M1 Abrams most resistant tank?

>>34736853
A tank can be disabled without being destroyed, as for the Abrams, afaik, the only one ever lost was due to friendly fire
The crew can also die while the tank remains in perfect condition, food for thought

File: 1494089051738.jpg (17KB, 368x270px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 368x270px

>>34736853
Wait a second, that's not an Abrams...

>>34736954
I think that's a Challenger 2

Of course, but by "destroyed" I meant, well, destroyed, but also disabled enough that it is not adviceable to repair it on site.
So what's the point of building such a tank if it
is not destroyed or disabled, but can't even protect the crew? It should be a priority to protect the crew, and then the tank, as I see it. Of course, no design is perfect, but leaving the tank usable while killing the crew by an external projectile seems going too far.

File: 1024px-M1A1_Abrams_Tank_in_Camp_Fallujah.jpg (120KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x683px

>>34736954
>>34736485
Yeah sorry, picked the wrong picture

File: giphy.gif (53KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x500px

>>34736954
>>34736985
>Not recognizing the type of tank at first glance
Pfft, clearly you two don't panzerfahren

You can say the exact same thing about every other modern western MBT though? Possible exceptions being the mekvara and the leo 2, I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment.

File: Destroyed M1 2003 Iraq.jpg (107KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 900x675px

Absolute nonsense

>>34737043
>Monkey model

>>34736853
Also the US Army uses the tank as part of a combined arms, unlike Arabs or Slavs who roll into cities unsupported.

>>34737043
>>34737177
This honestly is why western MBTs don't get deaded with western military forces. No tank no matter how good can survive once infantry close in to point blank range with dedicated AT weapons, that is why western doctrine has them in combined arms ops with infantry screens to seek out these threats. Even then a tank will avoid an urban environment like the plague unless there is no other option.

Eastern forces have yet to learn this lesson (due to not taking part in WW2 I would imagine, as that is where we learned these lessons, but still they should have read up about it) So they drive tanks unsupported into enemy dense urban environments where flank and top armour shots are common along with ambushes because to them they see western tanks as gods of the battlefield without understanding why.


TL;DR: Never drive a tank next to a building/into a town unless you know it's empty.

File: rear.jpg (92KB, 739x458px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 739x458px

that ass is weak boy.

File: pak40.jpg (85KB, 1016x331px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1016x331px

>>34737442
feed me abrams ass

File: brrr.jpg (72KB, 739x458px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 739x458px

>>34737442

File: 41.jpg (865KB, 2942x4357px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 2942x4357px

>muh monkey model

>>34737043
Mobility kill.

>>34736853
>US builds tank
>only ever pits it against barely literate goat herders, ~70 year old tanks at best
>SeE wE dA bEsT tAnK mAkErS!!!!!122341243

In an actual war against an actual, competent military the Abrams would get BTFO so fast your head would spin. Just because the US is too chicken to actually pit them against anything made this century doesn't mean it's good.

>>34736853
Primary problem with the Abram's is that they are 100% digital, with little to zero analog controls.

In short, throw a molotov on the engine and the tank is useless.

Surround it with your infantry then decide the fate of the crew, seal them in to starve or waste time trying to capture some PoW's.

>>34737598
Enlighten me, which modern MBT have fought another modern MBT? Abrams have fought (Iraqi) T-72s, that's about a 7 year difference. I know before you even finished reading this you have "monkey model" typed out, so show me some battles between some modern MBTs with less than a decade age difference.

>>34737285
>TL;DR: Never drive a tank next to a building/into a town unless you know it's empty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGQxR1FXta8

>>34736853
>no M1 Abrams has been destroyed in the battlefield

it's a pure bs
here is a vid with 3 m1 abrams dying to an iranian upgrade of some soviet atgm in yemen a year or two ago. the vid commentary mentions that overall 20 tanks were destroyed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1yTb3vF35M

i generally wouldn't believe the numbers in a lot of burger books btw

>>34737891
Blowout panels working as intended, not a kill merely out of action till a quick repair job at the factory.

File: 1475954484569.gif (1MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x358px

>>34737600
>In short, throw a molotov on the engine and the tank is useless.

Wrong.

>>34737929
and when the ammo detonated just put on a new turret and new engine :^)

>>34737997
Don't be asinine. Unlike Russian tanks, all the ammo is in a separate compartment. As long as those sand-niggers aren't stupid enough to leave the loader's door open because they're lazy, all they need is just a patch for the penetration, a fixup of the now sooty ammo compartment, and new blowout panels.

If. If the sand-niggers aren't stupid.

>>34737600

Son, are you high?

It's a gas turbine. A molotov would just make it burp for a moment as it rapidly drank in the firey goodness..

>>34738064
have you even watched the vid

also read this

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/08/us-tank-deal-exposes-saudi-losses-yemen-war/130623/

it's official that saudi lost 20 abrams there

>>34737043
You could buff those scratches out no problem, definitely not destroyed.

>>34738141

#1 clip: Retard arabs leave ammo door open, results expected.
#2 clip: blowout panels working as intended, crew bails.
#3 clip: That's a t-90 you fucking idiot.

>>34738326
>t-90
>yemen

File: Capture.png (715KB, 1279x723px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1279x723px

>>34738347
Are you pretending to be retarded, you better not be.

>>34738433
dunno how that failed kill on t-90 in syria got to a vid about yemen but what could one expect from ukrainians trying to make a good vid

the point it's that saudi lost 20 abrams, i have posted a link, and the death of, ok, two of them (one apparently with all hands) you can watch on that vid

>>34737813
It would have been so cool to be there.

>>34737997
That's not how blowout panels work buddy. I'm not going to try and argue that M1s haven't been destroyed, but that wasn't anything more than a mission kill with a competent crew.

File: M1 vs RPG29.gif (3MB, 350x256px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 350x256px

Personally, I like the vids of tanks shrugging off hits. They're more interesting than the opposite to me. I've seen more than enough vids and gifs of vehicles destroyed after all these years.

File: try harder next time M1.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34738694

>>34738706
You got the one where the Abrams takes an RPG to the face while on a bridge and it turns and fires back immediately?

File: M1A2 SEPv3.jpg (46KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 630x420px

>>34736853
>Is this true?

No. TV is a really terrible place to learn about tanks; I've never seen a single documentary on the subject that wasn't flawed to the point of totally losing credibility.

Here are the facts:
>The M1 Abrams is one of the most widely used western MBTs of it's generation right now.
>This means that it's combat record reflects both a greater number of successes and failures as an MBT than essentially any other western equivalent.
>Either one of these figures can be cherry-picked to credit/discredit the design of the vehicle
>It was a good tank by the time it got to the A1 upgrade, and A1HA-subsequent models were all quite nice for their time
>The majority of currently deployed vehicles, especially within American forces, are starting to show their age in comparison to other, more modern MBTs, but still perform well in their respective areas of conflict
>Future upgrades are planned (M1A2 SEPv3, M1A3, etc...), but we cannot accurately assess their real-world capabilities in comparison to other modern MBTs (Leopard 2A7, T-14 Armata, Type 99A, etc...), and attempting to do so on an imageboard for chinese cartoons is silly at best.

Much like many other American tanks, and ironically many Soviet tanks, the nature of the Abrams' high number of exports and the many conflicts it has been involved in saturate the data. To ask if the Abrams is the best tank is a very hard question to answer definitively. Even narrowing it down to "Is the Abrams in American service the best tank?" or "Was the Abrams the best tank in Desert Storm?" still leaves a lot up in the air, and nobody here is really qualified to give a concrete yes or no.

The Americans took forever to field add-on armour kits to protect the side and rear. AFAIK ARAT was deployed in Iraq in 2006-7, and about the same time for Bradley. Whilst the Brits had add-on side armor since Gulf War 1 for their Challenger 1 and Warriors.

>>34740131
the americans continually improved the armor in the abrams to begin with. the ipm1, m1a1, m1a1 ha, m1a1 ha+, m1a2, m1a2sep, and m1a2sep v2 ecp1 all had armor improvements. then add tusk and arat on top of these

>>34737891
>Iraqi's better tanks in the Gulf war were comparable to most common Soviet front line tanks at the time (T-72A)
>Saudi's and Iraqi's were the first to lose Abrams to direct enemy fire

Moral of the story, Arabs armies suck no matter what equipment you give them.

>>34738183
>>34738510
>>34737891
It must be made clear that M1 exports have the Depleted Uranium armor plates removed. This heavily impacts the tanks survivability and is a reason why people bitched about getting cheated with the sales. Tired of seeing export variants being the cherry picked cases of tank performance.

>>34740213
The armor package a tank has is irrelevant when Arab crews sit the tank out in the open and an ATGM team shoots it in the ass where no tank has armor.

>>34736922
>perfect condition
>fucking hole in the tank with rekt equipment

Nah. Still a great tank.

>>34739740
>It was a good tank by the time it got to the A1 upgrade,

It was great for its time with the 105mm and M774 and when it and every other 105mm cannon got M833, it made even formerly obsolete tanks a viable threat on a modern battlefield. I don't know where this shitting on the venerable 105mm NATO cannons in the 80's comes from but it's nothing but pure ignorance.

>>34740248
I completely agree that the crews capabilities>tank specifications and that it is the fault of the incompetent armies that they had losses in the first place (Such as the Iraqi abrams that had ISIS militants walk up and throw a charge into the crew compartment). Just wanted to make it clear that exports have far less survivability than American operated Abrams in the first place. Which makes a really big difference in its defensive capabilities.

File: anons bait.png (12KB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x294px

>>34739740
>"Was the Abrams the best tank in Desert Storm?" still leaves a lot up in the air,

>>34737285
Wasn't the entire point of the tank's development to create a weapon capable of breaching fortifications like buildings? A tank should be able to reduce any non-bunker structure into rubble from a mile away.

File: XM1 Abrams.jpg (2MB, 2810x1870px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2810x1870px

>>34740276
I would consider the pre-A1 Abrams to be an entirely average tank. The M68 was a good gun, even for it's time, but you would expect the UNITED STATES during the Cold War to come up with something a little more competative. One could understand carrying over legacy armaments on your new MBT if this was Italy or France, but when you're at the forefront of arms development, and Germany and the UK, not to mention the USSR have already moved up to 120mm+ smoothbore cannons... well we see the difference between being the best, and just a "viable threat"

It's also worth noting that the M1, and maybe even the M1IP, likely couldn't hold up to contemporary Soviet 125mm sabot and possibly even equivalent HEAT rounds.

>>34740294
Okay, that one was hyperbolic. One could argue that, one on one, the Abrams of the time was comparable to the Challenger 1, but as a whole yes the Abrams far out-performed all contemporaries.

>>34740414
>Wasn't the entire point of the tank's development to create a weapon capable of breaching fortifications like buildings? A tank should be able to reduce any non-bunker structure into rubble from a mile away.
no, the point of the tank was to be able to cross no-man land and protect the infantry from the MG emplacements in WW1

>>34740474
>but you would expect the UNITED STATES during the Cold War to come up with something a little more competative

The ammunition the US used in the M68 kept it competitive with the larger 120mm L44 during the early 80's.

>>34740414
>Wasn't the entire point of the firearm's development to create a weapon capable of spitting fire and possibly shrapnel over a short distance? A firearm should be able to produce an uncontrolled arc of flame over several meters/

One of the if not THE most worthless useless tanks every build. The armor of this tank is so inferior compared to other world power nation tanks. Just look at how easy this old kornet anti tank puts an end to this over hyped pile of shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xKCzdhAC8

American tanks are Garbage

>>34740514
And this ammunition really represented the limit of the M68's capability. It was developed not because we could, but because we had to. This rarely results in outstanding developments.

I understand that the US had it's reasons for sticking with the M68; we tried bigger guns and it backfired with the M103, M551, M60A2, and MBT-70. We were apprehensive about adopting foreign technology, especially after several botched development attempts for various weapons systems. I'm not saying it was an idiotic or unreasonable choice for us to make. All I'm saying is that compared to contemporary MBTs the M1 comes up a little less impressive than we might say for the A1 or A2 and their peers.

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

52KB, 1000x584px

>>34740571
>>34740558

>>34740558
Kornets are fairly recent.

>>34740600
They're roaches trying to shill their new raidproof tank

>>34740268
Nah. More like fuckhuge IED busts its proverbial nut underneath one. No penetration at all but the concussion turns the crew's brains to goop. RIP crew but Abrams is just fine.

>>34740592
>I understand that the US had it's reasons for sticking with the M68

Because there was no better gun/ammunition combo in the early 80's for NATO.

>>34740843
I suppose in the end it comes down to the choice between
>The best we have and the best it can be now
vs.
>Not quite as good but loads of room for development

Given the fact that subsequent versions were given the M256A1 I think we know which answer ended up being the right one.

File: RPG-29_USGov.jpg (144KB, 1453x721px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1453x721px

>>34740748
I was referring to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29

Some of the crew is dead, but the vehicle is intact.

As for IEDs, how much are you hitting them with? Shit like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SIBSGel314 keeps rolling even after getting thrown up.

File: 69834fa9a5293fb495061ef2658e0b77.jpg (76KB, 966x712px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 966x712px

>>34736853
>23 M1A1s were destroyed in the Gulf War. This included 7 to friendly fire and 2 destroyed that had previously been disabled (to prevent them falling into enemy hands).

>Since 2003, 530 Abrams tanks in Iraq were damaged so extensively that they had to be shipped home or destroyed to prevent their capture. The majority of them were damaged after Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the US Army hasn't released any details in order to prevent the insurgents from gaining an advantage.

yeah don't believe everything on TV

>>34737813

Not anon but Baghdad 2003 was basically just clubbing a baby seal.

>>34740928
Yeah thats the video I was thinking about writing that. The point is that it is possible to kill the crew without disabling a tank. That particular tank was probably not in great condition after that blast, but at least its top didnt pop off.

>>34740290
They also apparently like to lap-load the gun and leave the damn ammo door open because they're lazy. It's not the Abrams' fault they're too stupid to live.

>>34741073
That IED was way too deep to do much damage. You can see that the vehicle lifts up with the pavement, and not much higher. Most of the shock would have been absorbed by the road and dirt, lessening the force on the tank. A bad headache and some serious track repairs for sure, but I really doubt the tank was a total write-off.

>>34740290
Fucking this
>Monkey models =/= Monkey operators

>>34737043
If thats an export variant then no wonder.

>>34741389
It's a scuttled tank.

>>34740414
Isn't that what the giant cannon on top of it is for?

>>34740414
Yes, and this how tanks are being used in Syria.
>>34737285 seems to overestimate the competence of middle-east guerrilla fighters.

>>34740967
I once heard on a History Channel doc that a M1A1/2 was stuck in Iraq and had to be destroyed (?), and another tank crew tried to destroy it at point blank range and due to its super secret, DU-composite, 1000-folded Krupp stahl, the tank was impenetrable and they had to JDAM it or something like that... and I actually believed it until years later when I learned that side and rear armor on any mbt is paper thin compared to its frontal armor and the M1 Abrams' side armor was about 200-400mm thick, which can be penned by 105mm penetrators

>>34737043
Export variant

Monkey Model

Scuttled by US forces

Just a mobility kill

We didn't want it anyway

Can someone tell me what monkey model means?

>>34743028
Gimped export model basically

File: 2dd.jpg (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x300px

>>34736853
Wow, never thought I would hear this old claim pop up on /k/ again, except ironically. How long has it been? 10 years?

File: Untitled.png (543KB, 640x418px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 640x418px

>>34741931

>I once heard on a History Channel doc that a M1A1/2 was stuck in Iraq and had to be destroyed (?), and another tank crew tried to destroy it at point blank range and due to its super secret, DU-composite, 1000-folded Krupp stahl, the tank was impenetrable and they had to JDAM it or something like that...


It actually is mostly true.

The actual issue was that they had no demolition charges, so they couldn't effectively destroy it as you should. So the second tank went to the rear and fired a round into the rear turret bustle (will post a pic when I get home, it's neat, wish they had HD cams at the time for this kinda stuff), but they hadn't opened the blast doors first, so the blow out panels ended up working as intended - great light show, but the interior of the vehicle was still intact. So an F-16 had to fire a Maverick into it (that's a really cool picture, you get a sense of how large the missile actually is from the diameter of the HEAT jet) through the front of the turret and that did the trick.

File: 1331137639159.jpg (16KB, 499x306px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 499x306px

>>34740474
>but you would expect the UNITED STATES during the Cold War to come up with something a little more competative.

What? The M833 was superior in penetrative performance to the DM13 120mm round the Germans used at the time and equal to CHARM1 that came out 8 years later. The entire point of continuing with the 105mm was due to the US seeing how much life was left in the 105mm, this allowed them to put more effort into making the M829 series and better integrating the L44. Again, you're falling back into the "muh caliber" nonsense. The Soviets had 115mm for nearly 20 years that didn't outperform the 105mm in NATO service except for a brief period in the early 80s.

>well we see the difference between being the best, and just a "viable threat"

The M833 was more than enough to penetrate T-80s that showed up years later. The key to it is that it enabled all of NATO to bolster its armored forces because now even the humble M48A5, Leopard 1 and Centurion were again legitimate threats on a modern battlefield. THAT is the key to it all.

>It's also worth noting that the M1, and maybe even the M1IP, likely couldn't hold up to contemporary Soviet 125mm sabot and possibly even equivalent HEAT rounds.

I don't understand where this kind of pure ignorance is coming from.

>>34743187
Addendum, I believe you can partially make out the other Maverick strike on the left side of the turret, but it was decided that because of the angle of impact it got the comms gear but not gunners position wasn't sufficiently destroyed.

>>34736853
Abrams, or any contemporary tank (latest Leo, cahlly like your pic) is going to be comparably tough- Abrams have been lost in action, but it's proportionally a very small number. Basic abrams that were never upgraded and were sold to middle eastern countries have high losses, because their crews are so shit they couldn't win with alien space-tech. No, the abrams is not invincible, yes, it is very good given the reality of arms and armor in the modern era.

>>34737043
>>34741389
>>34742455

Not a export variant, it's an M1A1HC.
Not a mobility kill either, that's a severe mission kill.

Tldr M1 crewmen have died and US M1 tanks have been destroyed.
The most severe destruction of an M1 was a large IED paired with triple stack AT mines that blew off the M1's turret like a T-72 - killing commander, loader, and gunner.
The driver, unable to escape the hull, was presumed dead until the hull was towed back and mortuary affairs had engineers cut into the hatch to recover the body.
Inside they found a very much alive near deaf driver bathing in his own sweat, piss and shit.

3/4 crew kills have also happened in friendly fire incidents. The M1 is far from immune to 120mm Rheinmetall cannon

>>34743693
As for the export variant monkey model M1's
(alot of them are just M1P's that have been upgunned to 120mm with some other minor upgrades like the FLIR system from the M60A3 TTS, because the original 105mm M1's Thermal Sights were dogshit compared to the Patton TTS.

Numerous Export M1's have been full 4/4 crew kill, full destruction from shit like TOW's, AT-5b, Kornet, despite the export M1's still having blow off panel seperate stowage and a better turret to hull arrangement than a T-72 - several export M1's have taken side ATGM hits that caused a reaction that blew their turret into the air

>>34740875
It was specifically designed to start with the M68 and then be upgraded with the M256 at a later date.

>>34743028
Slavboo excuses for poor Iraqi army performance.

>>34743693
Since you seem to know please us what happened to that specific tank.

>>34743243
115mm was a half measure, and had a large export rationale - they would sell T-62 to T-55/T-54/etc using client states and 3rd worlders, forcing said countries to buy HEAT/ HE-F/AP/etc in two calibers. The soviets realized the 105mm L7 and GIAT 105 were better performers than 100mm T-54/55 guns.

However the soviets used the T-62 differently, certain divisions/units had either T-55 or T-62, even when newer tanks came in and the older ones were relegated to second line and infantry/heavy cavalry tank roles. So a MRD would have a tank battalion or two with either T-55 or T-62

>>34743800
an IED large enough to take out several city blocks, with old arty shells and stacked AT mines made it fly.
The turret popped off in the blast and the blast pressure + impact of the turret smacking the ground killed the Commander, Gunner, and Loader.
The hull was intact but damaged enough to prevent the driver (who initially got knocked out) from opening the hatch and escaping. The hull burned for an undisclosed amount of time (hours) but the driver survived.
The gun was destroyed utterly, the turret was intact but the bottom of it was fucked - the part that sits inside the hull was bent up.
The hull could probably have been recovered but there was considerable damage where the roadwheels were mounted. Recovering the hull would mean an entire restore/rebuild

>>34740928
>Turret knocked loose from hull slightly
That probably really fucked up the turret crew

shoot it with a high enough caliber and even if the tank isn't destroyed the crew will be killed anyway and at minimum have severe brain damage. Su 152 proved this already. But seeing as how all mbt's can already penetrate each other it doesn't matter.

>>34740294
You could argue that Bradley's were the best tank in desert storm.

so you were watching the tanks episode of lock and load with

>>34744179
not a tank

>>34738706
>that angry turret turn
NIGGA YOU WHAT

>>34744231
>A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat, with heavy firepower, strong armour, and tracks providing good battlefield maneuverability.

The only part of that which is in question is the armour and Bradley's could still soak autocannon rounds which falls under 'strong' from an average military vehicle standpoint.

If you want to claim it's not an MBT then sure but a Bradley could, and did, kill any modern armour at the time it was deployed and modern tank on tank doctrine is all about first to shoot since it's likely in parity warfare that any clean hit is going to kill your armour due to how good modern missiles and tank guns are.

>>34744179
I like you. You can keep replying to my posts.

>>34744429
Does the US Army consider the Bradley a tank? No? Then it's not a tank.

Abrams fanboys will go through hilarious mental gymnastics to deny that M1's have been taken out by combatants. The Army is obsessed with the same chest-thumping and will ship burned out hulks back to America and rebuild them, so they can claim it wasn't destroyed even though its 90% new parts.

>>34744710

That's not how definitions work. But keep grasping all you want.

>>34740213

An Abrams subvariant is still an Abrams. An optioned up Civic and a base model Civic are still the same car.

You can't claim that those kills don't count simply because it wasn't the model of Abrams we use.

>>34744904
Actually it is how definitions work. Your personal views do not override the people who actually build and use it.

>>34744879
Your strawman is old and tired.

>>34743693
>it's an M1A1HC

Where was it killed? Marine armor was in very few places n 03

>>34745194

so the mg 34 was a heavy machine gun when on a tripod and the panther a medium tank because they germans said it is?

>>34745049
Because your v6 Camaro is just as fast as the SS isn't it bud.

>>34745194
So as the inventors of both tanks and MBTs, Britain gets defacto power over what is a tank?

Great! Because that's the British definition of a tank and thus the only one that matters. Standardised definition means that in a conversation with non-nationals, you have a standard definition to use. Since the British definition of a tank is the original and definitive version, that is the standard international definition of what a tank is.

Thats why MBTs have their OWN definition for a specific type of tank to differentiate from the meaning set down in dictionaries world wide.

You can keep trying though.

>>34739740
>it's
>it's
I hate it when I see an otherwise informative-looking post with shit grammar.

File: 1427810196462.png (168KB, 800x1500px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 800x1500px

>>34736853
>shit talk about how great abrams are
>post a Challenger 2

The resell value of the Abrams is non-existent, least the Russians make tanks that other country's would actually buy. When the Abrams becomes obsolete, what are we going to do with them?

>>34745573

They're both still Camaros.

>>34743889
Any articles on this?

>>34745535
Yes.

>>34745906
>The absurd absolute tell for cognitive dissonance.

File: kfz222.jpg (1MB, 1000x732px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x732px

>>34746453
give them to israel

>>34746453
Give them to Middle-eastern nations still using shit like centurions

>>34740592
>We were apprehensive about adopting foreign technology
the m68 itself was derived from foreign technology, and the rheinmetall 120 mm was preferred and it was decided it would eventually arm the abrams, but it was feared that the delay and expense involved in producing the 120mm gun would scare Congress into cancelling the entire tank project.

>>34737285
>So they drive tanks unsupported into enemy dense urban environments where flank and top armour shots are common along with ambushes because to them they see western tanks as gods of the battlefield without understanding why.
this is a usmc tank

>>34744429
>tfw i'll just make up a definition of "tank" that fits my agenda

>>34747430
>the m68 itself was derived from foreign technology

The fume extractor.

>>34745049
When a real Abrams can take X to the front of its hull and turret and be fine, but the export will have it go clean through, then yes you absolutely can say they are different. What a ridiculous statement you just made.

>>34747495
it actually used a different fume extractor. more meaning the caliber and whatnot

>>34747525
The 'foreign' developed part of the M68 was the fume extractor. If you want to argue semantics then the NATO standard 105mm cartridge as well.

>>34747547
bottom line, the fear of foreign technology is specious, with the british-designed 105 mm and the german-designed 120 mm calibers becoming standard, the nera-style armor being invented in the uk, using the m240 MGs, etc. and the army planned to mount the 120 mm eventually, but the 105 was a placeholder to get the tank into production without congress flipping its shit over more delays and cost

File: 1476834202235.gif (2MB, 360x414px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x414px

>>34745049
>Thank you anon for choosing Faggot car dealership for buying your new civic
>All that is left to decide is what model you would like
>"what are they?"
>well we have the standard Civic Model and than we have he "export" model
>Huh, whats the difference?
>well the export doesn't have an engine...
>......
>what?
>yep, we ship these babies over to monkey-ville all the time. Idiots have no idea.
>That's, that's retarded, how would the car even work?
>ahhh it doesn't, hence the export to monkey-ville thing
>Geese, looks like we got a real ceasar of the monkyies here.
This is how retarded you'r post sounds.

>>34740414
They were made to cross several feet wide trenches and not get stuck in mud while being impervious to small arms fire during ww1.

Iirc the first time British tanks assaulted a town they got slaughtered by Germans dropping grenades onto the top.

>>34747809
you recall incorrectly

>>34740161
I'm not talking about those. Those upgrades are largely useless in asymetric warfare as they only concern the frontal 30 degree arc of the tank. Abrams Reactive Armor Tile (ARAT) was introduced in 2006.

>>34749392
>Abrams Reactive Armor Tile (ARAT) was introduced in 2006.
yes...and you were bitching because the british had fielded applique armor first. but with the continual armor upgrades the abrams has undergone, where is your evidence that the challenger tanks provided a comparable or more protective armor array and therefore the abrams was in more dire need of applique armor in the first place?

File: 1498105045836.jpg (36KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x600px

>>34737600
>the us military would let an Abrams crew starve to death over the course of weeks when it gets surrounded

>>34749392
Since Kosovo, there have been at least 3 big visual changes , regarding changes to side skirts, side turret and slat armor modules. Considering that the latest one in Iraq was called DL2F, it would suggest 6 changes.

Also the Abrams and Bradley were in dire need of applique armor on the sides. It is no secret that heavy ballistic skirt only covers the crew compartment from a 30 degree angle off the front. Remaining skirts are thin (5mm thick Vs 70mm).
Standard Abrams ( along with most MBT bar Merkava IV) have protection only 30 degree off front. Side hull usually is 70mm RHA over crew compartment and thinner on engine compartment. Insurgency requires your Armoured vehicles to have protection all round. It was a planning failure that the US took so long to procure ARAT tiles. You keep banging on about continuous armor improvements, but those armor improvements only apply to the frontal arc.

>>34749751
so can you answer the question re: challenger, or were you just jumping to conclusions with no evidence?

>>34749751
06-08 was by far when the post invasion fighting in Iraq was most severe

>>34749392
The 'British add on side armor', like in the OP picture, was ineffective against modern RPG's and still left the tanks rear vulnerable like everyone else.

>>34739740
nigga I bechu don't even know what niggerdry they did with the 3rd gen DU package

Iraq and Saudi Arabie gets shitty Abrams versions. Also no plates. Kind of funny seeing yemen rebels btfo saudi billionaires.

File: 7481235154_e382ab037a_b.jpg (286KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1024x768px

>>34751043
1) You have no proofs of its effectiveness
2) We do not use that side armor packaged anymore, the current armor package is significantly thicker and is quite clearly multi-layered

File: 1486334046416.jpg (153KB, 1051x716px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1051x716px

>>34736853
Pic related is the most durable but it's LFP is just RHA thats why it has that

>>34737149
Stop being delusional some abrams were given to iraqis still had USMC markings on them. What made Abrams succesfull is it was used by well trained americans instead of sand monkeys

>>34736922
If you talking about desert storm one was killed by BMP>>34737324


Modern MBT has less (hull)side without skirts and top armor than WW2 and Cold War era tanks. Leopard has 30mm RHA without skirts you can pen it with PTRS-41, DShK.

File: RPG-28_grenade_launcher_at_Interpolitex-2016_01.jpg (323KB, 1920x1239px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1920x1239px

No T90 is
>0 penetrated
impressive

Can we all take a second and appreciate how badass desert storm was? Shit was panzerkrieg.

File: 3_AD_Iraq.jpg (23KB, 660x145px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 660x145px

>>34753318
forgot my pic

>>34740606
> Kornets are fairly recent.

That's Konkurs, not Kornet

>>34736985
>I think

File: 5uikGgKFWCE.jpg (115KB, 1331x837px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1331x837px

M60 is literally blow up to pieces after meeting with ATGM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv9VSdckoP0

>>34743693
>blew off the m1's turret
What

>>34740606
Kornet (no smoke)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr-iIwqMLig
Konkurs (smoke+spiral)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW6kBfSw4HY

>>34753286
Except that one that took a TOW to the face right below the gunsight.

>>34753274
>Stop being delusional some abrams were given to iraqis still had USMC markings on them.

You can stop lying.

>>34753192
>You have no proofs of its effectiveness

An RPG-29 went through the lower glacis' add on protection, the sides are not more heavily protected.

>>34736853
No tank is unkillable.
Hit a T90 in a spot that isn't covered by ERA and it'll throw its turret like any other tank.

Hit an Abrams/Chally/Whatever to the side/back area with a modern tandem rocket / missile and you'll disable/destroy it.

>>34755292
There is a big region of effectiveness that the applique plates we saw in early Iraq would add between the ~40-70mm without the side add on armor, to the 700mm that the RPG-29 penetrates. The RPG-29 barely succeeded in penetrating the frontal ERA+plate, as shown by the poor after armor effects that failed to incapacitate the tank driver, thus allowing him to drive 1.5 miles to safety, to get treatment. The side applique in the Challenger 2 that we saw in Op Telic would allow it to be much better protected from SPG-9, RPG-7 definitely, that incapacitated some Abrams most notably, Cajone Eh, and possibly stronger HEAT warheads. TES-H armor pack that is currently on Challenger 2 obviously increases this protection.
A modern MBT without side armor, that is optimized against HEAT is very vulnerable, as we have seen with the Saudi and Iraqi Abrams. It really doesn't matter those tanks don't have DU armor, most of the time they are knocked out by side shots from HEAT warheads, DU armor or not, it would of made no difference.

>>34740558
>One of the if not THE most worthless useless tanks every build
that would be the leo or t90.

>>34743918
Unconfirmed reports that one guy died. I'd imagine that'd fuck up anyone's day to be hit by a bomb that can send a 60+ ton vehicle into the air like that.

>>34755909
>RPG-29 easily penetrates the steel plate + ERA of the Challenger 2's lower glacis
>Challenger 2 crew licks out that the location and angle of the hit meant the only vital part in the way was the drivers foot

"This is proof of how undeadable British tanks are." - t.Bong

>>34743028
Russian military slang for shitty export versions of their tech