Are these the last tanks the West will ever build? By that,

Unless russia shit out gravtanks, we'll keep the tanks we have now.

You know the abhrams replacement is in development right?bush admin and the war on terror basically cut a bunch of next gen replacement for conventional equipment. Procurement is just moving slowly or restarting.

File: Here's what we're gonna do. Rephrase your post in a way that DOESN'T make you seem like a massive fucktard..jpg (136KB, 850x883px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 850x883px

>>34583513
>You know the abrams replacement is in development right?

There aren't really any current advancements groundbreaking enough to justify it. Anything that improves tank suitability from the last 25 years have been peripheral systems, like CROWS, EMS and ADS, which are systems you can bolt onto anything without much modification, certainly not enough to justify a new tank.

>>34583489
Never is a looooooonnnggggg time.

>>34583536

That's what people keep saying about Battleships, but I guarantee those are dead.

>>34583489

There's really no need to improve your tanks when your most likely opponents (Russia and China) are a decade behind in tech with most of their armament being out of commission tanks that are also decades behind in tech. Yes, one can argue quantity over quality, but when most of Russia's tanks are Cold War era and decommissioned, then there's really no argument to be made. They'd have to waste time and money repairing them and making them battle-ready. That, and we already out number them with carriers and air superiority, so regardless of how many tanks they have, we can wipe them all out.

Personally, just because I'd love the Sherman, I would love to see an M5 Sherman tank or something, modernized and with some aesthetics of the original. Whether or not it would be effective would be up to its design, desu.

>>34583653
Yeah.
Air auperiority decides if tanks are okay or not.
You can have 20000 super fancy mega tanks.
They don't accomplish shit when you can just bomb them from a safe distance.

File: SAM.jpg (338KB, 1280x1017px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1280x1017px

>>34583676

>safe distance

Doesn't really exist anymore

Chally 2 is poised for replacement
Dunno what you are on about
Leopard 2 is also going to be replaced but it might just be another overhaul like the 2a5 and 2a7
France is happy with there rink Rightfully so

>>34583685

sure it does

>>34583685
Stay snug tunguska
>>34583653
Back to ww2 with you gramps
Safe distance is not a word that should be used in modern warfair
>man pad shots down jet
>morters shoot man pad team
>helicopter takes out mortar team
>AAA takes out helicopter
>SEAD takes out AAA
>long range AA takes out sead
>artillery takes out AAA
>counter battery takes out artillery

>>34583732
>Stay snug tunguska
B-but that looks like a Finnish Crotale.

>>34583732

I said nothing on safe distance, all I said is that we can wipe out most of, if not, all of their tanks with air power alone.

Don't call me gramps, I just want a cool, modernized Sherman. :^(

>>34583676

I'm the anon you replied to.

I wouldn't ever say bombing a bunch of tanks from above would be considered "safe distance." Safe distance no longer exists in warfare. I only mean to say that tanks are nothing more than targets for aircraft.

File: Stay_snug_Tunguska.jpg (677KB, 1280x1017px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1280x1017px

>>34583685

>>34583806
It's not a fucking Tunguska.

>>34583814
fuck. I have room temperature IQ

>>34583489
Clearly not as both Challenger 2 and LECLERC were built after them.

>>34583702
The Challenger 2, Abrams, Leopard 2 and Leclerc are not going anywhere for another couple decades.

>>34583653
>Quality over Quantity
Ya know, that and the fact we have twice as many Abrams as they do T72s.

File: Xingyi fighting roosters.jpg (50KB, 495x350px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 495x350px

>>34583832

In metric too apparently ;^)

Disregard tanks, acquire genetically engineered battle chickens

>>34583489
>America will never build an M2 tank

No shit. The next available M number 10, it would be the M10 if it came out tomorrow.

>>34583806
Stay snug Tunguska

french and german are working on the new european MBT with the new 130mm gun

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

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34583489
LeClerc

>>34586214
>LeClerc
WHY
WHY
WHY DO AMERICANS PUT UPPER CASE LETTERS IN THE MIDDLE OF NAMES WHERE THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BE
IM TRIGGERED

>>34586249
LeBigMac

File: IMG_3978.jpg (28KB, 175x174px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 175x174px

Unless the new 130mm has superior ballistics compared to the current 120mm, there will be only M1A2 SEPvX
If the 130mm proved to be effective, as in, it's worth the increased ammunition size, then we may see some new developments
Even then, to spur change, our enemies would have to radically alter their armaments, as of now, only allies are moving up

>>34586249
It's from all of the filthy irish and scottish blood, with their Mic's and Mac's,

>>34583489
>Are these the last tanks the West will ever build?
Yes.

>>34583536
West doesn't have time left.

>>34583863
>>34586214

So when I said "These" in the OP, I meant "The current generation of western mbts"

I had hoped the "etc" at the end had tipped people off to that

File: LeClerc XXI.jpg (923KB, 1972x1190px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 1972x1190px

>>34586249

>Why do people keep doing this thing I tell them annoys me

I wonder

>>34586212
Rheinmetall wants them to use their new 130mm, not they are going to use it.

File: T-14 side.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

Eventually, the west is going to have to create an answer

>>34585243
>The next available M number 10
niggawhat. the strykers and mraps, etc., are in the M1xxx's

>>34587582
We'll have an answer as soon as the Ivans have more than 3 of the damn thing

File: IMG_2946.jpg (76KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 800x534px

>>34583489
Face it you'll never make a tanks as good as us

>>34587582
Considering that is an answer to modern Western tanks, it is safe to say you have it backwards.

>>34583489


Actually, after Russia grabbed Crimea german government announced they would be looking into a final upgrade for the Leopard 2 as well as figuring out the specifications for the Leopard 3

>>34587582
>Eventually, the west is going to have to create an answer
1 + 1 = 2.
2.
2 green tanks!
Ah Ah Ah!
Let us know when you get another one working, OK?

>>34586249
It's LeClerc, just like LeDarius and LeShawntay

>>34588746
>Considering that is an answer to modern Western tanks, it is safe to say you have it backwards.
>implying the game of one-upmanship ever ends

Response, counter-response, counter-counter, ad infinitum

>>34588940
You misunderstand, the T-14 is Russia catching back up to the West. That isn't a reason for the West to make a 'new' tank.

Any 'response' you are getting out of the West is prodding countries like the UK to actually upgrade their existing tanks (like the US and Germany already do).