Friendly reminder that the over-engineered, gigantic, super expensive

File: merkava.7.jpg (272KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1280x848px

APS

File: W2_lepzmrs.jpg (240KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1024x680px

>>33917663
The Weasel is such a great machine, its got the be the most practical vehicle.

File: Merkava_hit_by_rpg_ammo_explosion.jpg (92KB, 620x510px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 620x510px

>>33917670
The Merkava is one of the best examples of how shit and redundant MBTs are in modern warfare

>>33917663
Wiesel trained with us in the same area, they are as silent as they say here. We only spotted them when they suddenly came out of the forrest 20m in front of us. Speed and concealment are their best protction and not armor. With airdefense config they can take out helicopters and low flying airplanes. I wish we had more of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qln3hVoe8qA

>>33917670
>APS
>Posts a Merk without one

>>33917677
Nope.It only show how shit the Merkava is.

>>33917709
no MBT can withstand a good placed rpg, they may not be completely destroyed but they'll be taken out of combat.

AFVs and robotic wiesels are the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(Rheinmetall_armoured_fighting_vehicle)

>>33917663
> any multimillion dollar tank can be taken out by a simple RPG
> Challenger 1 in Basra took 70 rpgs and anti tank rockets to no ill effect, crew all survives and tank is operational again in under 6 hours

Does it hurt when you think?

>>33917761
That story is fake, it said ""70 hits including RPGs". So probably a few RPGs and some big caliber machine guns.

>>33917677
>>33917709
They did pretty good in 2014, though.

>>33917683
>Wiesel trained with us in the same area, they are as silent as they say here. We only spotted them when they suddenly came out of the forrest 20m in front of us.

I assume you had no thermal sights.

>>33917663
>Any multi-million dollar tank can be blown up with even a simple RPG.
Not really.
Tank is a cannon. On chassis. With armor. You always need to deliver few pounds of explosives from point A to point B. With as much accuracy as possible. And with less expenses as possible. And that's how you get a tank.

>>33917783
> this cant be true because I say so!

Yeah im gunna need a source on that m8

>>33917761
10 bucks that it was 69 RPG-2 or baseline 7s (which cant even pen the laughably weak LFP of chally 2s) and 1 Vampyr that maimed the driver through mentioned LFP

File: Screenshot_2017-05-10-13-22-07.png (226KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 720x1280px

>>33917783
Multiple stories of multiple Challengers taking multiple RPGs and surviving. The only one that penetrated was an underbelly hit as the tank came across the crest of a ditch. But no Im sure youre right and its all false propaganda...

>>33917922
Fair enough mate, if OP had specified which RPG rocket or anti tank warhead then he wouldnt be getting shit for being wrong.

>>33917739
I know, but the Merk has some strange design choices liek the hull.Puting the engine under the frontal arc sound good in theory, but it decreases the amount of armor you can put around it, so it makes a eak spot.You cant really put more armor, nor can you ecrease the angle beyond a certain degree.Also one direct hit to the front, even if i doesn't sustain penetration can serously damage the power pack.
To me the Merkava is like a tank that wasn't desinged to figth other tanks.

>>33917924
Because OP is a massive faggot, only tandem HEAT rounds pose an RPG threat to modern MBTs, and those are short ranged and inaccurate as hell, had he talked about TOWs and equivalents he would've been less of a faggot

>>33917932
>can serously damage the power pack.
And that's somehow worse than getting all you crew shredded?

>>33918023
As i said, i don't mean penetration - AP shell carry alot of joules behind them so they impart alot of kinetic energy to the target.A hit like that could missalign the trans and the final drive or something liek that.
I was once at a training range where the guys from the tank battalion where testing some old AP(tungsten carbied) ammo from the army stock on an t-55 target.Direct hit to the frontal plate didn't penetrate(turned out it was some ptopellant issue) but was powerfull enough to literraly break the plate at the seams.

File: 1ce61fbb-5dd0-4191-89ec-a8fba17af117.jpg (378KB, 1580x889px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 1580x889px

I think I see plenty drawbacks, they could just use atvs or the bv206/210 platform

> virtually no cargo capacity

> lack of fuel; lack of range

> virtually no pax capacity, lose significant personnel in an airborne role

> lack of spare parts commonality, need to fly in new parts in theater.

> lack of gun, ammunition commonality

> pretty much drowned if the rubber(?) tracks snap.

Also, since the 70s we now do have capable smaller atgms carried by individual or squad jampacked in car or quad.

Someone needs to post those 90s bundeswehr gifs asap though.

>>33917941
> because OP is a massive faggot

Well theres something I think we can all agree upon

>>33917663
>Friendly reminder that the over-engineered, gigantic, super expensive main battle tanks are completely redundant in modern warfare, due to the vast access to anti-tank weapons that can penetrate any type of armor
>The only "tanks" that have a place in modern combat are small, super vast, agile, multi-purpose, support, reconnaissance and fighting vehicles
Oh look, it's the 60's again. Hi, 60's! Please warn John about Yoko.

>>33917670
If APS replaces armor, will future lightly armored heavily APSed vehicles be called tanks?

If one reason tanks are big and lightly armored vehicles are small is that armor becomes more efficient when applied to large vehicles, does the same principle count for APS? Perhaps, but then again APS is a lot lighter to begin with.

>>33917835
Considering the capabilities of modern fire support (artillery and mortars),espcially their short reaction time, will tanks still be used for HE/against stationary targets? I think rather not.

One of the reasons tanks are large is that their gun is large. Will high velocity tube based firepower likely retain usefulness against enemy vehicle defenses that cannot be replaced with missile based firepower? Quite possibly.

Will a certain amount of armor always be useful? Obviously. The interesting question regarding classical tanks is wether the expense and weight of current armor will still be worth it against the likely arsenal of our future enemies. It's really quite a complicated topic because of the multitude of weaponry that can be brought to bear.

>>33917932
The Merkava was designed to fight hordes of arab tanks hull down position from tank scrapes. It's a defensive tank. The engine is at the front so ammo can be loaded into easier just like a self propelled gun, not because of crew protection which is a meme. The tank has been around for around 40 years and no other mbt uses a front engine design, because its stupid.

>>33918908
>I think rather not.

This isn't even English.

File: damascus-syria-1.jpg (136KB, 1368x1026px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1368x1026px

>>33917663
>Tanks can get destroyed therefore they are useless

People have been saying this for the past 100 years and the tank has not left.

A big gun that is immune to small arms fire will always have its place on the battlefield.

File: rpg_miss_answer.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>33918908
>Considering the capabilities of modern fire support (artillery and mortars),espcially their short reaction time, will tanks still be used for HE/against stationary targets? I think rather not.
Sure they will. Mortar can't send mine into window to kill sniper, for example.

>>33917671
The german managed to get a fucking 30mm on that little beast, not only that, it also has more RHA penetration than regular 30mm cannons through the special ammunition, which is only surpassed by the A-10's 30mm gatling autocannon with its DU ammunition.

>>33919046
Why shoot into the window when you can level the building?

>>33917663
>Any multi-million dollar tank can be blown up with even a simple RPG.
retard, aps systems just changed the game again completely yesterday.

>>33919115
Because it's not efficient.

>>33917663
Where do Strykers fit in?

>>33919215
They are supposed to be pure troop carriers and not engage enemy armor.

But we just slapped on a new 30mm gun so who knows.

>>33919115
Because leveling every building with a sniper in it ends up with you turning the whole damn city into rubble (I should NOT have to explain to you why that can be undesirable) and wasting a shitton of ordnance.

>>33919300
What about the MGS version with the 105/120mm tank gun?

>>33919322
Don't know for sure.

Think it was something alone the lines of the MPF concept, a big gun to travel with the infantry/mechanized units.

File: zzzzzzzzztryker.jpg (155KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1280x720px

>>33919364
I've got a real hard on for MGS Strykers, especially with reactive armor bars on the side, such a cool shape.

>>33917700
this seems like an odd way to do a mortar

>>33917700
That shity music and you just know it is german.

t. german

>>33919471
If i remember correctly, it was with an upgrade against ABC threats in mind.

>>33917671
What about the lovely AMX ELC, with a modernized 90mm?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELC_project

Because what literally is just a support gun with a low profile, add an enclosed compartment, and decent armor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M56_Scorpion

>>33919610
>Vulnerable to small arms fire.
>Unable to deal with legacy armor threats.

>>33919737
Upscale and armor though. Basically a modernized assault gun with a turret.

>>33919860
So an MGS then.

File: Bueno.jpg (92KB, 637x309px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 637x309px

>>33919610
>elc 75
>tfw when the French made an ELC Ontos

>>33919917
>>33919948
While light enough to airdrop, I like the idea of dropping heavy weapons with paratroopers. Stick temporary containers on the hull for transporting supplies.

>>33917905
>this is true because I said so
you need to give evidence for your story, 70 rpgs? LMAO!

>>33917663

Urban warefare is both the most difficult type of obstacle for a tank to overcome as well as conclusive proof that tanks are still needed.

You need a tank to kill a skyscraper: artillery and aircraft can try, but while they might be able to knock it down, you need something to close in to ensure its occupants are destroyed as well, as shown in Stallingrad.