So...

M1A3

If anything, they'll make a new version with an all-new turret, and then later roll out a new version with an all-new hull, such that the M1a6 is a completely new tank.

They're already doing it with the M109; the M109A7 puts the redesigned M109a6 turret on a completely new hull.

File: IMG_3640.jpg (108KB, 449x457px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 449x457px

>>35021603
An Austrian death machine

File: 1504111126345.jpg (43KB, 691x466px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 691x466px

>>35021603
Can someone aware me on what the job of tanks are in 2017?

>>35021696
assault guns with turrets

>>35021603
m8 with trophy system

>>35021686
I love this series

File: A Zaku.jpg (34KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x640px

>>35021603
Zaku II

>>35021696
Kill people and break their stuff.

File: IMG_3638.jpg (154KB, 900x575px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 900x575px

>>35023334
Me too man, me too.

File: March to La Manche.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>35021603
>What will replace it?
Autonomous machines.

File: cool18.jpg (2MB, 2516x1798px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2516x1798px

>>35021603

>>35023350
Obligatory AIN'T NO ZAKU BOY reply

>>35023551
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNiO2sTe2wo

>>35023801
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haIk56XDL7c
soon

File: 140mm gun.jpg (205KB, 900x509px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 900x509px

>>35021603

>>35021653
The M109A7 kinda looks like the same SPA as the M109A6. Don't get me wrong, reading the data and stats on it shows it is in a different ball field but still.

>>35024351
The big deal with the A7 is getting rid of most of the rest of the A0 parts still present in the A6, as well as adding in a ton of parts compatibility with the Bradly (and the M270 and AMPV as well). Since the turret in the A6 was all new, it didn't need anywhere near the amount of upgrading the hull did, and when you look at it, the Turret is most of what you see.

File: 1480463938687.jpg (155KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1280x720px

>>35021603

>>35023334
>>35023503
Fuck you, it's shit. It took such a great setting and instead of focusing on what's great about it, the fucking war, the mechs and the combat beast and instead focused on a shitty cross dressing love story.

File: 10658376.png (225KB, 633x400px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 633x400px

>>35026999
>look mom i posted it again

File: 1498686330090.jpg (114KB, 785x659px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 785x659px

The infinite power of nanoaugmentation

>>35023560
>Double barrelled cannon
Cool

>>35021696
Prestige weapons, allowing a nation's citizens to fanboy their nation's tank on online imageboards.

For nations who fight real wars see >>35022504

>>35021696
Killing infantry.

File: Grenadier.jpg (8KB, 128x180px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 128x180px

>>35027809

>>35026999
>unnamed
>its written "churchill" right there

>>35021696
https://youtu.be/agQhVG8fWeU

>>35021686
The band
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K5n-e9F7spE

File: Leopard 2NG.jpg (133KB, 1364x1127px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1364x1127px

>>35021603

An actually good tank

File: image.jpg (66KB, 640x471px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x471px

>>35027602
What went wrong? I've heard a few afghan/Iraq vets say they liked it because you could roll up real fast and blast em as opposed to a tank.

>>35028819
But it was on /k/ so not sure of the viability of those statements.

>>35028830
Validity* fucking phone

>>35028819
IEDs! My only weakness!

>>35028841
Shit armor/death trap?

>>35021603
A weapon to surpass metalgear

Did you know that americans abrams dont have a thermal vision in 2017?

>>35029043
OK lesser nation, what the fuck are you memeing about?

>>35026111
The A6 replaced the turret and the A7 replaced the hull, once they replace the gun with a 52 caliber there will really not be anything left from even the A5.

>>35027602
The M1128 is an assault gun.

>>35028805
Image not related.

>>35028819
>What went wrong?

Nothing, it's an excellent vehicle for what it's designed to do. Ignore autists who try and fit a square peg in a round hole.

>>35021696
holding ground and mid range fire on entreched targets (mobile artillary with less range essentually)

>>35021653
God I hope they make a M1A3E8. Just for my history boner

>>35029305
Anybody have Any pics?

File: IMG_2075.jpg (206KB, 1210x1014px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1210x1014px

>>35029547

>>35029292

You need to post an image in order to state is relatedness

>>35029305
>nothing wrong
>not being able to easily exit your vehicle to unjam the autoloader in the heat of battle

Personnel and equipment ain't cheap man. Don't want that risk.

File: leviathan.gif (976KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 350x263px

>>35027716

>>35021696
A main battle tank with an active protection system is the only thing that's actually somewhat hard to kill on a modern battlefield.

File: PLta.jpg (243KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1600x900px

>>35021603
trump: national guard will receive 150 PL 01 in 2018.

>>35030312
Sorry.

>image not related

>>35021603
If the Pentagon bean-counters have their way, JLTVs with TOW launchers.

Because, as you know, we will never, ever, ever, ever, ever fight a war against anyone who will actually fight back, or against any kind of near-peer adversary again. Don't worry, if we get in a war with Iran or North Korea they will surely be overawed by 'Murrican might and they will all surrender immediately, just like the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq did, amirite?

>>35030961
it's not meant to be used in the heat of battle. it's meant to comfortably blast away enemy fortifications in support of mechanized infantry at a great safe distance.

it's not suitable to be used in a shootout. it has no armor.

File: Leclerc-Salisbury Plain-Ex Griffon Strike.jpg (71KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 750x500px

>>35021603

Leclerc.

Longer gun.
Better armor.
Has Galix APS already that shoots down missiles.
Better APDS.
Faster.

>>35031717
How do the various APS that exist today compare to each other?

>>35031717
Gonna have to sauce those claims. Btw no one but UAE and France use those tanks.

>>35031028
Just like how the US gun owners would be granted easy access silencers without any stupid NFA shit?

>>35031988

It was made decades later, so its better technology.

And GALIX is APS.

And the gun is longer so it is more accurate and powerful fring more modern ammos

>>35032021
That's just more claims. If you don't add any sauce, your pasta is going to be really stale.

>>35028496
kek

>>35032041

>t. butthurt burgar that the country they called cowards has a better tank than them

It was made much newer. And Abrams is short gun.

>>35032116
Nobody's butthurt if you're just going to be blowing hot air. Pretty sure the Abrams has seen much more action proving its reliability and use over the Leclerc.

>>35032116
Do frogs not know how to read?

>>35031028
What am I supposed to see in this image?

All I see is smoke and bushes

File: type 10.jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

>20 tons lighter
>faster
>almost just as armoured
>more manoeuvrable

Shame it's not for export.

File: Altay.jpg (1MB, 3178x2089px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3178x2089px

>>35021653
Probably this though. It's the old "My grandfather's hatchet..." deal, and is pretty much how the US has always built tanks. Looking at a 130/140mm gun, some sort of APS, maybe an autoloader.

>>35032116
>Pictured: A newer tank than the Abrams
What the fuck's your point?

File: Type 10.jpg (426KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1500x1000px

>>35032466
>Shame it's not for export.
>Made for midgets

Gee, I wonder why that is?

Seriously though, it's a pretty sexy tank. It's a Leo knockoff like the Type 90, but it's still nice to look at

>>35032517
>tanks are cramped
and water is wet

>>35031758
>various

you mean the whole entirety of one ?

>>35032543
>I lack a basic understanding of how heights vary across the globe, and how this results in different ergonomic needs for various militaries around the world.

>>35032466
>almost just as armoured

From the frontal 30 degrees? Maybe.

>>35030961
If you have to rely on myths and a manufactured scenario then your opinion carries little value.

>>35032116
He never said French were cowards. All he said was give sauce, which you are failing to provide.

>>35032438
How did you get through the reCAPTCHA?

>>35031717
>Longer gun.

And inferior ammunition.

>Better armor.

Not really, and a compromise layout to lower weight.

>Has Galix APS already that shoots down missiles.

Galix is a soft kill system with smoke grenades.

>Better APDS.

Thankfully for France they are using APFSDS, not APDS. Which is at best comparable to DM53 (but likely closer to DM43).

>Faster.

Its redeeming value.

File: 51bO2s1A6FL.jpg (41KB, 384x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 384x500px

little white autoloader boys can't beat the niggerloader in fulling that breachpussy

File: EndWar_JSFTANK.jpg (185KB, 1533x1024px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1533x1024px

>>35021603

>>35032892
>lose argument
>pretend to be American and try to change the subject

File: 1500932006206.png (1MB, 1240x869px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x869px

>>35032855
>no vents or blowout panels on the hull ammo rack causing T-72 tier turret pops
Krauts btfo

>>35032933
I'm a different person tho. I haven't made any arguments in this thread :^). you sound pretty mad tho

>>35032952
>I was merely pretending

fascinating

>>35032883
Gonna hop along onto your post.

>Not really, and a compromise layout to lower weight.
Don't forget it uses titanium instead of uranium.

>Faster
By 3 miles for the A2 and by 0 for A1. Don't forget the Abrams A2 is 65 tons while the Leclerc is only 57 for the latest.

Also ammo capacity. Can holds 40 shells , and that's with 1 in the chamber, 22 in the magazine, and 18 inside the tank hull itself. The M1A2 hold 42 behind blast panels.

>>35032892
Ya know, I actually never seen a black tank loader. They're usually relatively normal to short white guys.

>>35033053
cause I offloaded the lilwhite bois on u kid.

>>35033053
>is reserve trash
>has reserve trash loaders

>>35031028
What is the point of this "stealth" aesthetic on a tank? Surely nobody uses fucking radar to spot tanks

>>35033011
pretty adorable that you react like this when ur flustered at being wrong, my kid :^)

>>35033068
>lilwhite bois
>bois

Only need one, he'll do more work in a day than you'll do in your lifetime.

>>35033086
>work
>doing labor
sorry lilwhiteboi. I use a pen. it's mightier than da sword

>>35033084
stop projecting

File: knowyourmeme34.png (89KB, 259x335px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 259x335px

>>35033193
>n-no u
pathetic

>>35033081
The F/A-18C and onwards can use their radar to spot vehicles. So can a B-2.

>>35033093
Too bad your brain is worse than both.

>>35032919
That looks a lot like the Armata.

>>35032855
I smell charred retarded monkey, do you?

>>35032116
with that short gun it still dominates estimates pen tests you can find online

>>35023560
Mammoth tank. Fuck yeah. Love me some C&C

File: Jaguar 2.jpg (137KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1280x720px

Missile tank or Assault gun.

File: image.jpg (27KB, 256x350px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 256x350px

>>35029305
>>35028819
>>35027602
>''''''''''Mobile Gun System'''''''''''''
>Can't fire on the move

File: rine ends here.jpg (40KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 320x240px

Why haven't they put a miniature CIWS on top of a tank yet?

File: 1486143275469.jpg (91KB, 640x637px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x637px

>>35028523
Question : how was a T-72 gunner supposed to guide the 9K120 missile through all that smoke ?

>>35037527
https://youtu.be/joV4nY23ofE

2:35 go shitpost elsewhere nigger.

>>35037533
>Why haven't they put a miniature CIWS on top of a tank yet?
I'm surprised this hasn't been developed yet. An anti-missle vehicle that would protect convoys or whatever from drone strikes would be useful.

>>35037694
>I'm surprised this hasn't been developed yet. An anti-missle vehicle that would protect convoys or whatever from drone strikes would be useful.

CIWS is a desperation action. The current operational strategy is to kill whatever might fire missiles at you before they can act.

>>35037719
I see, I see. Thanks for clearing things up, anon.

>>35037724

That's not to say the US doesn't have or want similar systems in the future, of course. The Army is making significant investments in lasers that would serve the anti-missile/anti-mortar role without really being at risk of running out of ammo. Existing and old anti-aircraft guns that were made obsolete in the jet age could potentially be re-purposed as drone killers, though. Might even be useful against mortars with a good detection system.

File: Tanks_B1_bis_(Toulal)_zu_Stonne.jpg (3MB, 3498x2332px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3498x2332px

Do you think it would it be more efficient if tanks were separated into different specialized branches like they were during WW2 with Breakthrough Tanks (heavy armor, cheap low-velocity gun or howitzer) and Tank Destroyers (high mobility, high-velocity gun and missiles), or do you think that the Main Battle Tank will keep being the backbone in armor warfare despite its current missions being not too different from what tanks did in WW1 ?

>>35037557
With the commisar's Makorov to the back of his head.

>>35039650
Crew protection is pretty much the main consideration anymore so you won't see lightly armored tanks unless they have alternative defense measures. Tank destroyers don't really make sense when infantry and IFVs have ATGMs. Low velocity guns are pretty much worthless since no one is fighting from bunker to bunker anymore.

>>35031453
more like F35s and B21s with JASSMs packing SFW and SDB2s for mopup.

aerial pride worldwide m8

>>35033086
w-what kind of work do you need out of little whitebois s-sir?

>>35040277
>Low velocity guns are pretty much worthless since no one is fighting from bunker to bunker anymore.
I don't see where you're getting at.

>>35021653
I always wondered if you could fit a 155 gun onto an Abrams...

File: M551 Sheridan.jpg (263KB, 2048x1370px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 2048x1370px

>>35043413

They fit a fucking 152mm on a SHERIDAN, the fuck you think a 155mm is going to give the Abrams trouble?

>>35043413
Well, the M109A7 shows you can fit a 155mm howitzer onto a hull that's like 85% Bradley

>>35021653

So, humanity will still be using a very recognizable version of Abrams centuries from now in the first interplanetary, or even interstellar wars?

>>35043454

Yeah along with a laser rifle based on the AR 15

File: IMG_0152.jpg (65KB, 574x435px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 574x435px

>>35043593
Bring on the fucking Ayys

>>35043441
It was a very low-pressure gun, anon. You're comparing a shotgun to a 338 WinMag.

>>35043441
*a low pressure ATGM launcher / HE / HEAT shell gun.
That thing is nowhere comparable to a 152mm artillery piece or 105/115/120/125/155mm tank cannon.

>>35043441
That was a gay little low velocity thing though

File: M109A5_in_repair.jpg (3MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x2304px

>>35043618
>>35043619
>>35043635

Doesn't affect the breach size that much.

Either way, here: 155mm on the size of smaller Bradley

File: 155-shells.jpg (175KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 479x720px

>>35043441
>>35043450
I meant could you fit it into the turret or would you have to get a larger one just to fit the extra shit? Also stuff like compensating the recoil and not blowing out the roof if it points flat or even downwards.

File: M1L1 turret.jpg (74KB, 600x396px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x396px

>>35036582
That looks nothing like the Armata, the turret is massive.

>>35039650
No.. however I'd like to see more vehicles based on a uniform chassis with just swappable turrets tailored for specific roles.

File: M1CATTB2.jpg (123KB, 900x509px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 900x509px

>>35043654
You'd probably need a new turret design. Fitting a 140mm on the Abrams required a turret redesign which lowered its ammo capacity and supposedly made it quite cramped.

>>35044591
So basically do what >>35021653 said, with an all new turret and possibly a new chassis?

>>35044660
Basically, though A3 and such upgrades seem to be sidelined in favor of continuous SEP rolling upgrades.

>>35021696
look scary and burn money

File: M60A2 is looking at you.jpg (163KB, 950x713px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 950x713px

>>35043618
>>35043619
>>35043635
>low pressure gun
It suits perfectly to the missions that are allocated to today's MBT (infantry support and reconnaissance in force). Enemy tanks (if there are even some) shall be taken care of by the real tank destroyers (helicopters and self-propelled ATGMs).

File: Screenshot (456).png (32KB, 309x266px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 309x266px

>>35021696
It's a huge gun that can keep up with and support infantry

>>35021653
This sounds most likely.

>>35029056
only australian abrams has thermal vision

File: pantherppje.jpg (87KB, 800x752px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x752px

>>35037517
missile tanks didn't deserve dying

>>35050176
Some older M1A1s don't. All M1A2s do.

>>35029043
>>35050176
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

>>35031656
So it does have it shortcomings. However if it designed for that in mind, I don't have much to complain for.

>>35032805
If you have to rely on projection and a denying the possibility of scenarios that have and can occur then your opinion carries little value.

>myths
>manufactured scenario
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Stryker-MGS-Problems-in-the-Field-04731/
http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/lde/CSI/CSIPubs/StrykersInAfghanistan.pdf
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160981,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/army/2013strykermgs.pdf
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-wheeled-cannon-that-everyone-hates-d5e6d22bdfcc
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a501145.pdf
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a2696/4253991/
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/stryker_mgs.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoloader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

>>35047378
>Unlearning the lessons of the 1940s

>>35021696
Yes: fire and maneuver. There are two ways to interpret it: how units are actually positioned, and what they do.

Where they go: overwatch, assault, and exploitation.
What they do: fire, and maneuver.
Why they do it: acting on info, and looking for info.

A tank can do every part.
A humvee with a TOW launcher can only overwatch, it can't assault or exploit. It can scout in wide open terrain, but it can't scout in complex terrain with likely enemy. It can fire, but it can't maneuver, because it has no armor, so it is pinned down, because moving across a gap in cover means 90% death rate instead of 10% death rate.

Armor isn't a trade off versus speed, maneuvering, or scouting. In major near-peer war, it's usually a prerequisite for them. That's why tanks aren't going away until everything is expendable drone swarms, and maybe not even then.

>>35050792
>war is boring

Loving Every Laugh

File: IT-1.webm (3MB, 634x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 634x360px

>>35050323
>>35037517

>>35021603
Fusion powered hovertanks, sometime around 2050.

>>35051169
>fire and maneuver

>"U.S. Army tactical proficiency at company level and below is lower than many of our multinational partners due to a lack of emphasis on collective training and tactical proficiency at home station
>[...]
>when battalion and company commanders come to JMRC and meet their O/C/Ts, one thing they regularly tell us is how low our expectations should be due to the minimal amount of training conducted prior to arrival
>[...]
>Infantry companies and platoons struggle mightily with fundamental tactical movement, basic fire and maneuver principles, direct-fire control measures and troop-leading procedures. In fact, almost every American unit that comes to JMRC struggles with fundamentals.
>[...]
>Armor companies struggle with many of the same fundamentals as the infantry.
>[...]
>gunnery was the only training they had conducted.
>Reliance on gunnery as the only means of training platoons and companies inevitably leads to bad habits due to safety considerations on the range. Units default to conducting on-line frontal assaults because that’s all they have practiced. Throughout the rotation, this particular unit defaulted to a frontal assault in the open without using terrain to their advantage in every engagement. In one of those engagements, a platoon sat static in the open, engaging an enemy Leopard tank. The Leopard fired some 10 times from 10 locations in 60 seconds and never stopped moving while taking concealed routes to and from multiple alternate firing positions.
>I’ve never seen an American tank do anything like that at JMRC. Our units are not at the level of some of our multinational partners – again, because they are not training on maneuver at home station before coming to JMRC."
http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2017/Spring/2Metz17.pdf

>>35051291

Ha, wonder how long Metz is going to keep his rank?

First thing he's going to get told by everyone above and below him is "Just because your company has fucked up training schedule doesn't mean my does"

>>35051291
Yeah, and? If soldiers suck at shooting, that doesn't make the need for guns instead of spears go away.

>>35051331
Could happen. If the don't-criticize-culture continues, the combat value of troops will only sink further. The navy has the same problem with disastrous consequences (the 2 collisions). And it's not like there never were warning voices.
https://www.usni.org/node/90091

>>35051352
If "fire and maneuver" degrades to "sit in the open and just fire" it's a big problem.

>>35051388

Yep, that's what caused the collisions, yes-sireee

File: 1503521246702.jpg (44KB, 958x960px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 958x960px

>>35051179
>can't think of anyway to argue with the sources
>so I'll pick just one of them and mock because it makes me feel good

>>35050792
All those links and not one that actually supported what you claimed.

>>35027602
>Taller
>Worse mobility
>Worse protection
What the hell was the point of this thing?

>>35052335
One can find quite a lot of voices concerned about subpar training in the US military. That is, of course, if one is willing to listen.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/collisions-part-i%E2%80%94what-are-root-causes

>>35054631
>MGS problems in the field
>unreliable feeding

You didn't read diddly squat.

>>35055791
The ironic part is neither did you despite linking them.

>>35055054
>why can't I get this round peg through the square hole

>>35055805
So you're admitting to not reading them while at the same time projecting onto that I didn't read them?

Read the articles you numbnuts.

>>35055054

MGS is not meant to be used as a tank. It is intended to support stryker platoons with greater firepower, like taking out fortifications that require something larger than 50 cal/40mm. Keep in mind SBCT's already have tank assets that fulfill a different role.

File: kGnnuFD.jpg (242KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 2048x1360px

>>35055815
>article from 2008 that mentions and refutes an article badmouthing the M1128
>article about Stryker vehicle's use in Afghanistan, only mention of the M1128 is one that ran over and IED and then wasted jihadi's with a canister round and generally praises it
>article cited and refuted in the first link
>DOTE report that has no mention of your claim
>war is boring
>article discussing the development of the M1128
>popular mechanics article praising the M1128

You really didn't read any of the things you linked, did you.

File: SU-152 factory line.jpg (78KB, 698x546px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 698x546px

>>35051040
Big HE shells are good at destroying even the heaviest of tanks ?

guys, I was just scrolling through this here thread and I absent-mindedly started touching my peener. then it just kinda progressed from there and I just busted a fat nut.

are tanks my fetish now?

>>35021603
Whatever the best tank is now is what the US will make a copy of 40 years from now.

Why does the Abrams never have ERA on the lower front plate? I get that it's pushing a meter of effective armor on both kinetic and chemical, but it's certainly not immune to modern stuff. A couple of bricks on the front wouldn't add significant weight and would bump up the protection immensely

>>35059934

How could you have ANY idea what the effectiveness of a CLASSIFIED piece of armor is?

Gimme dat M5A2 Schwarzkopf, son.

File: TeslaTank_RA1_Art1.jpg (140KB, 654x505px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 654x505px

Green powered tesla tank

>>35056765
HESH is still doing God's work.

>>35051398
Yeah, the US Military would degrade into Iraqi grade combat capacity.

File: Chobham_Armor_Schematic.png (2MB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1063px

>>35061637
>Classified
Not anymore.

>>35064254

This isn't the chinplate of an Abrams

>>35055880
First and for most, I did not say that the MGS was a bad vehicle. However "Nothing, it's an excellent vehicle for what it's designed to do." is hardly accurate and it is, at the very least at the beginning, not without problems and limitations.

Secondly, you're vaguely greentexting in attempt to refute my claims. Please cite each claim. Admittedly I've done the same so from here on out I will specify. But first you.

>>35054135
Cunt, your opinion means fuck-all. You clearly didn't read the sources you linked and now you're trying to cover your ass by being flippant. Uppercut yourself and shut your arrogant cockholster.

File: 1498087777837.jpg (34KB, 599x449px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 599x449px

>>35064377
>getting butthurt
>on 4chan
>for being made fun for making fun of a source

>>35064254
That isn't a schematic of an Abrams armor arrays.

>>35064254
Maybe it's for a Challenger?

>>35064348
>get BTFO by your own citations that you didn't read
>desperately try to damage control ~22 hours later

>>35064450
So you ain't gonna cite them? Also I was busy today, my life doesn't revolve around 4chan.

>>35064454
You are asking me to cite the links you already posted. Links that you didn't read before posting.

>>35021603
It'll be a long time before upgrades make our modern tanks worth replacing.

>>35064689
I meant as in actual quotations ding dong, for example on Popular Mechanic:

>"If Collum sounds defensive, it may be because this vehicle's weapons and resiliency have saved his life and the lives of the soldiers his crew supports. While in an open field to "get eyes" on a small town, Collum's MGS was struck by an improvised explosive device that blew out all eight tires and one antenna mount. "I was still able to drive the vehicle approximately 2600 ft. to a secure area," he says. "After replacing the tires, a few caution messages were displayed on the computer. I powered down the MGS and powered it back up; all cautions were cleared and the vehicle was fully operational. I drove farther south and hit a second IED, and the same damage occurred. This time I identified the triggerman on the roof of a building 820 ft. away. He ran out of a door on the top floor. With no tires or [communications] and a few caution messages, we were still able to engage the spotter with 20 [7.62 machine gun] rounds while on the move to eliminate the threat."

>Collum admits that the vehicle has its faults. He says the added weight of the turret causes trouble with the Height Management System, which raises and lowers the vehicle pneumatically to fit in tight spaces, requiring it to be recharged with nitrogen more often. He suggests shortening some sensors that get tangled in low-hanging wires and a redesigned gun mount for the coaxial weapon to reduce jams. His wish list would also include a remotely fired weapon like the one on Abrams tanks. "I am not thrilled about getting out of the MGS to fire the .50 cal. You become an instant sniper target. I have been engaged by a sniper while trying to unlock the .50. The round hit 4 in. from my head."

>>35031758
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2017/01/hardkill-aps-overview.html

File: 1920763865962.png (712KB, 1022x652px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 1022x652px

>>35051209
that's just fuckin neat

File: 11048758_943814598975135_6620470411488962416_n.jpg (66KB, 960x839px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x839px

>>35051169