Leopard 2

No tank is perfect.

File: 1484964126498.jpg (870KB, 2404x1516px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 2404x1516px

>>34488702
Like the T-shittytwo, the Leopard 2 throws it's turret when exposed to fire.

Infact all european tanks sucks. Only the M1 abrams have proven themself completely reliable and are inherently safer on all levels since all the ammunition are seperated from the crew.

Sage

File: t14-6.jpg (1MB, 1200x997px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x997px

>>34488760
>big shitbox
>uranus in armor
>120 mm
>price
>weight
>destroyed by DShK
Haha no picrelated is best tonk

File: 1499547412993m.jpg (91KB, 1024x670px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1024x670px

Almost every tank has been testes in real wars in the ME, pic related proved it's the best

>>34488769
>meme tank is best tank
Time will tell anon, time will tell.

File: 1498773709586.jpg (23KB, 894x786px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 894x786px

>>34488760
>Only the M1 abrams have proven themself completely reliable and are inherently safer on all levels since all the ammunition are seperated from the crew.

Hmm.....

>>34488790
I mean, he's not wrong. All he did was claim the Abrams is more reliable when it comes to ammunition incidents. Which is true.

File: AA28F31A-CF9B-442B-989F-2790CD089C66.jpg (70KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x800px

>>34488702
What's its combat record?

>>34488787
sauce on data that will prove your point?

File: Iraq 021.jpg (475KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1600x1200px

>>34488760
Here's a (you), you nigger.

>>34488794
Armata>abrams when it comes to ammunition incidents cuz unmanned turret+blowoutpannels+capsule for crew.
Anyway armata is inpenetrable by western guns so there would be little to no munition incidents

>>34488760
monkey model made for turkish forces

>>34488819
You just eat up factory propaganda don't you?

>>34488874
t.fartnik
armata is 10x times better protected than shitrams

>>34488787
>real wars
>Americans really believe wars against Iraq were "real wars"
I can only imagine how much rape you would suffer if you ever faced a full-scale conflict against a serious opponent.

>>34488769

>destroyed by DShK

whats the story behind this?

File: M1 abrams hull blowout panel shown.jpg (97KB, 1119x480px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1119x480px

>>34488811
>Post image of abrams turret which was lifted of the hull due to massive IED.
Are you even trying Hans?

Meanwhile the M1 abrams have a blowout pannels for all of it's ammo. Even the hull.


>>34488908
Vatniks making shit up. Which is ironic considering the paper thin armor fro the T-14 turret.

File: M1 abrams hull storage shown.jpg (124KB, 810x1080px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 810x1080px

>>34488955

>>34488955
>Fatniks think that coverage is armor
brainlets when they will learn

File: Leopard 2 inert armor 2.jpg (481KB, 2256x1496px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 2256x1496px

>>34488702
>shit ceramic armor
>terrible ammunition placement
>torsion bar suspension
>"additional armor package" is just steel plates welded onto the armor
>first taste of actual combat and it shits the bed
>doesn't use composite armor
>shit ground coverage
>shit offroad speed
>shit fuel capacity

The tank is the T-72 of the West.

File: Leopard 2 inert armor.jpg (503KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1024x768px

>>34489001

why do people suck of leopards dick so much?
it has no noteworthy combat record except the turkish ones that got BTFO half a year ago.

File: 1484055157205.jpg (377KB, 1199x613px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1199x613px

>>34488702
>>34488760
Leo2A4 and the lower models have probably the worst armor of all other western models.Especially the main sight on the right of the turret is a big weakpoint there is a lot less armor there.But 2A5+ fixes a lot of the problem with the armor.
>>34488821
No actually we bought them from the german army surplus

>>34489022
Because it's not an abrams, and sucking t90 dick gets you blasted for being a slavaboo

>>34489058
This pretty much, there's literally only American tanks, Russian tanks and the Leopards.

File: Leopard 2A4 Training 3.jpg (271KB, 1024x731px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1024x731px

>>34488760
Btw the reason those tanks have their turret blown away is because of airstrikes. So its not atgm
There was a case where a leo2 got hit from the side of the turret and didnt brew or got disabled.
but the jet was disrupted by some hydrolic thing in the turret

>>34489057
>>34489071
How's the Altay tank going? Is there any talk about it in Turkey?

File: 1495132785749.jpg (648KB, 2560x1573px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 2560x1573px

>>34489076
We are waiting for hohols to make us a new engine. Mtu didnt allowed us to sell the tank with that engine so yeah rip
but everything else is ready

>>34489090
so it's just a fancy leclerc

>>34489071
You are seriously claiming that turrets only pop due to air Strikes?

>>34488702
Battle tanks are as outdated as horses

>>34489090
>that tank on the left

What the did they do to it?

File: Altay Tank 1.jpg (219KB, 713x800px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 713x800px

>>34489101
L55 gun
Bretty gud fcs
Boron based composit armor
Probably meh engine

Yeah the turret is more leclerc but the hull is k2 black panther
>>34489105
Yes
>>34489111
Le thermal camo
Laser warning reciver
the first prototypes didnt had any lwr

>>34489090
What's the point of building your own tank so as not to rely on another country for support, but buying all the parts from other countries?

>>34489120
Well, you're retarded then. Anything that can blow the magazine can pop the top.

File: 1422066691803.jpg (84KB, 368x368px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 368x368px

>>34489105
No, he is "seriously claiming" that the tanks in the image didn't get killed by ATGMs but airstrikes. Read properly, please.

>>34489124
cheaper to buy something tried and tested than to try to chinese components.

File: Leopard 2A4 Training 1.jpg (210KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x682px

>>34489124
believe or not everything is licensed except the engine so we can make them.
>>34489127
Nigga just watch isis atgm footage every time they hit too high to contact with the magazine on the hull.
>>34489129
During a isis zerg rush we abondoned a lot of tanks this is same with m-60Ts after the inital bailing out or getting disabled somehow is calling a airstrike on the tanks or just you call a enginer team to blow it up so enemy doesnt use it

>>34488819

Feel free to provide test reports about armor used in Armata. Protip - you cannot and if you could FST would kill you. Hence in reality you don't have a clue and you are just parroting bullshit.

Little reality check from public sources: At it is at the moment Russian military has zero tank units equipped with Armata. The first tank regiment to be equipped with them is supposed to receive its new tanks next year (2018). Assuming that Russian economy actually allows that.

>>34488787

>Got penetrated through the frontal upper hull by an old ATGM
>Turret front is essentially a weakspot
>Best

Yeah, no.

>>34489141
This. No one wants to take a chance when China's previous exports have been so bad

>>34489090
>We are waiting for hohols to make us a new engine.

Wasn't the whole "100% domestic tank" a pretty important part of the whole Altay project?

File: Bmc Kirpi 1.jpg (426KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1024x682px

>>34489170
Yeah we wanted to get the license of some mtu engines but they didnt give us any so we are going with a hohol one

>>34489155
It was penetrated through the episcope, just at the edge of the drivers' door, which is a weakpoint that is pretty much any MBT, with the Challenger II being the worst offender in that regard since the driver has a good old vision slot protected by armored glass.
EVERY modern tank has a similar frontal weakspot.
Just picture this >>34488962 being hit at the edge of the driver's hole: not much in the way of armor there.

>>34489160
I meant more get an example and copy it but either way works

>>34488702
Perfect? Hahahahaa. Side armour is 30mm RHA a mesopotamian monkey with toyota and DShK can kill it. Turks take this into fighting ISIS thinking muh german engineering and they get destroyed by kornets. It's the 2017 and Leo still doesn't have APS. Best vehicles made by people you experienced war and today best mudslime fighting tank is kike tanks (Merkava)

>>34489174
hohol engine is shit Ruskis have new X12 engine

>>34489244
> It's the 2017 and Leo still doesn't have APS.
Neither does any other Western tank.

>>34489258
challenger 2 is being equipped with MOSS APS. Also, does Israel count as Western?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/543458/20160801-Letter_to_Maj_Gen_Gaunt_from_CGS.pdf

>>34489258
Abrams going to have one in near future if I remember right. Mekava has one since they are NATO we can count them west. Since Turkey is also NATO we can count them west to because Altay has soft APS like Merkava. Best APS made by Ruskies there are videos where APS destroys incoming RPGs something like that would be life saving in Middle Easter citties. Turks got their lesson fighting ISIS and YPG in middle east APS is a must have in new warfare where IEDs and Guided missiles is something everyone can have in Middle East.

>>34489279
>>34489278
>being equipped with
>near future
so they don't have APS right now
toodles

>>34489279
We are making a active aps its called AKKOR

>>34489294
>meanwhile trophy in the merkava

>>34488702
Burning desire to win WWIII.

>>34489062
Ever heard of the Challenger?

>>34489022
Cause it is MUH GERMANS

>>34489244
>Side armour is 30mm RHA
310mm or 31cm for the side of the turret. Not counting the NERA armor on the later versions.

>>34489279
nigga Israel is not in NATO

APS sucks anyway. Sometimes good for one hit. US, UK, Germany, and France opt for high tech composite armors because they can afford to produce and equip them. Russia is still using APS because they can't afford or aren't allowed to import better armor and lack the knowhow to make it themselves

>>34489294
Abrams has had quick kill on the shelf for years; and got Trophy pre-approved for off-the-shelf buys.

For a long time, APS simply was a technical patch for tactical fail. It's only in the last 5-8 years that good missiles have become common enough for APS to be worth buying.

This is also your weekly reminder that TOW and Spike II missiles have APS jammers.

>>34489001
>doesn't use composite armor
what
are you 1 of those idiot who think Leopard 2 only got space armor?

>>34489343

seriously this
they got recognition for a few guns and vehicles during ww2(some of which were already just memes) and now its MEIN GERMAN ENGINEERING.when was the last time jerry made something that wasnt totally overrated?

File: Back deck A6.jpg (929KB, 1685x1264px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 1685x1264px

>>34489022
>it has no noteworthy combat record except the turkish ones that got BTFO half a year ago.
Canada deployed them to Afghanistan for 5 years.

The mine and IED protection was good enough to end deaths in tanks. Protection from recoilless rifles and RPGs also proved effective without any tanks knocked out by enemy fire.

The weapon systems (in the A6+) are objectively the most powerful in NATO with the L55 120mm gun. The FCC is able to do anything any other modern tank is, with first round hits with sabot or HEAT. Night vision system is capable for night fighting or day fighting. Crew Commander has his own hunter killer sight with hand off for the gunner. So the CC can select a target and pass it onto the gunner then go looking for a new target while the gunner is shooting at the last one.

The engine is durable and fuel efficient, and is actually down rated from it's 2100HP spec to 1500HP for engine life.

It can also do deep fording which I'm sure terrifies the crew as much as driving tanks under rivers has always done.

File: 14824184837120.jpg (116KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1024x576px

>>34489071
>>34489071
>have their turret blown away is because of airstrikes
only one confirmed airtrike on one tank
while there are more than one Leopard with popped turret

only pic related was confirmed to be the result of airstrike, and the photo was took by Turky troop

>>34489392
>TOW and Spike II missiles have APS jammers
source pls

>>34489426
They make good engines and good vehicle guns.
The machinery and industrial equipment is top tier. Without being finicky or excessively maintenance prone.

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

190KB, 1242x664px

>>34489436
as you can see. more than 1 one popped turret

>>34489071
many ATGMs can also hit top side of the turret

File: Type 10 (10式戦車 Hito-maru-shiki-sensya) Japanese main battle tank Japan Ground Self Defense Force new latest inducted exercise (2).jpg (299KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1500x1000px

all of you arguing about which is better, Muh Burger tank! Muh Kraut Tank! Muh drunken Russian tank! None of you realize, Nippon steel is superior to all of them, pic related. Is worlds best. How does it feel to be BTFO by those slants?

File: file.png (1MB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x683px

>>34489484
>best

File: 1480296058406.png (3MB, 2000x1189px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x1189px

>>34489484
Side protection is not a priority for nippon tanks side hull.

File: 1430506321395.jpg (50KB, 582x469px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 582x469px

>>34489512
not him
but you are comparing 60 tons MBT to an over 40 tons light tank

>>34489518
What do you expect from a crew of 4 Americans?

>>34489518
Then why bring up a 40 ton MBT to a 60 ton MBT party?

>>34489500
track gets thrown all the time, I saw a Abrams shatter a drive sprocket and throw it's track ripping off half it's skirts in Sapper Breach in Korea.

>>34489553
How the fuck do you shatter a drive sprocket?

>>34489432

>The weapon systems (in the A6+) are objectively the most powerful in NATO with the L55 120mm gun.

Thats not quite true though. The gun might punch at a higher velocity, but the ammo isn't as good as other things like the M829A3/E4.

MV being "high" isn't the only thing that gauges penetration power, and in some cases depending on rod material it's actually beneficial to not be above 1,500 or so.

>>34488760
What a surprise that a tank lives and dies based on how you it.

>>34488702

They were the first one who got MBT design right.

>>34489057
>Especially the main sight on the right of the turret is a big weakpoint there is a lot less armor there.

This is wrong.

>>34489177

But not every modern tank considers the TURRET FRONT to be a damn weakspot.

>>34489392
The Spike II only came out a few months ago, but Israel is shilling its CAPS in all the PR releases.

The TOW CAPS OTOH is now on its third generation, and if you didn't read the TMs and FMs you'd never know it exists.

>>34489155
>>34489177
It's highly likely it did not penetrate according to the latest info I've got. Source is extremely reliable.

Yes, I know, I'm among those who at first said it did. Yes I know there's an article on some site about it. I know the author pretty well, I know where he got the info.

Still, what killed the driver and injured the TC was spalling from the episcopes bits blown away by the impact. The shot did not go through.
This is consistant with the fact that the tank itself was perfectly fine and still running, no explosion inside etc.

>>34489587
>How the fuck do you shatter a drive sprocket?
that's what I asked. I was my 1SGs driver and we rolled up with maint team 88. the mud was about shin deep in Sapper Breach and the tank commander held up about a third of the outer drive sprocket. it had also sheered away from the bolts, so I think they had to tow it out and then remove the entire spindle and put on a new one. this was back in the mid 90s, so it's been a min. When I was in Korea I also learned why it's important to always drive straight down any slop in a tracked vehicle. One of our Brads was going down a muddy hill. the Brad slid straight down the hill at an angle and threw the left track to the inside, and the right track to the outside. We wound up having to take every spare track shoe off every Brad in our company and another company because of how many guide teeth were broken off and because so many of the pins that held the shoes together were bent. It took 2 days to recover that Brad.

>>34489620
In fact, it's quite well designed. The "weakpoint" was still thicker than anything else at the time and is barely shorter than the M1 frontal turret armor.

"The M1A1 Abrams is powered by a multifuel jet turbine engine. It'll run on a very wide verity of fuels. Including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, kerosine, etc. It'll happily run on very poor grades of fuel."

which is vital in a logistical-nightmare scenario

>>34489622
Thought that the weakspot was the seam between turret and the main body. *shrug*

>>34489602
>Thats not quite true though. The gun might punch at a higher velocity, but the ammo isn't as good as other things like the M829A3/E4.
The ammo isn't the gun. The statement is 100% correct. The L55 is the most powerful gun with the best characteristics.

You can shove any NATO standard 120mm smoothbore ammo (which is a thing) into it and it will fire it.

Also lets see a study the compares the DM53/63 fired from a L55 vs a M892 from a L44, or a M892 from a L55.

>>34489155
>>34489177
It wasn't penetrated. The shockwave propelled stuff inside the hull that killed the driver and injured the gunner, but let the commander without a scratch.

If the tank had been penetraded there would have been 3 dead guys.

>>34489649
Merci mon Lieutenant.
Pouvez-vous confirmer ou infirmer que le char a été réparé aux EAU et non en France ?

>>34489713
I truly have no idea. Also the TC was wounded, not the gunner. TC is pretty much right behind the driver.

>>34489675
Just had an idea was that sprocket old and worn down? That might thin it down enough that it would crack and then get ripped up by the tread getting pulled by the other side's sprocket.

Maybe.

Or maybe it was just a bad sprocket and sometime you get bad steel that gets by QA.

>>34489690
it'll run on friggen vodoka

>>34489707

The Leclerc's main weakspot is the gunsight and the mantlet. There's basically no armor that can stop anything more than an old 100mm solid shot or autocannon there.

>>34489649
Dunno what the COFRAS guys say right now but they have been quite off in terms of intel...

The blast that shatters episcopes meme is quite retarded. The tank has already received APFSDS without shattering anything but the steering wheel (wich had been reinforced before the series tank even went into production...)
The spalls where generated by the dart inside the HL60's night vision optics.

>>34489713
>Penetrated = 3 killed
That's retarded. A SC dart isn't lethal if you are far from the dart and the spalls generated by it. There have been many occasions where AFVs have been perforated without any kills... Hell even a VAB driver got directly hit by a SC dart, lost both his arms but survived.

Pour le tropicalisé touché, il a été réparé au aux émirats, au tank workshop après avoir été inspecté par les personnels Nexter.

>>34489810
There's a block of composite armor behind the mantel...

>>34489739
>Just had an idea was that sprocket old and worn down?
the teeth on the sprocket are what wear out. there are wear gauges on the sprocket that get checked during PMCS. I think it was a combination of the mud, rough terrain, and a driver hitting something in the mud, or maybe a rock got pulled up into the sprocket and the steel gave before the rock did.

>>34488896
Dumb nigger.

We have excelled in all comflicts(from a military standpoint). We have better training and better equipment than the rest of the world, backed by the best production/manufacturing and the best logistics, delivery and supply system with the fastest global response time.

Why even post?

Slavboos will say it's fake

>>34489544
Because the 40t MBT can cross bridges in Japan that the 60t MBT can't.

>>34489484
The Type 10 is extremely noncompetitive to essentially every other MBT. It's armor is unlikely to stop either a RPG-29, or 125MM shell. It also costs WAY too much ($8.4 million!) for such unremarkable/mediocre specifications.

File: 1351124932670.jpg (259KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1280x960px

The one tank I've never seen blown up. They may be slow, heavy and need their own logistical support for the 120mm rifled, but they seem to do pretty well in combat.

>>34489484
Recently there was an article about Japan is interesting to work with Germany for a new tank for Northern Japan.

File: 7a5.gif (29KB, 482x800px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 482x800px

>>34489870
exactly.
and those nations haven't been in 'real wars' either.
The US military is the most tried and tested in the world when it comes to war.

>>34489512
>side protection
>priority

heh

Frontal armor protection is the most important the rest is at best designed to stop autocannons. If you are lucky there is some spaced armor to let HEADs detonate early.

>>34488702
Selling the bulk of your tank fleet for $1 mil a pop at the same time as multiple countries being interested in a new MBT.

>>34489875
I'm going to go ahead and assume that the reason why it is so expensive is pretty much the same as the F2s. And the fact that it is put together in Japan and not for export. Not to mention, Japan has got the money alright.

>>34489942
He is full of shit.

>>34489355
That armor cavity only covers the crew compartment, the bustle (including ammo rack) has your basic steel plate.

>>34489908
Good luck working MOUT in a deathtrap.

>>34489447
Javelin, Spike and TOW 2B

>>34489942
The number of tanks produced is always crucial.
The more you produce, the more you dilute the R&D costs per tank...

File: f-2_05c.jpg (70KB, 902x669px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 902x669px

>>34489984
Not just tanks. It's the same with aircraft. And everything else.

Hence why the F-2 is a mediocre plane that still manages to cost a bundle.

>>34489955
T.Weeaboo

File: Challenger 2 brew up.jpg (147KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x848px

>>34489883

Yet it blows up like a mere T-72.

File: FoJbmEb.jpg (101KB, 800x491px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x491px

>>34489843

There being or not being isn't the point. Composite armor isn't a magic material that stops things by simply being there.

It's a VERY thin section in there.

>>34490013
>defending an anon who compared a mud skirt to a ballistic screen

>>34490021
Well, I stand corrected.

>>34490010
No, it's neither a mediocre plane nor does it cost as much because of the numbers. It's a kickstart for the Japanese aviation industry regarding military aircraft. If anything it's an investment into their industry so that they can actually make aircraft on their own.

>>34490028
I'm not denying that.
But asserting that it wouldn't stand against an old 100mm round was much too hyperbolic.

>>34489955
Enlighten me on the protective qualities of the base nano-crystal steel armor (fancy way to get the government to shell out money for something that has marginally better properties than regular steel) and some lack-luster ceramic bricks. Sure, it could shrug off some RPG rounds, but the armor configuration does little to deter a 125MM sabot.

>>34490040

To be fair on it though, that was due to a shell pretty much flying inside an open hatch from a friendly fire incident, left to burn for some time and only THEN detonating.

It's a bit of a far cry from the T-72 "touch it and projectile orgasms immediately" state.

>>34490040
It was destroyed by friendly fire.

File: OvWN0ca.jpg (162KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 800x600px

>>34490048

That's not what I said. I said it wouldn't stand up to much more THAN such a round.

The mantlet area has been estimated at only around 300mm RHA. Enough to stop autocannons and very old shells, such as the old 100mm guns. But a critical weakspot for a frontal turret design against anything modern. Same as the gunsight which features a similar amount of armor.

Shot of both here.

>>34489883
>Rifled gun
>Can't stick in a smoothbore because the turret is too small to fit the ammo
>No commander TS
>Antiquated subsystems generally
>Got fucking penned in the fucking front by an RPG-29

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

402KB, 1600x1200px

>>34490021
>tank throws a turret when ammunition storage detonates

shocker

>>34490074

>Got penned on the underside belly by an RPG-29 while raising over a ditch, which did little more than injure the driver, with the tank back on the frontline soon after

FTFY

>>34490074
>underbelly is now "front"
ok

>>34490071
Oh, my bad, I read too fast.
I guess the amount of jingoistic shitposting around makes one jaded and overly cautious.

Anyway, you mentionned the gunsight, but isn'it a weakness for most of the western MBTs ?

>>34489957
Yeah. Why would you armor areas that were not critical to the crew protection if you have built your tank for head on protection?

Armor to protect the crew, armor on the front which is the most likely direction of attack. Save on mass on armor for all other areas.

>>34490086
>shows a random picture of an Abrams wreck with no evidence of ammunition explosion.

>>34490100

It is for the Leclerc, Leopard and Ariete from western designs, because it uses a chunk of the volume from the turret to do so, weakening that section as it comes through the turret horizontally.

The Abrams and both Challenger designs used gunsights that don't have that same turret space useage as it's more vertically aligned than using the frontal turret facing, more on the roof than on the front, or very minorly at the top of the turret in the inert areas. So they don't have that same weak point.

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

2MB, 1962x1582px

>>34490118
Bumper B-66
TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD)

hit by an Iraqi RPG-7

Penetration in the hull, Ammunition blown-up

1 KIA, 3 WIAs

>>34490124
Now a mere mortar can penetrate it.

>>34490086
This is a picture of the now infamous Abrams that ran over an IED made out artillery shells. The turret came off when the tank was physically thrown in the air, not because of an ammunition explosion.

>>34490133

Nice leap of retard logic.

All tanks outside very specific ones with bomblet protection have about the same armor on top regardless of sight design, more than enough to ward off a mortar anyway.

>>34490126
No pictures of B-66 have been posted in this thread.

File: You Came to the Wrong Neighborhood !.jpg (340KB, 1500x987px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1500x987px

>>34490071
>The mantlet area has been estimated at only around 300mm RHA. Enough to stop autocannons and very old shells, such as the old 100mm guns.

That is easy to say, knowing that we really don't know what is the mantlet made of.

>Same as the gunsight which features a similar amount of armor.

One composite armor block in front of the gunner's sight and a composite armor cavity just behind, still better than on the Leopard 2A4.

>>34490010
Yeah, same story for anything that is produced. Just got so focused on threadhead nature of this section.

>>34490055
BTW, does anybody got any news on the Castle Martin accident (especially the assessment of the cause of the combustion inside the crew compartment).

>>34490071
And who made the estimation? What did they consider?
The mantlet area is a complex area with a lot of parts that can absorb KE... Putting a RHAe number on it is pure invention.

>>34490124
That is quite debatable. Sights represent a non homogenous volume that shatters and deforms. It is not as efficient as an armor volume but represents a part that acts like armor. Some armor specialist just consider the sights volume as "filled with air" when they come up with their guesstimations.

File: 1497130806657.jpg (145KB, 1079x1161px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1079x1161px

>>34490126
>on March 31, 2003, an Abrams belonging to the US Marine Corps drove off the side of a bridge at night, dropping the tank into the Euphrates River and drowning the four crew members.

Jesus christ

>>34490157

>knowing that we really don't know what is the mantlet made of.

In theory, yes, but unless France has been contacting aliens I doubt they've developed a substance that with that small a space and that thin a thickness can resist 700mm+ RHA penetrating darts.

>One composite armor block in front of the gunner's sight and a composite armor cavity just behind, still better than on the Leopard 2A4.

That's not a very high bar...

File: M1A1_turret.png (67KB, 1024x865px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1024x865px

>>34490143
No.

It is just moving the weakpoint from the front to the top.
With the difference that in the Leopard 2 there is still like 700mm of armor behind the EMES-15 is while there is nothing under the periscope in the M1.

>>34490157
Not that I have a stake in this debate but the 2A4 is old you know. I don't think that comparison makes much sense.

File: bumper 66.jpg (34KB, 440x281px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 440x281px

>>34490151

>>34488702
There is no perfect tank.

>>34489908
>rest is at best designed to stop autocannons
125mm 3BM15 rounds at 60 degrees.

The Leopard 2 and M1 abrams got very protective side skirts since they were designed to take hits from 115mm and 125mm sabots. While the Type 10 is built to be able to cross japanese bridges.

>>34490126
You have to do better then that kiddo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams
>Three DU kinetic energy rounds, after being hit by an Iraqi RPG-7
Posting random images of M1 abrams wont help you.

>>34490169

Well feel free to show me all those sources that proclaim that KEP rounds tend to strike the roof of a tank.

Oh wait, maybe because virtually nothing strikes there anyway.

> there is still like 700mm of armor behind the EMES-15

There is not physically the space for that.

>>34490196
Yeah, the Soviets barely had any artillery anyway. /s

>>34490161

>Castle Martin accident

Leading theory is the charge banged in the breach. Two of the turret crew survived, even if if one died later, which indicated it didn't fully go off. They'd have been jelly elsewise.

>And who made the estimation? What did they consider?

That there simply is not the volume to account for any thicker. Even if composite armor was 10x better than equivilent RHA thickness, it wouldn't be above that sort of rating. It's too thin an area.

Same for the sights.

>>34490196
630mm equivalent I think was the number.

>>34490189
That is a tank destroyed in the big Kuwait ammo depot fire.

>>34490211
The roof armor of your standard Leopard 2 is no thicker than it is on an Abrams or Challenger. Sights on roofs are not a weakspot.

>>34490211

You don't seem to realise the difference between warding off shrapnel and warding off a specifically designed anti-tank KEP round, do you?

The roof only needs so much protection, and even with the sights up there it's more than enough to survive artillery splinters and mortar detonations, because you don't need THAT thick to do it.

But putting yout gunsights through the front of the turret leaves it extremely vulnerable on the most common part of a tank to get hit by the weapons intended to kill tanks.

It's like removing your vests frontal plate then trying to justify it by saying "But it allows the back of my calves to have a bit more armor!" It's an area that is of vastly, VASTLY less concern and is nothing more than you desperately trying to give the Leopard an "out" in a critical flaw of its gun designs that several countries in Europe never quite figured out the same way as the Anglos did.

>>34490164
>A river has killed more american tank crew members than the entire Iraq army

Impressive.

>>34490219
660mm LOS not RHA I was wrong. And that's on the A4 version. The extra armor on the A5+ complicates that number a bit due to the angle and void spacing.

>>34490252
The right was repositioned on the A5 so the weakspot applies to the A4 turret.

File: 1487494195520.png (26KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 527x409px

>>34490244
>Ameritard shitting the bed because his shit tank will die to drunken ruskie artillery

>>34490167
Magic material no, but I did read that we went for a much higher grade of steel (in terms of HRC I reckon). Basically we'd need only 85 cm of it for the same protection as 1m of RHA. It is a non-trivial aspect of why the damn tank is so expensive.

Don't take my words on face value though, my knowledge of material science is not worth the mention.
I'll try to find the link, it makes for an interesting read. In general the quality of materials used in armour is pretty much never discussed here even though it makes sense that it matters quite a lot.

>>34490268
>The right was repositioned on the A5 so the weakspot applies to the A4 turret.
What do you mean the right was repositioned?

>>34490243
>area of no protection at all
>not a weakpoint

>>34490246
I know this is a joke, but a total of 7-10 US servicemen have died in Abrams tanks in combat.

>>34490214
>Charge burning while loaded
That would make sens for the burns of the loader and being impressive enough to give the TC a heart attack...
I though the charge bags were resistant enough to give several seconds before deteriorating (just like we have with the combustible skirts of our ammos).

>Thin spaces
Yeah, you are right in that matter.
For the mantlet, it is quite a debate whether or not it is a sacrificial part.
For the sight, with the composite in front, the sight itself and the buffer area behind, the protection is quite enough to stop APFSDS.

>>34490189
>>34490221
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Destroyed_M1A1_Abrams.jpg
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm
>ctrl+F B-23
Why do you make shit up on 4chan of all places?

>>34490278
Are you refering to the double and triple hardness steels?

>>34490281
>area of less armor on a non American vehicle
>a deathtrap!

>area of literally no armor on a American vehicle
>not important at all
>despite the fact that most tanks in history were destroyed by artillery

The L2A5 and later did it the best. Added frontal armor while the EMES-15 isn't literally on the top but they just increased the height of it on the same position.

>>34490295
I believe so. I might have found the link on the steelbeast forum. Or AF.

File: tankpill.jpg (275KB, 857x1202px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 857x1202px

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that you're all retarded.

>>34490308
Was it a pdf explaining the basics of armor?
If so the data is old and not necessarily accurate.

>>34490271
Obligatory (you).

>>34490301
The location of the sight on an Abrams or Challenger 2 is no more armored on the Leopard 2, you are pissing in the wind.

File: su-34 bombs.jpg (260KB, 768x535px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 768x535px

>>34490157
that's a lot of fancy vehicles you have there. It would be a shame if...

>>34490279
sight, not right

>>34490389
Except the CR2 has an external, computer mounted primary gunnery sight atop of the gun barrel.

The secondary, manual firing sight is located to the right, on the gun mantle.

>>34489445
>make
you mean made? german cars have been mediocre since the 80's

>>34490415
>Audi A6
>Audi A5
>Audi TT
>Audi S8
>Audi S6
>BMW 3 and 5 series
>BMW 7
>Merc Benz C Class
>Merc Benz S Class

off the top of my head. /o/ reporting.

>>34490453
all of those cars are either fwd or pigfat

>>34490453
and their lifetime has gone to shit since the 80's faggot. point? All they do is put fancy shit on mediocre drive trains and engines >>34490465

>>34490415
>>34490453
>tfw americucks think they excell in the software department
>When german cheat software is lightyears ahead of what they can make

>>34490471
I bet you think Chevrolet make good tanks

>>34490465
>>34490415
You don't have any arguments. Considering that we are exporting almost as much as the US in terms of dollar value(third placed) and we mostly produce machinery/cars. I'd say that a lot of people around the globe like our "mediocre" products very much. Go shitpost someplace else fool.

>>34490497
>>34490497

>avoids the fact that germany has indeed made jack shit well since the 80's and buys into the old "muh german engineering" infomercial meme

>>34490507
you made an argument?

>>34490525
Yeah, it's right there in my post. You keep talking about your feelings while numbers are the things that matter and they speak for Germany and our exports. Good luck on your feelings crusade.

>>34490549
you export a lot of crap to the EU? cool, so what does that have to do with quality?
Go protest in that turkish city in your west now hans

>>34490549
>>34490566
Literally every euro nation relise on localised monopolies, germany=heavy industry, britain=finance, switz=banking (tax evasion), france-aviation, italy=sunglasses...

>>34490566
No, we export a lot of "crap" to a lot of people, including the EU, and it seems that those people really like the stuff that we're exporting. We must be doing something right me thinks, could it be that you're the only one with a problem? Which is also why you can't forward a single argument and instead shitpost like a ten year old /b/tard?

File: 1497315964362.gif (3MB, 377x372px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 377x372px

>>34490604

>>34490604
>france-aviation

Given they're not even the biggest aviation industry in Europe, that's hardly the case.

But you're not far off wrong in theory, a lot of Euro countries roll off of having a BIG area in something that many (but not all) of the others don't.

>>34490616
okay, except the lifetime of German vehicles have gone to crap, they were known for durability, now they crap out after 120k miles. so.....

>>34490626
airbus tho, also selling nuke energy to the rest of central europe.

>>34490514
>despite every listed car is different
americuck logic. German, Bong and Italian cars are the worlds leading by far. Your dogshit Americuck made trash isn't even on par to European cars

>>34490641
then why has lifetime gone below fucking shitkicking chevrolets

>>34490637

Airbus is big, but that doesn't make them collectively the biggest aviation industry.

Also remember that Airbus is owned not by France alone, much of its worth is split into other countries' industries.

>>34490648
You still haven't posted any proof you uber cuck.

>>34490658
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/05/are-german-cars-reliable-myth-german-engineering.html
can't google either hans?

>>34488760
Why are Americans so insecure about their inferior technology?

>needs Germans to make nukes
>needs Operation Paperclip to get all the Kraut scientists to go into space
>needs German Krupp guns to make modern tanks
>needs German small arms designs to perfect their own shitty guns
>needs German (Euro) Cern to develop the internet
.
.
.

Its ok Americans. Youre good at different things, we dont look down upon you for not being innovative.

>>34490630
Alright and the proof is where? Also, once again and hopefully for the last time, we export more than just cars.

>>34490641
You might be forgetting Japanese cars here.

File: FOBS 035.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>34489432
the A6M is a beast

>tfw you're at MG and the hadjis rocket us, so they shoot the SENPAITACHI at the POO with the 120mm main gun kek
>"this is Tango-2-niner, kill them now, out"

File: 1480427738310.gif (1MB, 290x189px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x189px

>>34490671
>2012
>Dosn`t even deliver actual data
Come on you can do better than that 3/10

>>34490698
just go to consumer reports or jd power hans, jesus, you make neat little cutting edge add ons with high performance, that lasts all of 3 years, it's okay.

>>34490671
The argument here is that they're still better than anything the fucking US makes you inbred hick.

>>34490683
>>34490717

>>34490726
well ford has higher reliability ratings now...and I was just pointing out how german engineering is an old meme

File: strv_122_08_of_58.jpg (724KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 2048x1536px

>>34490409
You are right, I goofed and was thinking of the commanders daylight sight. The point remains that the location of roof sights are no less armored than they are on tanks with sights embedded in the frontal armor.

Local models like the Strv122 with the extra armor over the crew compartment notwithstanding.

>>34490736
>>34490671
How is this proof? There don't seem to be any actual numbers/data but a lot of opinions from a certain "Sami Haj-Assaad"

>>34490754
>location of roof sights are no less armored than they are on tanks with sights embedded in the frontal armor.

Do you know how roof sights actually work? Or frontal gunnery sights?

>>34490771
that's a native german name, sir!
also he told you what to look at here>>34490717

>thread about 100% german made MBTs
>muh bmw out of Spartanburg, SC has reliability issues bwaaahhhh
So this is the power of summer.

>>34490800
still german engineering hans ;)

>>34490800
>men talking about cars
>now counts as """""summer"""""
If anything, the summerfag is you, sunshine. Gb2 playing with your army toys and airshit while the men talk about real shit.

>>34490791
No, I'm not going anywhere my man. YOU or your friend on the other hand should start coughing up some proof which includes data considering that you also made the claim in the first place. I'm not doing your homework for you.

>>34490782
The roof of a standard Leopard 2 is not more armored than the roof of an Abrams or Challenger 2. How the sights work is irrelevant.

>>34489887
Now that I think about it, it´s kind of hard to make a tank which can really operate in all of it.

>shitload of moutains with kinda shit roads, requires a lighter tank
>tokyo + suburbs is literally the biggest city in the world with 40 million inhabitants, so you get urban combat out the ass
>one end of japan is so hot the US has it´s guerilla training center there, the other end is so cold they get 5 yards of snow in the winter

>>34490842
This is just wrong, though. You think NATO shares a required mm of steel or whatever on the roof?

>>34490830
>post link that references those things
>names them for you
jesus, you're not hans, you're an 85 IQ muhamodan huh?

>>34490074
as far is i know, they are planning to upgrade the tank to increase service life, the main changes of this is a smoothbore gun to replace the rifled gun.

>>34489120
Not gonna lie, the thermal camo makes it look like a piñata.

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

489KB, 3504x2336px

>>34490074
>>Rifled gun
Has both its pros and cons.

>>Can't stick in a smoothbore because the turret is too small to fit the ammo
Can't fit current NATO standard 1 piece in standard configuration because the tank wasn't developed around using fucking 1 piece ammunition. If someone develops a smoothbore capable two piece ammunition, and is better than current CHARM, I have no doubt in my mind they'll switch to smoothbore.

>>No commander TS
True. CR2's are currently being fitted with a TS for the TC.

>>Antiquated subsystems generally
This is such a broad term that it means nothing. Both Leopard 2 and Abrams use Cold War era subsystems.

>>Got fucking penned in the fucking front by an RPG-29
see >>34490090 and >>34490097

>>34489870
>Americans think they actually have the best training out of all 1st world armies

>>34491108
American is the only "1st world army"

>>34488819
>The tank that hasn't seen any combat yet has less ammunition incidents than the tank that has been active for years and been deployed all around the world
>Also this tank (fresh out of the factory!) has been proven to be impregnable to any weapon that can be conceived by a human being. EVER. Or your next one is free Ivan.

Slavs everyone

>>34491108
>in b4 shitkicker english soldiers have an extra 3 months of basic bitch training

>>34490970
>its wrong because I say so

Which of the three have roof armor beyond STANAG 4? None? I thought so.

>>34491143
And you're basing this on what? pretend?

You genuinely believe that, for example, the roof of a M1A2, CR2, Leo2, Leclerc etc etc share 30mm of steel each and same?

>>34491068
90's and later models of the Abrams and Leopard 2 do not use cold war era subsystems, and the Challenger 2 hit by an RPG-29 was hit in the lower glacis not the belly.

>>34491169
Of the tanks you listed, which one has a meaningful difference in roof armor from the others?

>>34491200
What makes you think that they all share the same level?

>>34488702
Germany has always had a knack for making sexy tanks

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

46KB, 640x480px

>>34491183
The Challenger 2 hit by the RPG-29 was hit in the frontal belly as it was exposed. The incident afterwards led to the implementation of dorchester being placed on the belly.

>>34491232
It was not hit in the belly

File: P-47 Strafing Tiger Tank.webm (822KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1280x720px

>>34488702
>How did the Germans make such an insanely perfect tank?

Can't make anything "insanely perfect" if you lost both World Wars.

>>34491211
Can you answer the question?

>>34491232
>The incident afterwards led to the implementation of dorchester being placed on the belly.

It was not hit in the belly, and that is an IED protection plate on the belly. Furthermore the additional composite armor in your picture can be seen on the lower glacis where the tank in question was hit.

>>34491183
>90's and later models of the Abrams and Leopard 2 do not use cold war era subsystems,

The M1A2 shares similar electronics and systems to the M1 and M1A1. The Leopard 2A7 still shares many similarities to that of the first batch Leopard 2.

>>34491183
Why are you making getting penned by the RPG-29 be a bad thing?
RPG-29s wrecked Abrams regularly in Iraq, without having to hit impossible-to-hit-unless-you're-driving-over-a-ditch weakspot.

>>34491242
Can you, you autist? Who asked first, you faggot

>>34491116
I dunno man I think the French give a pretty good showing. They have a nuclear flattop, a solid 4.5-gen fighter in the rafale, the Leclerc is the only real Western competitor to the Abrams besides the Leo2, they're ditching the troubled FAMAS for a piston AR, and they have one of the best high-tech sectors in the world second to only the US.

>>34491235
>>34491262
>In August 2006 south east of al-Amarah, southern Iraq, an RPG-29 capable of firing a tandem-charge penetrated the frontal lower underbelly armour of a Challenger 2 commanded by Captain Thomas Williams of The Queens's Royal Hussars. The tank, which had already been hit by 10-15 RPGs, small arms and sniper fire, was attempting to draw fire away from another callsign that had become stricken.

>>34491279
5 euros have been deposited into your bank account, pierre!

>>34491288
Wikipedia isn't a citation.

>>34491108
>slavboo realizes 70% of US armed forces has done there job in a combat zone

>no response for any of the other major game changing factors US has going for them

I guess we should have some EU units show us how it's done though.

File: image.jpg (79KB, 800x419px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x419px

>>34491288
Some faggot editing Wikipedia or not knowing the differencee between upper glacis, lower glacis, and "belly" is irrelevant to me. The round struck the lower glacis.

>>34491273
The onus is on you to show that having the gunners sight on the roof is a weak spot on the Abrams that the Leopard 2 doesn't have, since that was the original claim.

>>34491334
>using a dailymail infographic as a solid source
>despite military officials having written in the same thing on .gov documents.

lol

>>34491320
>t. increasingly nervous anglo

You're just mad the Chally a shit, don't even get me started on your midget carriers. Try again, Reginald.

also I'm from bumfuck nowhere West Virginia, try again.

>>34491265
It's not about being a good or bad thing, its about Challenger 2 fanboys refusing to acknowledge what happened.

>>34491354
The funny thing is that I know what he's trying to refer to by saying that, and there's a simple pic he could post to show it, but for some reason isn't.

>>34491360
Fine, then point to the .gov documents that show it.

>>34491320
sacre bleu, a raise!

>>34491334
Your point? Tank was penetrated by an RPG fired at the front. Pretty dank.

>>34491371
>its about Challenger 2 fanboys refusing to acknowledge what happened.

But nobody is contesting that, you idiot.

>>34491263
>The M1A2 shares similar electronics and systems to the M1 and M1A1. The Leopard 2A7 still shares many similarities to that of the first batch Leopard 2.

This is false.

>>34491387
There's a extreme difference between the lower glacis and the underside of a tank.

>>34491391
>hit on the belly

>>34491378
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121109064050/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C2384518-7EBA-4CFF-B127-E87871E41B51/0/boi_challenger2_25mar03.pdf

>>34491387
Not just any RPG, it was an RPG-29. Doesn't matter if it was a Challenger 2 or an M1A2 Abrams, either way it would have been a penetrating hit.

>>34491413
>saying what happened didn't happen because you don't want to think so
Great logic, champ.

>>34491363
>implying i'm a bong
5 more euro's, pierre!

The French military is a joke.

>>34491422
>opinion of inquiry that deaths of cpl blah blah blah and etc etc

No one died in this incident that were talking about.

>two HESH rounds

This is the wrong document, this is explaining how a CR2 was friendly fired.

>>34491360
>dailymail

But it isn't.

>>34491432
Exactly, Challenger 2 fanboys insist it was a belly penetration instead of a frontal penetration.

>>34491430
RPG-29s scared us enough that we blocked Iraq from purchasing more of them.

>>34491422
This is a great example of why friendly tracking and identification is important.

>>34491489
It had more to do with how the US and UK were funding the Iraqi rearmament and wanted them to buy their kit instead. One notable exception was letting them buy old T-72s from Poland and Ukraine

>>34491422
>>34491288
>An RPG-29 round was reported in August 2006 to have penetrated the frontal ERA of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, maiming one and wounding several other crew members, but only lightly damaging the tank, which drove home under its own power.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29#2003_Iraq_War

File: 1401935157371.png (113KB, 700x665px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 700x665px

question for treadheads, what's the best MBT/IFV combo?

Leo2/Puma?
MerkIV/Namer?

>>34491484
>Implying the Abrams hasn't been penetrated by the RPG-29

Difference is, RPG-29s have killed Abrams crews and mission-killed the vehicles.
Challenger 2s survived their RPG-29 encounters.

>>34491522
Puma is like the only IFV that can follow a MBT.

File: tinfoil.jpg (238KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1600x1066px

>>34488769

>>34491522
M1A2 SEP/Leopard 2A6 + CV90

>>34491522
Whichever one has more infantry around it

>>34491467
Your mom is like French military jokes:
Tired and overused.

>>34491522
T-14 and T-15

>>34491530
>Challenger 2's hull front penetrated, crew lucks out and it doesn't hit anything vital besides injuring the driver
>Abrams turret side penetrated, directly into the crew compartment

Sounds like an honest comparison to me.

>>34491603
>Challenger 2 without the armor package to protect against latest threats exposes weak spot while climbing an obstacle
>Had been hit over a dozen times by RPG-7s and 29s without trouble
>Still only minor damage & injuries and still combat effective
>Latest Abrams variants with TUSK getting blown up left-and-right by RPG-7s

Yeah, sure seems like a fair comparison to me :^)

File: Abrams shrekt.jpg (81KB, 850x443px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 850x443px

>Chally 2 gets penetrated by the most feared anti-tank weapon in Iraq
>"Stiff upper lip lads, lets get back to base, we'll be back in action tomorrow"
>Abrams gets penetrated by 40-year-old knockoff warheads

>>34491504
No, it's because the iraqi's can't secure their munitions for shit and we didn't want them getting stolen by muj.

How can we make any money selling terrorists weapons if they can just steal them?

File: 1457048113322.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>34491639
>Challenger 2 without the armor package to protect against latest

The Challenger 2 has no 'armor package' on its lower glacis. It had a steel plate and ERA (which has been swapped for blocks of composite armor).

>threats exposes weak spot while climbing an obstacle

The lower glacis is a weak spot by design on the Challenger 2.

>Had been hit over a dozen times by RPG-7s and 29s without trouble

The pictures of the Challenger 2 hit "over a dozen times by an RPG-7" showed impacts of anti-personnel grenades.

>Still only minor damage & injuries and still combat effective

The tank that was hit "over a dozen times by an RPG-7" was disabled.

>Latest Abrams variants with TUSK getting blown up left-and-right by RPG-7s

Obligatory webm.

>>34491541
That's not there to protect the unmanned turret, it's there to reduce its radar signature.

>>34491778
>le lower glacis of challenger 2 is steel meme
Oh look, it's this guy again. The same person that says the same shit with no evidence to back it up.

>>34491743
>pretending to be a bong

Someone will fall for this.

>>34491778
No Challenger 2 tank has been disabled by enemy fire. Every single penetration has lead to the result of being driven back to base, with no outside assistance, and with the power of its own engine.

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

77KB, 611x430px

>>34491804
A non-vatnik proofster or someone denying the pictures of a bare Challenger 2 hull without armor cavities on the lower glacis?

What do you guys think of the k2 blakc Panther?

>>34491828
>with no assistance

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2908679.stm

>>34491831
>without armor cavities
>despite the angled steel surface reaching the bottom of the place

Is this the part where you're going to start calling the frontal armor of the Abrams steel too now, aren't you?

>>34491778
>It had a steel plate and ERA (which has been swapped for blocks of composite armor).

This is because, from a straight-on frontal perspective, the glacis is a relatively small target (unlike the Abrams, which is much thicker as it is a larger target), and the area directly behind isn't the crew compartment.
What happened to the vehicle in Iraq was that, as it was cresting over an obstacle, the straight-on LOS shifted, allowing a penetration to enter the crew compartment.

This is why they replaced the ERA bricks with a gigantic slab of Dorchester armor bolted onto it.

>>34491892
>article itself states nothing regarding the Challenger 2 receiving any assistance to return back to base
>also states that the gunner sight and tracks were the only damaged parts
Wowie, sure proved him wrong.

>>34491897
Tis good that they learned from the experience and improved the tank.

>>34491957
Yeah, the way tanks fight has changed a lot since the 80's when most of these vehicles were designed.
Thankfully NATO vehicles have required far less changes (Glacis add-on for the Challenger 2, side-mounted ERA for the Abrams) compared to Russian tanks.

I want to see concepts of the new German tank!

Its not that both the leopard 2 and the abrams are the products of the mbt 70 project, where germany and ths us developed the leo1/patton successor togerther and only parted after theprototypee was built.... look at the chassis, hull, the suspension, the wheels, tracks, hell even the same (german) gun is installed. ooooh, the armor layout on the turret is different, and they have different engines... hell, there is more difference between a volkswagen golf tdi and a golf gti than between an abrams an the leo 2 you retarded "muh americunt stuff is best stuff" retards.

>>34492130
Muh blowout panels

As an ex Leo2A4 gunner I'd say you guys all suck. "Your tank is POS" "Nou, yours is!" Tell you what: if you were or are riding on a tank and meet other tank crews, you would look at their tank - maybe - and then go something to eat and drink, cuz as a tanker you know there are better things to do than being in it or the shit you are doing here.

>>34492306
Amen.

File: 1481791493342.png (226KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 640x480px

>>34491541
>Those welds
Seriously what the actuall fuck.I know its called Wagon zavod for a resaon but holy shit!

>>34492130
This was a good post until your nationalism slipped past the mask at the end.

>be armoured officer in training
>on BMOQ-A(an army officer course run by infantry right after basic training)
>have this french infantry sergeant who normally teaches anti-tank warfare
>whenever he teaches a class shows videos of TOW missiles fucking up tanks and asks if I want to switch to infantry
Those videos legitimately make me question being a tanker. I know reactive armour can counter direct fire missiles, but is there any defence against top-down attack missiles? Also do the Russians or any of the countless terrorists/rebels in syria/iraq have top-down attack missiles? I know the US has given them a ton of TOWs.

>>34490164
Maybe they should have air tanks inside the tank for situations like that. Although it might have been days before they eventually managed to fish the tank out.

Don't the kikes have some sort of an escape hatch under the tank in case the vehicle lands on the turret?

>>34492671
well considering both the LeClerc and Challenger 2 have survived ATGM hits, you'll be fine. Unless you're in neither of those nations militaries, then you're fucked.

>>34492691
I'm in the Canadian military so we have Leopard IIs.

>>34492742
>the one tank that has been getting btfo'd routinely by ATGMs

you're fucked m8

>>34491522
Leo2 and patria amv

>>34492671
The only real counter to TOW missiles is realistic training and combined arms warfare.

Which is pretty much non-existent in Syria/Iraq since instead of training you have natural selection doing it's work.

>>34492671
Combat is scary whether you are on foot or in a tank, and when you really think about it, the number of things that can kill a grunt is alot bigger than the number of things that can kill a tanker.
I won't lie to you though. The first time I heard the nice lady in my headset shouting "missiles! missiles!" I nearly shat myself.

>>34492671
>whenever he teaches a class shows videos of TOW missiles fucking up tanks and asks if I want to switch to infantry

Ask him if during infantry training they show corpses of dead guys fucked up by tanks followed by asking if you want to switch to armor.

>>34493035
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1bq2DiWCew
>Do you really want to be infantry?

>>34492993
Fair enough. He seemed almost convinced that ATGMs were going to make tanks as extinct as battleships in conventional warfare. Although that is probably because we only recently got our TOW missiles back after a long hiatus so they seem shiny and new to everyone here.
>>34493035
I'd prefer not to be PT'd to death lel.

>>34488760
>Like the T-shittytwo, the Leopard 2 throws it's turret when exposed to fire.
>posts the air striked Leopards

>>34490604
>italy=sunglasses
underrated

>>34492788
Janusz pls

File: 1490882528866.png (98KB, 500x738px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x738px

>>34494079
>OTO-Luxottica Prism tank

>>34491804
So, he's 98% of /k/?

>>34491237
is.... is that a fucking horse?

>>34488896
Like who? the russians? hahahaha

>>34489062
Merkavas?

>>34494164
Pekka actually

>>34491108
Our pilots, submariners, and special forces are top notch

>>34491896
>despite the angled steel surface reaching the bottom of the place

Get your eyes checked.

>Is this the part where you're going to start calling the frontal armor of the Abrams steel too now, aren't you?

There is no armor cavity on the upper glacis of the Abrams, the location is switched compared to the Challenger 2.