>Big ass flimsy turret This is seriously a huge target, Russians

>>34012844
>Ever think what would happen if Russia outsourced to China the development of their new tank?

It would explode and give people cancer.

>>34012844
>flimsy

You know that's just the turret cover, right? For reducing IR and radar signatures.The armor is underneath.

File: 1457693184726.jpg (136KB, 702x960px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 702x960px

>>34012844
>Russians have lost the Soviet touch in technology, the Chinese have inherited the Research and Development prowess of the Soviets and are more proficient at it than ever.
you're a funny guy, anon. The difference between the Chinese and the Soviets is that the Soviets presented a credible conventional threat for the better part of a half-century. For the majority of that time they could have fought the West and won. The Chinese present no such threat. Their army is underequipped and unexperienced, they have no force projection, and to top it all off their R&D efforts primarily consist of stealing Russian/Western defense IPs and using them to produce inferior clones of foreign technology.

>>34012844
>Ever think what would happen if Russia outsourced to China the development of their new tank? It could've been the best tank in Europe.
It would be inferior Leopard 2A4 copy or something like that.

If I recall, the Russian Boomerang is a copy of a Chinese IFV and the Boomerang has problems with the engine, it heats up too much that it chips away the paint.

>>34013394
A copy of which chinese IFV? This is the first I've heard that accusation, and I follow most of the forums related to this type of shit.

>>34013431
>He doesn't know

If I recall, China made a design competition for their new IFV, Russians tried to sell their old BMP-3 design but China said lol no. Norinco presented their design for their IFV ( I think it was ZBL08) and the Russians copied technology designs from them and carried it back to Russia where it was sold to UVZ.

>>34013616
No.

>>34013616
>ZBL08

Yeah... Even looking at the two designs side by side I can tell that this is nothing more than wishful thinking probably concocted on some Chinese forum. Other than having the (kind of) same basic shape of most modern IFVs they're not similar at all.

Truth of the matter is that nobody is copying Chinese shit, and they don't need to since most chinese shit is just a half-baked copy of American or Russian shit to begin with. Seriously, that is some hardcore projecting on the part of chinkaboos.

File: wowsosimilar.jpg (205KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1000x800px

>>34013800

Just for reference. Honestly, aside from the inherent similarities that come from being vehicles of the same class, there is nothing that indicates these two are related at all. What a fucking stupid rumor.

File: 1200px-Patria_AMV_Karlovac_2009_8.jpg (249KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1200x900px

>>34013865
Finnish patria

File: Stryker_v-hull.jpg (81KB, 580x435px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 580x435px

>>34013865
American stryker

>>34013865
Russian Atom

File: atom-image38.jpg (58KB, 800x481px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x481px

>>34013882

Taiwanese CM-32

File: 1200px-CM-32_Yunpao_APC_Display_in_Chengkungling_20111009.jpg (213KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1200x900px

>>34013897
Etc many much cases

File: nope.jpg (1MB, 1620x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1620x2000px

>>34013873
Maybe at a cursory glance, but the dimensions are still off. Try again.

File: muh.png (226KB, 402x435px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 402x435px

>>34013900
>>34013887
>>34013877

Oh, so what you're actually trying to say is that almost all modern IFVs share a similar profile and layout? Well holy shit, thanks for that invaluable piece of insight you fucking genius. Does this mean that you're admitting that the idea that the Bumerang is a copy of that POS Chinese IFV is a load of bullshit after all?

>>34013926
Well first of all chinse shit is a BTR copy

File: 1471399317503.jpg (119KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 960x720px

>>34013935
Oh, okay. So what you're actually saying is that the Bumerang is a copy of a copy of a Soviet system that the Russians have had in their inventory for decades. So basically, what you're telling me is you're retarded.

>>34012844
No matter how you look at it that thing is ugly as fuuuuck.
I doubt chinese would fuck up the looks as much, even if the road wheels fell off after a few minutes of driving.

>>34013981
Basically every modern military vehicle is copy of previous vehicle with improvements

>>34013926
>IFVs
AFV.

>>34014045
Yeah yeah, semantics. The point still stands.

>>34014008

AK = improved brown bess

B2 = improved B17

Leopard 2 = improved Tiger II

Ferrari = improved model T

Do you see why you're retarded yet?

>>34014051
The only retard here is you.
I understood just fine what the other guy pointed out.

>>34014062
Oh, I understood what he's trying to say as well, but its stupid because it only works if you boil everything down to its most basic components. Sure if to you all an AFV is "armored hull + troop compartment + gun" then I can see how you might believe Bumerang is an improved BTR, even though I'd bet money that they share few if any major components. Same with the T-14 and the T-90 series, or the F22 and the F15, etc. It's just a stupid argument to make.

>>34013865
The engine is mounted on the left side of the chassis, it started with the Chinese designed and copied by the Russians.

File: russian-bumerang-8x8-apc-may-4-rehearsal.jpg (363KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 900x600px

>>34014233

Hmm, still not seeing those big ass grates. Guess you're just full of shit, huh? Jesus, looking at the comparison pic again, they don't even use the same type of suspension. Why are you even trying still?

>>34014250
Left side when its facing you. It's all around forums when the Bumerang made its debut because it looked a lot like the Chinese IFV.

File: final-tankovogo-biatlona-2016-05.jpg (35KB, 500x292px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x292px

>>34012844
>Russia should've just bought Chinese.

Except proven during 2016 tank biathlon that Chinese tanks are still made out of structural carbonized steel not even tool grade.

>>34014528
It's Maskivorska. A Chinese saying that says you should hide your cards and look weak for the world.

>>34014589
That's why they never won a war
They just hide their cards

>>34012844
>It could've been the best tank in Europe.
>Russia should've just bought Chinese.

no

the chinese tank is basicly a t-72 with steelplates to make it look like a modern western tank

>>34014051
>improved tiger II
Try to find a similarity between the two other than that they're both tanks and are German.

>>34013020
>The Chinese present no such threat. Their army is underequipped and unexperienced, they have no force projection, and to top it all off their R&D efforts primarily consist of stealing Russian/Western defense IPs and using them to produce inferior clones of foreign technology.


this

>>34013877
is the stryker actually a really good IFV?
i mean was someone here deployed and used it in actual combat?

>>34014051
>Leopard 2 = improved Tiger II


isnt the leopard based on the latest panther blueprints from WWII?

>>34014626
it was made for maneuver warfare except it was never used to fight an enemy that did maneuver warfare

>>34014626
Stryker was given to 2 units....

They were given to light infantry battalions that previously had humvees as their main source of transportation. They LOVED the strykers. I mean glowing reviews all around.

The other battalions that got it was armored battalions that traded their Abrams and brads for strykers. Their reports were Lukewarm at best. Not enough armor, not enough boom.>>34014626


That's the truth. Great battle taxi but it can't replace a true armored IFV. Which honestly is fine.

However, reports are solid about the 30mm they are throwing on it.

Overall, in my opinion and in short, it's a damn fine battle taxi. Great armor for its weight class and a metric fuckton of armament choices, with a metric fuckton of variants to employ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVRYTEes9UM&app=desktop

Why is Russian FCS and stabilization so poor.

File: 3tb_150203161205kx7l512293.jpg (262KB, 1600x1140px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1600x1140px

>>34013865

Reminder that there is nothing special about the Type-99

>>34014848
Muzzle velocity radar, laser defense system, network combat system, and an actual FCS.

Much more than your usual kit bashed T-72 offering.

>>34014858
A T-72 is a T-72. You can only dress a pig so much

>>34014860
Except the 99 isn't. Especially not the 99A.

>>34014877
It really is. The type 90 was basically a straight copy with Chinese subsystems, the 98 had a different turret and the 99 is an upgraded 98. They all share the 72 hull. Even the 99A and A2