Mud Test: MBT edition

File: tumblr_nqujkkbsG51tj31v2o1_1280.jpg (55KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x480px

>>35143109
Abrams can go though mud because it is gay

Why even buy these 60 ton pieces of shit if a light wheeled off road vehicle can traverse it better, something like the stryker? Both get blown up by an ATGM anyway.

File: we_slavic_now_xa_xa_xa.jpg (344KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1280x853px

>>35143136
because riding outside a tank is cooler

>>35143109
There's something really weird about watching these two videos and seeing tankers from rival nations laugh and have fun with this same bullshit.

File: x_60303539.jpg (167KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 604x453px

>>35143149
playing in mud is always fun

Fight, Abrams, FIIIIIIIIGHT


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AABCsu7PhYY

File: t-90a swag.jpg (301KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1280x960px

>>35143109
>T-90 almost turret top in mud
>Abrams barely has one track is a small puddle
Ameribitch, please.

File: FaZ6mPH.jpg (341KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1280x960px

>>35143313
implying russian mud is worse than amercian mud

File: 1407617727008.jpg (20KB, 343x377px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 343x377px

>>35143109
Imagine the dudes that have to clean that shit up.

Watching these videos makes me desire for some sort of automatic winch attachment system. It seems dangerous to have to focus on hooking up a trailer in the middle of a tank battle.

>>35143350
Just drive it into a river.
https://youtu.be/usxxzOs3wcU?t=1m3s

Except T-90 is half submerged into mud flooded pit while M1 struggles to get out of the dry pothole.

>>35143109
Is that one of the captured t-72b3's?

>>35143365
thats technically what tankers do anyway

theres wash pits all over the place on bases with tankers. I accidentally plowed through one in the duty vehicle a few years back

>>35143109
Russian tanks typically fare better off road because they are all metal tracks where Abrams have the rubber track pads.

The track pads allow less damage to roads, good for convoys when there's wheels behind you, less collateral damage, but most importantly higher speed on flatter terrain.

The full metal track is the opposite. Higher top speed in muddy conditions but prone to leaving lots of ripped up road behind it, granted this is mitigated some by being much lighter than an Abrams.

>>35143577
>granted this is mitigated some by being much lighter than an Abrams
And the fact that Russian roads are already as bad as they can get anyway.

>>35143341

Russian mud envelopes entire armies.

Yes. It's much worse. The closest American experience is Alaskan mud.

>>35143341
It sure as shit is. We're talking were like 2/3's of the landmass has anywhere from a few feet to 20+ feet of water saturated substrate that is frozen during the winter and melting from the spring and most of summer, only to start freezing again come late fall. You have about 4 months where this stuff is even slightly passable.

File: Gulf-War.jpg (77KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 564x423px

>>35143109
I don't think it means much that it gets stuck in 5' deep mud troughs with 30 degree angled slopes on either side, an M1 might have got stuck just as bad; an AAV would probably have trouble under those circumstances. The M1 weighs 14 tons more (62 tons vs 48) which is arguably going to have an even harder time getting out of those spots even with 1000 hp turbine. I think defensive/offensive capabilities combined with tech integration and situational awareness capabilities are more important factors than escaping impossible mud traps. In that regard, i think the M1 takes the cake although it lacks ERA which makes it somewhat vulnerable to RPG's if they are ambushed (if we are to learn anything from Mosul) but in a tank-on-tank battle I think any other tank in the world (excluding perhaps the Leo 2 or Korean K2) would have an uphill battle against the Abrams

>>35144322
The important stats you're missing are the power to weigh ratios and ground pressure. Here's a reupload of something fairly relevant
https://youtu.be/jIknrUM2mJM
And yes, being able to cross mud filled trenches and other shit are just as important as protection. If you can't get to the battle field in time, you can't win in time.

>>35144322
>tech integration and situational awareness capabilities are more important factors than escaping impossible mud traps
>things Russian tanks also lack

>>35143129
ain't nothin wrong with two abrams being together
long as they love each other

>>35144387
You have shit reading comprehension, not even him btw

File: kursk.jpg (191KB, 1582x1034px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1582x1034px

>>35144356
Good points, but to be clear i'm not saying off road capability isn't important, after all that is one of the main purposes of having a tracked vehicle. But tanks aren't single purpose mud hole traversing machines, they also serve the purpose of being armored gun emplacements that can be used for a large variety of tactical purposes. Its all about trade offs, and if they were capable of easily crossing even the worst terrain then they would serve that purpose well but they would have to make a lot of specific design considerations to achieve that specific goal, and would probably just be an AVLB which does not have the same universal utility as an MBT. A long way of saying that not all MBT's are equal, but they all have shortcomings in one way or another and it's off road capabilities have to be balanced with its other purposes . Great vid btw, haven't seen that one

>>35144518
>Great vid btw, haven't seen that one
It's the only version of it I could find. There is also one that included an old T-72B I believe that the swedes got their hands on and did the same thing with. The original upload of these on YT had a few thousand views, no clue what happened to them.

>>35144544
>>35144518
Nevermind, that is the one

>>35144356
the MTLB is simply awesome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKKEuVWdar8&index=63&list=LL2eqlPIuKNtif_z1B9OMlMA

>>35144599
They're amazing vehicles. It's no wonder Russia has no plans on replacing them, especially for arctic units, anytime soon.

>>35144620
>Russia has no plans on replacing them
they will be replaced by pic related

>>35144655
>no pic
Nice

File: file.png (469KB, 519x416px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 519x416px

>>35144660
sorry

>>35143109
abrams fanboy, the situations are hard to compare

>>35144679
>those skinny ass tracks
Lel

>>35143596
of course, because so many invading armies have even touched american mud, great comparison anon

>>35144821
>american mud
that mud did not protect the native American

>>35145443
Someone hasn't played The Oregon Trail.