. Makes it hard to believe that it's German, tho.

>>33814238
Gulf war, Iraq, Yemen

>>33814238
Do you actually think no Abrams have been destroyed by IEDs?

>PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO US AMERICA
>PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE US!

>>33813916
This is fine, as long as NATO tanks are winning.

>>33814354
>implying the Armata T-14 wouldn't bootyblast all of those tanks with ease

Luckily for us, we dont live on mainland Europe so the English channel should be enough to halt any Russland advances

>>33814365
The T-14 can't even dive, one river will be enough to stop it.

>>33814245
>>33814286
>>33814288
>Monkey Model exportts
>counting as combat losses
Meanwhile state-of-the-art Leo 2's are getting popped like cherries in the middle east

>>33814407
>underestimating the Russians
Why do you do this? Globally, only they can be considered America's military peer.

>inb4 MUH CHINA

>>33814426
The Saudis and Iraqis are losing as state of the art Abrahams as Turkey loses their Leopards

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

2MB, 1962x1582px

>>33814238

>>33814426
Do you think that Abrams crewed by US troops never lost one in combat?

File: Abrams thrown a turret.jpg (475KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1600x1200px

>>33814426

File: DM-SD-04-07075.jpg (513KB, 1720x1160px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1720x1160px

>>33814238

>>33814473
>>33814529
All disabled by enemy fire then destroyed by their crews and/or other Abrams

>>33814514
Anti tank mine

Doesn't really matter what tank is better if we europeans cant properly maintain them anyway. Gib money please. My friend is in a motorized brigade WITHOUT vehicles. We still have to buy the vehicles.

>>33814565
Netherlands?

>>33814571
eyup

>>33814238
>>33814426
Russian detected.

File: Abrams lost it's head.jpg (402KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1600x1200px

>>33814550
Okay, buddy. If it helps you sleep at night

File: afa92a2a0ebcc5c2d77ade8f774c0edc.jpg (10KB, 236x263px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x263px

ITT: The MBT that has seen the most combat is also the one with the highest casualties

>HURR DURR AMERICANS BTFO

>2017
>giving even a single shit about MBTs

>>33814618
You can look it up, that one was destroyed when terrorists daisy chained three anti-tank mines on top of each other.

>>33814618
Also I dont see why you're being shitty when im clearly agreeing with you

File: 1490123152275.png (550KB, 727x1028px)

550KB, 727x1028px

>>33814628
bong challengers saw the same amount of combat as the Abrams did during the first and second iraq wars, and only suffered a single vehicle casualty.

>>33814550
>On April 4, two Abrams were destroyed by anti-aircraft guns, while on April 5, another was hit by a recoilless rifle and set aflame.

>Bumper B-66, TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD): Penetration in the hull, below the turret Ammunition blown-up after being hit by an Iraqi RPG-7

File: 100 percent smug.png (120KB, 294x326px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 294x326px

>>33813916
>fags will get butthurt because their nation's tank isnt DE BEST
>none of it matters because they're all tools of the juden anyway

Did fucking Denmark win?

>>33813916
I would love to see a breakdown of the points in this competition. I know something like half of the points awarded were for out of vehicle crew cohesion exercises, which have little to do with the tank's capabilities.

I have a feeling that the Abrams might have won or done very well at the firing and maneuvering portions of the competition, and perhaps donked the crew-based exercises.

Also this clown is baiting you guys, why do you have to fall for it every time?

>>33813916

Literally Does not madder in this day and age of warfare.
Tanks have become mobile pillbox's and used for holding positions now a days. Which dont get me wrong they are great at.
But, replaceable.

Having the best tank is moot, when you have the best planes...

>>33814550
>Anti tank mine
So a combat loss.

>>33814680
First of all, where are you getting this information that the Challenger 1 or 2 has seen as much combat as either of the Abrams variants? And second of all

>quoting 1st Gulf War losses against steel hulled M1's

The Abrams has a flat bottom which is why it gets blown the fuck up by IEDS in actual tank to tank combat it's pretty much top class and hasn't lost any to enemy fire. Also though it's only gone up against ancient soviet era tanks which were built to swarm anywhoo

>>33814751
Where did I say it wasn't a combat loss?

File: dannebrog.jpg (25KB, 620x344px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 620x344px

Remember faggots, Denmark could alone destroy US in a day if we wanted.
We are the snow-jews now, so accept your new overlords murica.

Why do wehraboos always pretend the leopard is anything other than shite?

Sure, it's got an accurate gun and decent frontal spaced turret armor, but that's nothing special, especially when things like ATGMs are so often used by countries like Russia anyways.

Plus, tests indicate the L/55 isn't event that much better than the L/44 used in the Ariete, Abrams, or Type 10 anyways, if at all.

Most importantly, it has no APS, something which is going to be basically a neccessity in any future conflict. It's basically like the Germans in WWII not having any sloped armor and claiming their Tigers are the best because "muh longer gun".

Leo 2s are overrated as fuck

>>33814832
As are Abrams tanks. They're literally the T-72 of the west.

>>33814812
Don't you have a refugee to be sucking off, anon?

>>33814832
It doesn't really matter. Between artillery, air power and ATGMs tanks of all kinds just aren't survivable enough these days.

Which side has the best MBT makes about as much difference to the outcome of battle as which side has the best bayonet.

>>33814895
How white is US?
50 fucking percent
>>33814832
American tanks are fat and slow and their cannons are short, and European tanks are fast and their cannons are long.
Just like how Americans are manlets and Europeans are strong and athletic.
There is also something about these cannons kek

>>33814957
retard
>>33814885
retard
>>33814909
/thread

File: 045902ea7e1a14503593cec62a4f000e.jpg (32KB, 736x609px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 736x609px

Best combat-proven tank ever, passing trough

>>33813916
I remember the competitions like doing laps while carrying a dummy 120mm round, who was best at camouflaging their tank, and other things that had little to do with the tanks themselves.

The best part were the 3 teams who got dinged for driving over the dummies during a medevac.

>>33814680
>bong challengers saw the same amount of combat as the Abrams did during the first and second iraq wars

No, they didn't.

>>33814286
>Only illusional ameriboos would say that the Leopard isn't the most advanced tank in the world.
Why would we need to cast illusions when it's true?

File: please dont kill me putin i didnt do this on purpose.jpg (54KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 620x349px

>>33813916
>modern tank banter thread
oh this is going to be really interesting! I can't wait to see cherry picked arguments
>>33814238
>>33814288
>>33814514
>>33814529
>>33814618
>monkey model exports
>m1a2SEP
KEK. I really do enjoy this
>>33814286
Abrams getting stuck in a ditch doesn't count. That can happen to literally any tank
>>33814365
see pic

>>33814443
You cannot be this fucking retarded.

Neat.

Ours is actually combat proven and has seen tank to tank combat. It has a fantastic kill record.

I'm sure these silly tests in a contained, non-war environment are 100% accurate representation of what a war machine is capable of.

>>33814514
a young abrams sprouts its turret as the farmer clears the weeds tending to the tank till its fully grown for the harvest

>>33814737
Are you a Saudi, because you sound as fucking stupid as one

File: Танковый биатлон 2015. Выпуск 3_4.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>33813916
>Strong Europe Tank Challenge

basically daily training task, just for points and lil faster

>>33814909
unless you have an anti-aircraft vehicle, unless you wanna chance losing you aircraft and trained pilots to fly them

File: tank biathlon.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>33815467

>>33815467
>Tank racing

If they don't get to use live ammunition then what's the fucking point?

>>33815467
>>33815491
It's a shame the US pussied out of the invitation to the tank biathlon, they would have been the only ones not in T-72s from the 1980s and they still couldn't handle doing it.

>>33815562
Certain events involving fording could not be completed by the M1A2. It would be pointless to compete in a a challenge designed for Russian tanks

File: 1453039298474.jpg (149KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1280x851px

>>33815899
M1 is THE only tank that couldn't cross that water obstacle

even T-80 can and it has gas turbine.

>>33813916
>bringing up ancient bait

why do we not have mods?

>>33815899
yes mobility is pointless, why be able to break thru or even outmaneuver your enemy on your conditions when you can behold up on choke points like bridges.

Dont get me even started on STHF and you have to pullback.

Good I hope you fight only retard enemys that need bridges as bad as you do I mean T tanks or euro tanks cant ford or deep ford, right.

>>33815562
russia openly cheated china out of their rightful first place every year, no one gives a fuck anymore after they showed that it was just for making RUSSIA STRONK bullshit

>>33816035
How? Please explain.

>>33816035
Don't doubt it in the slightest, but how so?

>>33814832
What is a APS? there goes your Muh ATGM meme

File: iQp-fgzPFc.jpg (60KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 604x604px

>>33816035
Chinese would have a lot bigger chance to win if they didn't tank that was made in chine, because it follows proud tradition of breaking when you use it.

>>33816111
looks like putin did hack the tank.

File: v48842_img_6_29134_5.jpg (350KB, 1584x1057px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1584x1057px

>>33814832
What a long way of saying "it's shit because it isn't better enough.
Also:
>it has no APS
It can be fitted with AMAP APS.

>>33816064
>>33816068
>>33816111
>2015 Tank Biathlon
>Russia not cheating

pick one

http://www.guancha.cn/XiYaZhou/2015_08_09_329925_1.shtml

-The Chinese delegation was told that a 40 metres river had to be crossed. As a result the Chinese team went with a total of 50 metres of pontoon bridges to Russia. They were "speakless" when discovering that the river to be crossed had a width of 60 meters.

-Russian forces also had faulty bridge equipment, but simply ignored the normal rules of crossing a river; they aligned their bridges under sub-ideal conditions directly in the river - their tanks had to wade several meters into the river to enter the bridges.

-During the IFV competition, there were problems with reloading. Not exactly sure what it says in the article (bad translation), but it seems that Russia didn't agree on accounting the higher rate of fire and the higher reload speed of the Chinese IFV.

-The rules of the NBC trials of the Tank Biathlon were changed, but the Chinese team wasn't informed of any changes. As a result a 45 second punishment was added to the team's time.

-The amphibious troop transport competition for which the Chinese team brought their ZBD-05 IFVs was canceled without explanation. The Chinese considered their ZBD-05 to be greatly superior to the Russian BTR-80 in this task.

-The Chinese PLL-05 self-propelled howitzer managed to beat the Russian counterparts, but for reasons of balancing the performance of crew to that of the equipment, a perfomance modifier was used, which resulted in the parity of the performance of both systems.

-Several "aggressive rule changes" were made during the infantry/paratrooper competitions to negate the poor performance of the Russian soldiers.

>>33816364

I translated that for you Ching Chong Chang

-China forgot to bring proper supplies, and couldn't understand English/Russian well enough to differentiate 60m from 40m over the phone.

-Russians made a bridge that worked in a way that we don't like.

-Russia would agree to count of higher rate of fire of Chinese IFV, probably because the Russian one has a higher rate of fire so that wouldn't make any sense.

-Chinese people couldn't read the rules, everyone else could, Russia is to blame not China.

-China considers untested vehicles better than tested ones because the test was cancelled so it's easy to claim.

-Chinese PPL-05 mortar that they brought bested the 152mm heavy howitzer in rate of fire. Why add modifier to the mortar performance when a mortar and a heavy howitzer is basically the same, very unfair.

-Literally baseless drivel.

>>33814680
>bong challengers saw the same amount of combat as the Abrams did during the first and second iraq wars, and only suffered a single vehicle casualty.
So you're saying that there were just as many Challengers in Iraq, and that they saw just as much time on station and in combat?

Because you're completely full of shit, if so. And I mean so full of shit I hope you've got a pressure release valve installed on top of your head.

>>33814238
>an abrams has never been lost in combat
This is the stupidest meme ever.

File: 1418335880447.jpg (7KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x200px

Who fucking cares,the differences between Leclerc, Abrams, T-90, Leo etc are minor. In the end what matters more is crew training, tactics and who gets the first shot.
There are plenty of examples where units with weapons/vehicles that were worse beat better equipped opponents because they utilized better tactics.

Btw question for any American AFV crewmembers , why do you guys ride with the gunner and commander standing up in the turret with half their body exposed so often?

>>33814909
>It doesn't really matter. Between artillery, air power and ATGMs tanks of all kinds just aren't survivable enough these days.
Uh, tanks are more survivable these days than they have been at any time in the past. Just look at casualty rates during WWII or Korea.

File: Armata.jpg (186KB, 962x745px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 962x745px

>>33814286

>Most advanced tank in the world

File: Lego_Western.jpg (101KB, 690x490px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 690x490px

>>33814812

Why must you charge so much for Lego!?

>>33813916
>The M1A2 SEP v2 lost to 1 Leopard 2A6, 2 Leopard 2A5's, and a C1 Ariete
>C1 Ariete
How's that even possible?
Those IVECO trashcans are underpowered, have never seen a fucking refit, and are inferior all around, not counting the fact that their crew don't perform that well.

>>33815955
An Abrams would cross the water obstacle the same way a T-80 would.

>>33816554
>falling for bait
>thinking Strong Europe Tank Challenge was decided by the tanks used

>>33815996
>yes mobility is pointless, why be able to break thru or even outmaneuver your enemy on your conditions when you can behold up on choke points like bridges.
You do realize the T-72 only has that ridiculous fording depth when equipped with that kit, right? And that it would require installation in the field and serious logistics to follow each unit with those kits? And that it's far simpler logistically and quicker to simply use engineering units to bridge water over the basic 1.2m fording depth pretty much all tanks can handle?

>>33815899
Because only russia has to cross rivers? lol

>>33814983

>Can be penetrated on the frontal upper glacis by old ATGMs
>Has a frontal hull ammo storage
>Shitty frontal turret layout

How about no.

>>33816637
>Because only russia has to cross rivers? lol
Because only Russia is dumb enough to require their non-amphib tanks to ford at 2+m depths with all the added logistical strain per unit that causes, and because Russia can't into proper engineering unit support.

File: 14685860869930.jpg (338KB, 1523x992px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1523x992px

>>33816561
M1 unprepared 1.2m
T-80 unprepared 1.8m
obstacle is 1.5-1.7m

that obstacle can be crossed slowly but Abrams can't because it would drown or full speed, but due size and form Abrams would hit water like wall, stop and drown.


also M1 max water crossing depth 1.8m prepared, while T-80 is 5m.

>>33816629
Abrams fording depth with kit is 2.37m
That's about half a meter less than the height of the tank itself.

How does it feel to be dumb?

>>33816659
>T-80 unprepared 1.8m
T-72 unprepared is 1.2m, just like the Abrams. Are you saying no T-72s participate?

>>33816629
lol they carry fording equipment on tank all the time and it take 20min to be ready crossing.

that pipe on back of turret all they need(pipe telescoping)

File: 1200x800-9ada513bd17a8562.jpg (338KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1200x800px

>>33814832
they have APS in its newest versions its called AMAP-ADS and its bolt on just like other kits, like urban, or the standard slanted spaced.

>>33816656
The Abrams is 2.5 meters tall, it is not unreasonable to ask it to be able to ford 1.5-2 meters of water

>>33813916
Links to articles on the competition.

>http://popularmilitary.com/u-s-tank-crews-fail-to-place-in-nato-competition/
>https://www.army.mil/article/167842

>>33816698
>Abrams fording depth with kit is 2.37m
>That's about half a meter less than the height of the tank itself.
It's even with the turret roof of the tank. It's also more than enough for any conceivable fording operations one would possibly want to do with only tanks and APCs. Why the fuck would you need/require mass deep water fording from your units when your supply, transport and other vehicles cannot follow, much less your infantry? There's a reason engineering units are a thing, and why they're attached to every single US armor unit of any serious size.

>>33816656


tl;dr

Russian forces can use their superior flanking and deep manueverability to make long dashes to encircle enemies with a wide range of amphibious vehicles, or tanks that can be forded across the bottom of rivers if necessary.

>this triggers the burger

>>33816726
>The Abrams is 2.5 meters tall, it is not unreasonable to ask it to be able to ford 1.5-2 meters of water
There's no tank in the world that likes to ford deeper than about 1-1.2m (basically fully submerging the intake/exhaust and turret ring) without preparation.

>>33816739


spoiler:

All the other russian assets are amphibious so that's not a concern, of course americans love to drive down roads and get blown up by IED's or chokepointed at bridges.

>>33816748
>Russian forces can use their superior flanking and deep manueverability to make long dashes to encircle enemies with a wide range of amphibious vehicles
Show me the logistics units and fuel tankers which supposedly supply them. Show me ammunition and fuel resupply with 5m fording depth. Because that's the actual limiting factor, you retard.

>>33816748
The whole submerged river fording idea always seems as ridiculous as the DD Sherman's which were a pretty miserable failure.

>>33816748
>>33816757
>>33816717
I really cannot fathom why Russia cannot into the superior logistical efficiency and movement freedom of fully integrated combat engineering capabilities. I mean, these kids don't even understand why that might be faster, more efficient and all around better for anything but the most limited of set-piece very short range assaults.

>>33816767
The logistics units and fuel tankers that'll be flaming wrecks after getting hit by artillery?

>>33816748
>Russian forces can use their superior flanking and deep manueverability to make long dashes to encircle enemies
Sure. That sounds really impressive. Until you realize the supply ass those units actually need to operate that far from home. And, of course, until you realize just how fucked those units are against NATO air superiority and strike capabilities. The second that armor is out of immediate mutual coverage with other battle line A2AD systems (all it takes is being masked by terrain), NATO brings in the flying can openers and starts the barbecue.

It isn't WWII anymore, Ivan. Any armored units operating alone and away from full combined arms support are little more than armadillos on an expressway.

File: shaun3-1024x651.png (1MB, 1024x651px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x651px

I would really like to know what specifically is that bad about the challenger 2. I know she is getting on in life as a design but as far as i know i haven't seen many real world problems with it. i have a friend who is a loader for one and he has only ever spoken highly of it but i guess he would.

also does anybody know what the new design is supposed to improve upon?

>>33816825
Exactly. But I want to know if they can even follow in the first place.

Armored units can't operate for more than about 12 hours in combat (if very lucky) without their logistical ass. Logistics and transport are, hands down no question, why it's always better to put a fucking bridge in than try to build every single one of your vehicles with ridiculous fording capabilities.

>>33813916
remember when none of those countries had even 1/10th the number of armored vehicles we've had for the last 50 years

haha yeah we got rekt

>>33816851
Last I heard the sights, communications, and engine/drive train.

File: m02016062700003.jpg (133KB, 920x613px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 920x613px

>>33816767
>>33816788
it's basically everything.
would be easier to list thing that couldn't follow over river.
and on that logistic level they easy drop in pantons

>>33816840
Point or order: Soviet divisions didn't *have* logistics. They simply carried several days' supplies with them and fought until they died or fell apart, at which point they were withdrawn and a fresh division thrown in. It sounds insane, but that was their doctrine.

I have no idea how modern Russian divisions operate, so I'll leave that for the anons who do.

>>33816868
Those logistics units can build their own bridge and follow, while the armor ranges ahead...
This is like the essence of mobility warfare, tanks can cover a lot of ground in 6-12 hours.

Of course then the US would be looking at fixing the weaknesses of their tank and enabling them to operate by themselves for longer periods.

Why did the A5 beat the A6? 6 is a bigger number.

File: wtfreading.png (416KB, 500x672px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 500x672px

>>33814737
>Literally Does not madder in this day and age of warfare.
>Does not madder
>madder

File: 1485173041247.png (1MB, 996x634px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 996x634px

this thread:

Burgers: our way is only correct way to operate, everything else is wrong and it's impossible that others adapted to their home turf

>>33817002
Meanwhile the US hasn't won a war in 80 years, and even then it was just fighting German women/children/elderly.

File: 14563243485610.jpg (196KB, 1500x900px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1500x900px

>>33817002

File: 14425054472193.jpg (616KB, 3000x1996px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 3000x1996px

>>33817028

>>33817023
The United States of America has the most successful military in history

File: 1472704126017.jpg (90KB, 677x476px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 677x476px

>>33817042

File: 1450045754392.jpg (145KB, 950x524px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 950x524px

>>33817057

>>33816798
I cannot fathom why clappers don't understand that the more dependant on support units you are the more vulnerable and slow you are.

You probably also think it's a strength to require more crew to do the same operation, and being unable to fire your own anti tank missiles is superior to having to wait for a dedicated AT missile unit to be brought up to you.

The M1 contains no features that the T-90 doesn't have, while the T-90 is capable of doing things the M1 can't.

In before anecdotes and "muh millimetres are more than your millimetres according to internet chart"

>>33816931
You can't tell me they had enough of your pic related to actually keep all their combat units supplied on a serious offensive.

>>33817144
>I cannot fathom why clappers don't understand that the more dependant on support units you are the more vulnerable and slow you are.
Anon. Jesus. Logistics are life in combat. Pure and simple. Without fuel and ammunition, your tanks are nothing but enormous paperweights.

>The M1 contains no features that the T-90 doesn't have, while the T-90 is capable of doing things the M1 can't.
Hm. How about actual survivability for a start? I mean, hull storage of ammunition has been such a great idea for Soviet designs over the years, amirite?

>>33816534
>Btw question for any American AFV crewmembers , why do you guys ride with the gunner and commander standing up in the turret with half their body exposed so often?
Situational Awareness. That 3% extra view range is more useful than you think.

File: 1489388785471.jpg (637KB, 1171x900px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1171x900px

God bless America :-;

>>33817144
>The M1 contains no features that the T-90 doesn't have

To pick a low hanging fruit, I wasn't aware the T-90 had a thermal sight for its commander.

>>33816851
The biggest issue with the Challenger 2 is that it is effectively the same tank it was 20 years ago, while its contemporaries and potential adversaries have received multiple upgrades.

>>33816986
lol, u mat, bro?

>>33816659
>T-80's air intake is lower than an Abrams
>T-80's unprepared fording is half again an Abrams

Want to take a guess at why your numbers are a lie?

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

52KB, 1000x584px

>>33817023

>>33813916
Why didn't the Leclerc compete?

>>33817484
Too le tired.

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

2MB, 3600x2384px

>>33816851
Upgraded Day\Night system for the TC
Improved Thermal visions for gunner
Upgraded Gun control equipment
Revamping the entire electronic body, replacing copper wires with fibre optic etc etc
Improved Gun Control System
And ALLEGEDLY potential soft-kill APS. It's been rumoured, and a leaked letter from the Royal Tank Regiment's Major General to BAE stated that he wants the MUSS APS.

That's what BAE is offering the MoD.

Rheinmetall is also right now on the contract to upgrade the CR2 fleet. They haven't released any official statement on what they're going to offer as an upgrade, but again it's rumoured, they're again looking into replacing the rifled L30 with the smoothbore L55. Tankies I've spoken to in the QRH have stated that Rheinmetall officials have visited their CR2 fleet depot to inspect the gun, shell chambers and radio system.

I'm personally pretty excited.

>>33817518
Shut up fag I wanted to know why the Leclerc didn't compete, not listen to some autist regurgitate a quote from a decade old video.

>>33814205
>>NATO tanks have competition, NATO tank is the winnersounds good to me

This

>>33815387
bless the /k/ube and it's magical wonders.

>>33817540
Why are IFVs so cute?

>>33816534
Gives a better view so you can give better orders to your crew particularly the driver, additionally it aids in communicating with infantry. The loader is usually in the turret unless you aren't going to be needing the main gun/coax anytime soon or if having an extra gun up top is better suited for operational needs.

Plus you really aren't that exposed and you are wearing ppe.

>>33817310
max jej

>>33817616
>Plus you really aren't that exposed and you are wearing ppe.

That is bullshit mate, my guess is it's lazyness from not fighting a qualified opponent for many years.
The snackbars don't have many AFVs and most of the fighting against them either took place in vast open desert spaces or in mountains where AFVs weren't used anyway.
Same thing could be said for camoflaging vehicles, NATO-troops have been so used to being far superior to their opponents for so long that even something as basic as the knowledge of how to camoflage your vehicle correctly has almost been lost.


Even a smallarms will neutralize a MBT if the TC and the Gunner is standing around exposing themselves from the waist up, not to mention HE-rounds from APCs and IFVs.

>>33816541
>somebody with an actual degree in engineering thought that having a turret ring exposed like that was a good idea

>>33813916

Did they shoot at each other's front armor and see who wins?

>>33817754
The gunner doesn't stand outside of the tank, he sits below and in front of the commander. US tank commanders have generally always fought from outside the turret unless shit is really hitting the fan. Hell if you look at Vietnam era photos the commanders have generally welded a .50 to the turret roof and don't use the commanders cupola.

When you are resting your eyes are a few inches above the periscopes that surround the turret ring, if you stand the hatch will still be protecting your 6.

>>33816541

it meme

>>33817565
Sounds like you could use a nap

>>33817239
Fairly confident it does.

File: Empire kek.png (498KB, 513x449px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 513x449px

>>33817052

Is the Abrahams capable of diving like this? (serious question)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJZGZZO-p98

>>33816986
If it's pronounced like this you might as well write it like this.

>>33820361
Nothing much aside from legacy Soviet systems is anymore, anon. With the advancements in combat engineering vehicles, it's become pretty pointless to make your entire armored, transport and logistics corps capable of fording things that deep. The added maintenance time alone of having to regrease everything and disassemble, regrease and reseal flooded bearings/bushings is an enormous pain in the ass.

>>33814760
In your first post where you claimed there have been 'nil' combat losses for Abrams.

Hard time keeping track of your bullshit?

File: 14849321347650.jpg (190KB, 1242x664px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1242x664px

friendly reminder that this happen

>>33813916
What's the leclerc's

File: 1483119716747.jpg (52KB, 1267x589px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1267x589px

>>33814957
>cannons are long
>implying that's a good thing
Abrams achieves higher MV with a shorter barrel and fits places the Leo2a6 and 2a7 don't.

>pic related will be the Leo2a10

File: 0_846cb_10463a0d_XL.jpg (234KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 800x533px

>>33817239
yes, only T-90M provide TC with thermal sight

though all T-90 are hunter-killer capable

T-90 TC also got a much more sophisticated FCS

T-90 TC can control the .50 MG from inside the tank, and they can take over the main gun control

>>33814238
Saudi lost atleast 20 M1A2 in yemen

and Turkey only lost 13 Leopard 2A4

>>33815237
enjoy sitting in a "modernized" T-72 while jerking off to a picture of a T-14 vatnik

>>33814426
Haha yeah the 2A4s that Turkey operates are totally state of the art.

>>33814426
Milfag here. The problem facing all modern militaries in ME concerning tanks is that they're not used the way they're supposed to be used. The enemy has no tanks of their own, the enemy sits on the roof with a Kornet, waiting for a tank to pass so he can shoot it in the back of the turret.

If this was an actual war, for which the tank (M1 or Leopard, applies equally) was designed, the tank would never operate in that manner.

File: 1464551138006.jpg (21KB, 476x476px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 476x476px

>>33814909
>artillery
how does this make any sense? The MBT is the least vulnerable ground unit to artillery fire. If anything, artillery should make the MBT more relevant
>air power
heavily restricted by ground based air defenses and enemy air superiority fighters. I'd seriously like to see what the outcome of the USAF trying to strike a russian tank battalion that's integrated with a bunch of their self propelled SAMs, along with flankers.
>ATGMs
biggest counter, but APS have advanced to point where the current generation of ATGMs won't be cutting it soon

File: 22.png (440KB, 1024x514px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1024x514px

>european Strong Europe Tank Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imTQyFMNhI0
>russian shitshow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAf0IyNEdcM&t=125s
Are fatniks dare i say
Doomed?

>>33820622
>heavily restricted by ground based air defenses and enemy air superiority fighters. I'd seriously like to see what the outcome of the USAF trying to strike a russian tank battalion that's integrated with a bunch of their self propelled SAMs, along with flankers.
Pay attention to the next Red Flag and Green Flag, then. It's not like the USAF, USN and USMC don't do their utmost to collect the most recent emissions or even examples of Russian A2AD systems, analyze them and then train against them in the most realistic way they can.

>>33820635
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAf0IyNEdcM&t=125s [Embed]
>Are fatniks dare i say
>Doomed?
No moving targets, no sense of how far out even the stationary targets are and nothing else but simple mobility challenges for the driver.

Just because the Russian video has a really, really shitty rock soundtrack does not mean the exercise means jack shit.

>>33820745
>No moving targets
>tank moving towards slowly moving target and missing shot after shot
>no sense of how far out even the stationary targets are
Are you fucking retarded? From tank to target 900 (MG)-1800( Gun) -2200 (for ATGM) meters like in SETC
>and nothing else but simple mobility challenges for the driver.
"""""""stronk"""""" europe tank challeng doesn't even have this

>>33820797
>From tank to target 900 (MG)-1800( Gun) -2200 (for ATGM)
>against stationary targets
Jesus Christ that's pathetic.

>>33820797
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZLKkA4DuSM
america is afraiding of big strong russia man

>>33820834
>Tank crewed by Arab
>Russian soldiers

>>33820827
Just like in """"""""""""""""stronk"""""""""""" yuropoop

>>33820797
>"""""""stronk"""""" europe tank challeng doesn't even have this
Think there might maybe be a reason for avoiding that complete retardation? See >>33816439
>>33816455
Big Russia stronk tonk not so stronk, eh?

>>33816851
>I would really like to know what specifically is that bad about the challenger 2. I know she is getting on in life as a design but as far as i know i haven't seen many real world problems with it. i have a friend who is a loader for one and he has only ever spoken highly of it but i guess he would.
>also does anybody know what the new design is supposed to improve upon?
I don't think the armor is good enough. It has a lot of armor coverage so it's extremely heavy but aside from the turret front much of it offers 200 to 400mm protection. In the 1990 that was great most of the world still had 1970s AT weapons.

25 years later everyone has weapons that will penetrate that so the challenger is stuck carrying heavy armor that is largely useless. Combine that with a crap gun and old electronics and you are left with a huge heavy tank that isn't much more survivable than a t-90.

The only good thing about it is if you are being attacked by insurgents with old RPG-7, autocanons and T-55 tanks a challenger 2 can be a little careless. Modern T series tanks and some other MBTs have minimal side armor older weapons are still a large threat if the tanks are disorganized.

File: smerch4.jpg (45KB, 1214x628px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1214x628px

>>33820622
Artillery isn't just shells, anon. The Russians have some pretty terrifying rocket artillery that covers an area in anti-tank submunitions. Top armor is still weak as fuck comparitively speaking.

>>33817782
AAAAAXAXAXAXAXAXA, WE PUT TOO MUCH ARMOR THE TANKSKI IS OF FLIP, NO?? ESPECIALLY SINCE RIDE HEIGHT OF POWERFUL SOVIET ARMATA IS 3 and a ruble FUCKING FEET TALL KOMRADSKI, AFTER ALL, MUST AVOID NATO NUCLEAR LANDMINES!

>>33820869
The RPG-7 has multiple warheads it can use, tandem included. Therefore the usefulness of the RPG-7 depends on the warhead in question and is not automatically inferior.

>>33816551
Aye. Had that set roughly 20 years ago.
brings back some sweet memories

When it comes to 1st world countries and tanks its always

>Crew > Tank

>>33820900
I fucking hate getting my canadian mechanized besmerched just because some faggot thinks there might be a leo in the hedgeline.

>>33817340
Don't many slavshit tanks have opposable snorkels on their turrets?

>>33820484
Abrams literally uses the same gun at the pre-a5 leopard, the differences are in perpetrator design since the krauts are too pussy to use DU.

>>33813916
Good to know NATO is competent.

https://youtu.be/rAyjxfsRtRE

less shitpost, more tanks please

>>33820920
Considering any tank made since 1970 can reliably penetrate any other tank on successful hit, it's basically the same with all tanks.

>>33821123
Not the front

>>33814205
>US Army Europe tank challenge

The thing is that any tank, no matter how good or bad becomes useless when you have Turkroaches and sandniggers using them...

>>33821007

The music makes it worse. Never post these videos again.

>>33814732
>I have a feeling that the Abrams might have won or done very well at the firing and maneuvering portions of the competition, and perhaps donked the crew-based exercises.

You can take your feeling and shove them up your ass.

Ukrainian tankers would participate in this year tank challenge
I will die laughing how ukies utterly destroy pooricans and poopeans

>>33821779
Will be interesting to see what tanks they will use. Upgraded T-64s, T-80s or Oplots.

>>33821817
most likely bulats

>>33816518
You're not fooling anyone, vatnik scum.

It's going to be great when you feel the true power of China

>>33816554
Read up on the actual event and you find a lot of interesting things.

US won Gunnery and Command, Dutch won individual fitness and casualty evac along with camo. More than half of the event took place outside of the vehicles.

>>33821843
but again, its no secret that US units deployed in Europe do not uphold the same standard regular US units do, it's been adressed a few times from rather high places. If its damage control or not, i do not know, but i think its fair game to assume that both the brass and soldiers themselves consider the deployment as an ice cream and balloons "vacation".

File: china-kek#991.jpg (51KB, 589x589px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 589x589px

>>33821836
you haven't even mastered roadwheels that don't fly off when subjected to harsh glares, chang, spare the bluster for nig nogs.

>>33820954
You mean the 'same gun' as the A5 Leopard, and no the M256 and the RhmL44 are not the same gun.

>>33820515
Saudi's lost a mixture of M60's and Abrams, 20 in all, and replaced them all with Abrams.

>>33821953
the M256 is a copy, licenced built and has minor changes from the L/44

File: vp3ik9MJ5Y0.jpg (71KB, 656x450px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 656x450px

>>33821885
here we see the T-72, rolling over and presenting its soft underbelly, a sign of submissiveness to the ZT.

>>33819747
It doesn't.

>>33820508
"B-b-but it could" invalidates your original claim.

>>33821969
>are not interchangeable
>minor changes

You are only correct in that the M256 was based on the L44.

>>33821976
>B-b-but it could
WUT?

>>33821985
>ie copied and modyfied

>>33822025
I appreciate that you walked back your original claim.

>>33820954
>the krauts are too pussy to use DU
you mean "the Krauts don't want to contaminate their own country with toxic metal"
But I agree it's kinda pointless worry when both sides would have used tactical nukes

>>33822135
>you mean "the Krauts don't want to contaminate their own country with toxic metal"

And yet they use tungsten alloy penetrators.

DU is a dead end.

Can't increase the muzzle velocity anymore. There is a reason why railguns and ETC based tank guns will not use DU.

>>33814957
>Abrams
>Slow

>>33820918
me too

small world

>>33822587
Why can't rail guns use DU? It's not ferromagnetic? Because neither is tungsten and to solve that problem you would just use a thick ferromagnetic metal jacket around DU. DU is superior to tungsten but most nations don't have much because most nations don't have nukes.

>>33822789
Usable velocity ranges, DU plateaus below 2k m/s.

>>33822789
Brittleness
DU would just fall apart.

>>33820869
>much of it offers 200 to 400mm protection
Source on this?

>>33816964
So you want to separate a units logistic element from it's fighting element by up to 12 hours? Are you daft?

>>33817754
>Most of the fighting took place in the open desert
M8 you need to look up what the TUSK is, especially the U part.

>>33822810
>2k m/s
>2k
>m/s
Do you know how metric works?

>>33823450
2,000 meters per second

stop being an autist

>>33814238
Why are ameriboos so delusional and imbecil

>>33817754
>gunner
>exposed

wat

>>33823516
Yeah, at that point you just say two kilometers per second. That's how it works, when you get to the next largest unit if measurement you use that because it's all base 10.

>>33824281
not him, but all weaponry speed is usually is m/s

>>33817540

>>33820869
Get a load of this memetard.
> Crap gun
You realise the reason they ditched the l55 smoothbore is in part because it offered less accuracy whilst only just providing 20mm extra penetration at 2000m?
At closer ranges than 1800m the chally 2 had better penetration due to a higher muzzle energy due to heavier projectile.
And after a certain range the extra penetration of the l55 DM53 was negated due to its flatter trajectory, and l30 & L27/L29s arc causing top attack on weaker armour.
>>33817540
See above.
But from what i heard we're going to 155mm so chav cav and drop shots can share rounds.

>>33823076
He's basing t off the fact that an RPG-7 supposedly took the toes off the driver of a chally 2.

The fact of the matter is that it was random spall from the ERA previously attached to the hull.

It was highly random in that somehow the tandem warhead hit the ERA in a manner that the shockwave trajectory came up and through into a Steel part inside the tank that spalled.

The chally 2 ha since ditched ERA for extra spaced chobham Packs.

>>33816911
Sights are excellent, but heavy and the reticle isn't as good as the abrams.

But to be fair chally 2 is fat and slow, but as per >>33817540 post they're shaving tons just by using modern materials.

>>33817285
chally 2 is more modern than the m1a2 in terms of body, but the SEPs are only kits and don't affect most of the hardware.

>>33824522
So many words and so little factual accuracy.

>>33824607
> Denial because most people put down the tank they know the least about to make their home grown one seem better.

>>33824626
Bong's are notorious for that.

File: 1487886494486.jpg (221KB, 1079x749px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1079x749px

>>33816111
>>33816364
>>33816518
>>33821836
>>33821885
>>33821973
>vatnik vs. chang

File: 1477358943124.png (481KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 800x800px

>>33814514
this was friendly fire correct? they had to scuttle it or some shit? also have some antique armor

File: tumblr_obyeziIQsS1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg (162KB, 693x1024px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 693x1024px

>>33813916
where is Britain?

>>33824660
No ones saying the chally 2 is perfect, as posted she is heavy and slow.

If you want speed & gadgets you go with leclerc
Cons: lack of armour & Loader

If you want affordability good Gun & easy maintenance you go with leopard.
Cons: Lack of armour

If you want armour, fire rate & accuracy you buy challenger 2
Cons: Expensive ammo, heavy, & slow


If you want well balanced you buy abrams
Cons: God awful maintenance, short Gun shit road economy & cost

if you want open field defensive chally is better, due to gun accuracy, sight arrangement, and armour

If you want urban assault abrams due to shorter barrel, TUSK kit and other doohickeys.

>>33824747
All of britains available tanks are currently deployed to the baltic states. that and you can't manoeuvre challenger easily along long distance unless you put it on an RFA ro-ro ferry.

The germans don't have to go anywhere and the abrams can fit on USAG c5s

>>33815467
t. Russki

>>33824809
>I learned about tanks from video games

>>33824747
>Panther III
>Tiger III
etc

just stop

DENMARK FUCK YEA!! WE ARE THE BEST! DENMARK TO EJDEREN! GAS THE GERMANS!

>>33824823
T. Worked as INTCOP (O112) and was attached to death or glory boys (formerly equipped with challys as their MBT before making the move over to CVRT scimitars in force recon role.) as Junior RIST (Regimental intelligence support team) meaning i had to be pretty aware of all techint on all vehicles friendly and foe.

Fun Fact:
> Was the only bloke with jump wings in an armoured recce regiment

>>33824937
lol. it was actually
1. Germany
2. Denmark
3. Poland

File: Challenger 2 L55 Smoothbore.jpg (489KB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 3504x2336px

>>33824522
No, the primary reason why the MoD scrapped the idea of changing the CR2 fleet from the L30 w/ CHARM to L55 smoothbore was due to the fact that the interior hull composition lacks any space to reliably transport more than 6 single piece rounds. That was the primary reason. A minor reasons, in the eyes of the MoD, were the fact that the smoothbore gun lifespan is incredibly shit, when compared to the L30 rifled, and the MoD is put off entirely on having to purchase more smoothbore tank barrels to replace the ageing ones.

Now Rheinmetall has a bigger budget than they did before, I'm hoping they manage to get somewhere with the smoothbore. From having actually sat in the TC seat for the CR2, I can safely say the tank is incredibly roomy. Moving some of the electronics around, and maybe adding new ammunition compartments, as well as adjusting previous ones, to fit the single piece shells wouldn't be entirely impossible. I just imagine it'd be a stretch of a budget.

What BAE is offering does seem very enticing, and I imagine Rheinmetall has something up their sleeve in that regards. If they don't, I'll be incredibly disappointed. I expect at least some sort of hard\soft kill APS as well as reducing the general weight of the tank, and adding in a day\night system for the TC.

If the smoothbore gun doesn't become a thing, it'll be tits up for the MoD and RAC. No one's manufactured CHARM 3 rounds in years, so I imagine BAE or some other company will manufacture CHARM 4, with an extended dart but shorter bagged charge.

File: tywin lannister game of thrones.png (2MB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x1080px

>>33824522
>Challenger 2 is more modern than an M1A2 SEP
>SEP isn't hardware

>>33824983
It is pretty bad that you had that job and yet have questionable technical knowledge based on >>33824522

>>33825134
>were the fact that the smoothbore gun lifespan is incredibly shit, when compared to the L30 rifled

It's actually the other way around.

>>33825188
Actually, no. A Smoothbores life span isn't as good as a rifled barrel.

>>33815498
it's a RACE like the title says, not a fucking shoot-out...

>>33825241
Thank you for letting us know how little you know.

>>33825317
Okay, prove me wrong.

>>33825134
One of the reasons not primary, Chav cav did like the missiles though.
>>33825141
The Challenger 2 is more modern than the M1a2.
And the SEP can be attached by soldiers in the field, so really is just a kit and not an upgrade,

>>33825317
Its a misconception. Rifled BARRELS do require more maintenance in general, but the life span of a rifled GUN can typically be higher, this is because the rifling grooves prevents pressure buildup at the breach.

Also dont Abrams use turbine engines? Whats the point of slightly less gun maintenance for significantly more engine maintenance?

>>33825371
>Challenger 2 1998
>M1A2 SEPv1 1999
>It has improved armor protection, improved system components, improved computer components, and some other improvements.
>This is all installed in the field
Good troll m8.

>>33825371
Turbines require less maintenance than a big diesel engine.

>>33825427
M1A2 SEP was approved for implementation in 1995.

>>33825556
Source? I'm using the years they were actually delivered.

>>33825427
Anon confused SEP with TUSK.

>>33825581
Shit meant put into service.
>>33825595
I know, but he's too dumb to know despite claiming SME status, or is unwilling to admit he's wrong.

>>33825548
>Turbines require less maintenance

lol

thanks for proving how little YOU know, faggot. the turbine AGT engine accounts for around 64% of the Abrams tank maintenance.

>>33825548
The M1A2 is much easier to maintain than the leopard 2 imp, no doubts. I have some experience with both, though the M1A2 does consume twice the fuel of the leopard.

>>33814238
>M1A2 Abrams destroyed in combat: N/A
not true at all.
a lot of tanks M1s were destroyed by IEDs. Also the Iraqis lost some M1s in the last years.

>>33825581
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a323152.pdf

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2002/pdf/army/2002abramsm1a2sep.pdf

http://www.military.com/equipment/m1a2-abrams-main-battle-tank

Germany has some advanced and competitive weapon system. Alas, our army has too little of it and no spare parts to actually have them working. We don't have people willing to fight for our country either.

Trump was right when he criticized our military spending.

>>33825720
Cool. Thanks.

>>33825625
I bet you have no idea how that percentage was ascertained.

>>33814238
I like how you worded it specifically as only the M1A2 against all types, no matter how obsolete, of Leopard 2.
For contrast:
Abrams destroyed in combat: at least 30
>Leopard 2A5 destroyed in combat: N/A

>>33827242
Not him but what were the Leo's that turkey lost? A4?

>>33827686
yes

>>33813916
I think the USA should leave NATO, we just can't keep up with your technology. Have fun with pooty poots.

>>33827242
>Leopard 2A5 that seen combat: N/A

here you go fixed it for you

>>33827913
Danish Leopard 2A5DK which is equivalent to the German Leopard 2A6 were in combat several times in Afghanistan.

>>33828044
so how many times they were hit by at weapons or drive on ied's?

>>33828079
Keep those goalposts moving!

>>33828113
>On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an improvised explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs.

>>33828079
>The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand Province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. On site treatment by Danish medics could not save him. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded.

>>33828113
Which is the bigger goalpost move.

>an Abrams being knocked out by an IED is not a combat loss
>a Leopard 2 driving over an anti-personnel mine is combat

>>33823076
>Source on this?
Most MBTs only have 100mm or so on the sides and rear areas. Challenger 2 has more armor on those regions. Where it becomes an issue is 400mm doesn't offer any real protection against the latest AT weapons so the tank is stuck carrying 10 or 20 tons of non frontal armor that doesn't have much practical use.

Frontal armor on the challenger 1 & 2 is presumably ok.

Its intertasting that not single t-90 wasnt destroyed in combat.
The second fact is that t-90 is the most popular tank on the weapons market in 00s and 10s.

>>33814680
>bong challengers saw the same amount of combat as the Abrams did during the first and second iraq wars, and only suffered a single vehicle casualty.

This is incorrect and literally impossible by virtue of numbers used.

File: T-90 ukraine.jpg (170KB, 1077x611px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1077x611px

>>33830984
>

>>33816851
>Rifled barrel
>Two piece ammunition
>No blow out panels
>>33824522
The only reason the rifled barrels are used is the UKs heavy emphasis on full bore projectiles such as HESH.

>>33825134
>were the fact that the smoothbore gun lifespan is incredibly shit, when compared to the L30 rifled

IIRC L/30 and L/55 have roughly the same barrel life at about 1500 rounds.

>>33825625
Turbines are inherently more reliable vs diesels due to less moving parts. Gas turbines can take a surprising amount of abuse before failure. Ultimately it depends on the maintenance and run hours. I'd imagine the average Abrams also has higher operating time vs a chally II.

>>33831155
That's clearly a T-72B you scrub.

>>33814957
Where did you pull that 50% number out of? Your ass?

>>33814680
>nier poster
>retarded

pick both

>>33814463
4chan is an english website, speak it or leave.

>>33831365
technically a T-72B3

>>33830909
Anon asked for a citation, not you making numbers up.

>>33831468
There's no official sources only analysis based on photos of production lines, prototypes spread around all over different websites.

Even so it's pretty easy to see the armor configuration is much different to something like a Leo2.

>>33831266
But two piece ammunition allows Britbongs to carry 30% more ammo.

>>33832031
At the cost of ROF and one piece ammunition makes safe storage easier to design.

I'm curious what the upcoming 130mm kraut gun will mean for non leo NATO tanks, going to be interesting seeing how they will do rearmament.

>>33814812

Nice one Ruskie. Go Shill back on RT why don't you?

>>33832074
>one piece ammunition makes safe storage easier to design
Care to elaborate? I imagine keeping all the charges in safe bin and sabots wherever

>>33817023

>>>/pol/

Go nao faggot

>>33820515

Arab-nigger soldiers are not on par with Turk-ape soldiers.

Take a look at the Ottoman Empire.

>>33831266

>rifled

Rifled barrel allows longest range of any non-rocket assisted rounds. More accurate as well. Yes it's more expensive to maintain. No it isn't worth replacing. Otherwise we would have in the 90s and the 00 and the 10s when every fucking time we had a 'extension' program offered we turned it down.

>no blowout

Don't need them with seperated ammo. The only time there's been a burnout in a Challenger 2 was when someone hit an open hatch with a round and it exploded directly into the turret. No tank would benefit from a blowout panel in that situation. Wet bins are fine.

>2 piece ammo

More ammo. Faster load rate than none automatic crews. Less chance of a catastrophic failure. Main downfall is penetrator length but no expected opponent warrants a longer penetrator than the current model. Loss of 1 tank in all years of conflict due to a retarded mistake proves that.

>>33832152

Propellants are in wet bins. HESH is next to harmless if you don't actively fire it. Sabots are sabots. There's no need for blowout panels in British tanks at all.

The only reason NATO fags want to get Britain to use 120mms if the simple fact Britain can't afford to suddenly fund development of a brand new series of rounds. That means they will be buying from other nations. This goes against British doctrine since we need our own manufacturing when it comes to our ammunition.

Until 130mm is adopted (doubtful) or something new is revealed? Don't expect any CEP phase to include a replacement for the Challenger gun. It's simply not worth the money. It's require a total redesign of the turret and retraining every single crew while redrawing all armoured doctrine involving an MBT due to the complete difference in how Britain uses their tanks based on their ammo.

There's simply no reason.

>>33832937
There is no more manufacturing for britcuck 120mm rounds, the last plant making them shut down years ago

>>33814238
>Leopard 2

True.

Leopards 2A4, used by Turkey, not Leopards 2A5 used by countries with at least good organization.

>>33814732

NATO keeps their exercises in secret and we will never find out unless there is some real interest(like true public outcry or something)

Ironically, Russians have these kind of exercises and they relay them live to the public so the public can see how they went.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPs4TIifIkE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJodeW0oWps

this years Strong Challenge has Ukraine, Romania and France in.
Nice to see something different than Leos, Abrams and Challys.
Someone mentioned in another thread that Ukraine is sending T64BVs, if Romania really shows up we will see some selfmade T55 variant from them

>>33832971
I wish that private companies could also send their new stuff they're trying to sell as well, like that SLEP for M60s Raytheon is doing.

german tanks best tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j45lrsHFLTE

>>33814660
Those are some smart terrorists then.

Also aren't terrorists usually maniacs who bomb civilians rather then attack legitimate military targets? Don't tell me the guys who got in that tank didn't know what they were getting in to, they aren't paying you to stand around looking pretty. You start calling everyone a terrorist you devalue that word.

>>33814732
So it's not that the Abrams is shit it's just that American soldiers are incompetent, okay.

>>33814812
The danes build their fortifications out of lego so if you blow them up they can just put them back together before you have an opportunity to advance, they're unbeatable.

>>33814895
Denmark actually has very restrictive immigration policies.

File: image014.jpg (36KB, 600x176px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x176px

>>33816235
German here...

There is a thing about the Leo, which i frankly dont get. Why have the majority of ammunition uncovered in racks in the front left, besides the driver and directly behind the frontal armour?
Why not move the electronics of the fcs (which are located there) and the hydraulic assist in the right turret bustle, where we have all this exposed ammo and alter the shape of said bustle, so it holds all the combat load?

Pic related is the Layout the Leo 2 had since its creation, up to this day. Notice that less then 50% of bustle space is actually used for protected ammo storage. Abrams has a better designed turett imo.

>>33816538
What do you base this on? I don't think you can really consider big game hunting expeditions like Aghanistan or Iraq comparable to actual wars like WW2 or korea with vaguely comparable forces. Yeah no wonder you don't lose that many when you're fighting such crappy armies.

PT-91M of Malaysia > Leopard 2 and Abrams

>>33820714
>training
>actual war
pick one

Is that like that training exercise where they decided to "refloat" some aircraft carriers because they were so pissy about them getting sunk by a swarm of anti-ship missiles because the guy commanding the opposition actually tried?

>>33833219
Read:
http://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf
Don't come back until you acquire a basic understanding.

>>33833219
look next time all you have to do is post 2 words "millennium challenged" its all it takes for everyone to ignore you, its not like your advanced baiting going to work anyway

>>33832940
>britcuck

And out the window your arguments go.

>>>/pol/

>>33832937
Honestly, the most logical thought, and most likely, will be that BAE or some other company develops a CHARM 4 round, with an extended dart and shorter bagged charge. It will significantly reduce the amount of rounds carried, from 50~ down to 35~.

>>33832937
Rifled actually lowers the range because it imparts more friction on the round as it travels down the barrel.

Rifled requires more parasitic weight to counteract spin with rounds like APFSDS.

Rifled has no accuracy benefit for APFSDS as the spin is negated.

Fin stabilized is just as accurate as spin stabalized.

The Challenger 2 was destroyed when its commanders hatch was hit because of its ammunition being stored in the crew compartment.

The Challenger 2 has the annunciation capacity it does because it is stored out in the open, if the HESH rounds were stored in a blow out panel equipped bin it would have much less.

Any tank with Kontact-5 or newer ERA warrants a newer longer penetrator.

>>33833455
Source to literally any of your statements?

Because most is bullshit

>>33831155
You mean T-72B3 with a Thales thermal imaging device

>>33833469
Actually all of it is true, being assblasted about it isn't an argument.

>>33833493
>all of it is true
Ah huh

If it is, then it shouldn't be hard to source your statements, champ.

I could tell you right now, that bagged charges, and HESH, are stored in bins located beneath the tank in water compartments. Only, and only, the CHARM 3 heads are located behind the operator.

>>33833455
The relation between rifled guns and range depends on the ammunition. As you explained rightfully, the APFSDS rounds of a rifled gun are less effective, than those shot out of a smoothbore and therefore their accuracy is also comparable. In other types of ammunition, as HESH or HE-FRAG etc. the rifled gun exceedes the smoothbore. Also in Range. A rifled gun, can also be used for indirect fire. Why are we using rifled artillery systems, if the smoothbore is as well as capable?

What is definetly true, is that modern russian ERA challenges the current ammo and guns of western tanks, maybe in the future we will settle for triple charged HEAT rounds, to combat that, or use top attack all together.

Iam personally in favour of the smooth bore desing, because curently it allows for the best performance against MBTs, as well as light armoured and anti personal targets. Also the increased range and accuracy of a rifled gun isnt really needed in a tank, because you arent expeting to engage a tank beyond 4000 - 5000m in the first place.

>>33828044
>German Leopard 2A6 were in combat several times in Afghanistan.
As glorified Artillery

>>33831266
>Rifled barrel
Rifled means more accuracy, whilst loosing velocity more dramatically at longer ranges.

>Two piece ammunition
Two piece is easier and quicker to load (as its half the weight but double the reps)as you can lap load the SABOT keeping powder charge in the magazine, It also means that blowout panels aren't a necessary as the powder bags tend to burn rather than explode.
Its possible to get loading down to just over 4 seconds.
One second to put your lap load in, another to swing round and open the door, another two seconds to turn around and place the bag charge in breach.
>No blow out panels

And don't be silly they do have blow out panels, They're just hidden to the rear.(see pic)

>The only reason the rifled barrels are used is the UKs heavy emphasis on full bore projectiles such as HESH.

Hesh is more useful than regular HE, HESH wont penetrate and kill a Tank, but it will fuck up your sights and comms arrays.
That and its much better against buildings.

As stated above, the army stuck with the L30 as the L55 was only marginal increase in penetration (under a flat trajectory) at long range, whilst the L30 Retained higher penetration at close range, and higher penetration at arced trajectory, with better accuracy.

The army liked LAHAT a lot though and directly lead to the acquisition of EXACTOR.

I doubt that turbines are more reliable, if so why do they require a crazy amount of work hours, the only advantage they provide is that they're quieter, but they burn through fuel like any american vehicle.

>>33832940
They manufacture Tungsten Penetrators at Radway green along with the powder charges and they make the DU penetrators at AWE

>>33833432
The tungsten former training round L29 has supplanted the L23 CHARM 3 for long range use because of its longer penetrator.

Charm 3 is still to be used up close due to its higher mass, providing better penetration.

>>33833455

>Rifled actually lowers the range because it imparts more friction on the round as it travels down the barrel.
it only affects velocity at longer ranges, but the rifled is more accurate at longer range.

>Rifled requires more parasitic weight to counteract spin with rounds like APFSDS.
Are u for real?

>Rifled has no accuracy benefit for APFSDS as the spin is negated.
MOD says so, the gun trails on chally 2 with the L55 basically said they couldn't hit shit.
You do realize that the most accurate artillery rounds are fin stabilized & fired from rifled barrels don't you?

>Fin stabilized is just as accurate as spin stabalized.
Why aren't small arms using fin stabilized rounds
Again, You do realize that the most accurate artillery rounds are fin stabilized & fired from rifled barrels don't you?

>The Challenger 2 was destroyed when its commanders hatch was hit because of its ammunition being stored in the crew compartment.
Not really just plain luck,

>The Challenger 2 has the annunciation capacity it does because it is stored out in the open, if the HESH rounds were stored in a blow out panel equipped bin it would have much less.
Not really you can safe stow the penetrators around the tank without the risk of them going off because they're inert.

>Any tank with Kontact-5 or newer ERA warrants a newer longer penetrator.
> Still using ERA, and not going for spaced additional armour

>>33833584
Because our artillery systems are designed in the 60's
A modern artillery system might not necessarily use a rifled barrel

>>33833635
2 piece is NOT quicker to load, its much slower to load.

>>33835424
Only if you're lugging 155 or 203mm ammo.
a One piece 90mm shell is heavy enough, a 120 is substantially heavier, and after 6 shots rapid you're worn out.
>>33835410
Name one

>>33835517
Noone gets worn out moving around 50 lb rounds... 6 shots? gimme a break

>>33833150
The rest of the turret bustle has the hydraulics.

As for the ammunition placement; the tank was designed during the cold war, and for defensive operations. It was meant to stay hidden as much as possible, move to firing position and then back away to hide position.

So the focus was to have a well armoured turrent front as well as a very mobile tank. Which it is great for, although the A4s are definetly outdated.

>>33835549
T. I've never served and i have no idea what its like sitting in the same seat for hours at a time, fighting of the shits and flu, meaning you've been awake for 72 hours straight.

I can guarantee you no one is getting in a 4 second reload on one piece ammo.