Ur face when u noticed tanks are just RL mechs

File: AGM-65_M-48_pre_impact.jpg (2MB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2400px

>>13590064
>we are gods
Sup.

>>13590064
No legs, no arms, no interest.

File: zvd7276_1.jpg (36KB, 560x348px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 560x348px

>>13590064
Heard you were talking trash

>>13590522
>A HinD? Colonel... what's a Russian gunship doing here!?

>>13590543
>HinD
m8
you had one job

This is why I play games like Armored Warfare. It's the closest thing to a good mecha game, it's a good tank game.

File: ah-64-apache-longbow_002.jpg (198KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1200x800px

>>13590522
I heard you could use some freedom

Jets are closer to my kinda mecha than tanks

Tanks are fucking cool like but they arent mecha in a traditional sense

>>13590593
Is that Apache doing that toku thing where they pose while an explosion goes off in the background for no reason?

>>13590064
Neither can>>13590546
punch the shit outta things

>>13590607
>arent mecha in a traditional sense

Mecha in the traditional sense is anything mechanical. Tanks and planes aren't mecha in the western sense.

As a pilot in the chairforce, I'm here to laugh at you.

>>13590064
So in a tank crew, which member is considered the "bitch" of the crew? the loader, the gunner, or the driver?

File: 1827uwirhghuhjpg.jpg (306KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 640x360px

>>13590593
uwahhhh! sugoi ne hambaga-kun~!

>>13590603
Amen

I like WW2 tanks because they have all sorts of different designs and there was a feel of "getting it right" in them that makes them endearing.

Modern tanks seem to blend in with each other too much.

>>13590871
Well that's what happen when technologies were just starting out, people experiment in all sort of ways creating varied looking tanks, planes, ships, and etc. In modern time there's the optimal way of designing them so they all kinda look the same now.

File: 26_134369_fff0dbd6657fa23.jpg (232KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1600x900px

>>13590871
Nah, I think modern tanks are cool too, you just have to look into them more.

>>13590914

Alright, show me some cool ones!

File: BMPT-72-6.jpg (858KB, 1350x900px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 1350x900px

>>13590917
Sure thing

File: t 14 armata needs tow.jpg (42KB, 660x371px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 660x371px

>>13590917

>>13590926
FORCES OF COBRA BEWARE! GO JOE!

>>13590914
>>13590926
>>13590929

It'd be cool if you could tell me about why they're designed how they are too, but if you don't want to I can go google them myself, no biggie.

>>13590064
I remember back when I was graduating high school (2005) I wanted to be a tank pilot. I have flat feet, though, so that disqualified me from service in the U.S. military. Ah, well...I wanted some G.I. Bill benefits, but I managed to get some scholarships so there wasn't too much of a financial burden on me and my family, so I guess it didn't work out so badly.

You should read Bolo. /m/anliest tanks ever!

File: Pantsir-S1 anti-aircraft missile system.jpg (997KB, 5616x3744px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 5616x3744px

irl more dakka

>>13590914
>the polish 'prototype'
I don't think that thing is even in development.
>a muzzle brake on a MBT in this time and age

Also, the tank is piss ugly, every other modern tank at least has some sexy curves and slopes in their samefag-ness, but that thing is just plain ugly.

>>13591174
Assuming it's being worked on the full prototype is estimated 2016. And if that's accepted, it will start being produced.

And I think it looks good, it looks more mecha than most tanks.

File: Swedish_CV9040.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>13591387
It's not a 'tank' though. It's a CV90 with a body kit.

Light tank at the very most.

>>13590974
boy someone should tell them they left all the barrels closed

>>13591645
Don't listen to this anon Poland. It is too a tank. And a good one at that.Come over here and we can put it up on the refrigerator with all of the other wonderful things you've made!

>>13590064
>The amount of tech in the modern tank is more than the robotics Japaneese could have imagined in the 80s. We have FLIR, automatic cannon tracking, stabilizer turret, face ID, active armor, etc. etc.

All those things you listed existed back in the 80s.

>we can drive 65 mph in our tank.

The fastest tank in the world can only go 45mph. Is this a bad troll thread? The fact that you posted a SPAAG and not a tank leads me to believe that.

>>13590940
>Flat fleet disqualifying someone from joining the army
>In 2015 when the army was literally allowing felons to sign up because they were so desperate for troops due to the two wars in the middle east

I smell bullshit.

>>13591677
I thought about it in 2005, not this year. I wear little soles in my shoes for my arches, and when I looked it up online back then, it said any sort of corrective footwear would disqualify you, so I gave up on joining the military. But I didn't take a formal medical examination or anything like that. Maybe they would have been lenient with me or something--I didn't assume so back then, but who knows.

>>13591645
>tfw my country makes our own AFVs but no MBT
>they wanted to make a MBT based off the Bionix AFV but the decided to get Leopard 2s instead
In hindsight, that was a good decision.

>>13591693
just go talk to a recruiter, there is such a thing as medical waivers

>>13591769
Hm, maybe. I might at least talk to someone, though at this point I don't think I'll join up, since I no longer need the GI Bill. But it's good information to have, thanks anon.

But back on the subject of tanks OP, another series you might like is Hammer's Slammers. The author was a Viet Nam vet and created a fictional universe where "powerguns" can destroy air targets very easily, leading to a resurgence of ground armor in the form of hovertanks. It's pretty cool.

>>13591823
any reason they hover as opposed to being normal treaded tanks?

>>13590546
Why the chinese dragon head on the tail wing?

>>13591842
They're really heavy (much more so than tanks today, since they need to resist powergun blasts) and hover only a small distance off the ground--their power generators can allow them to hover, but I think if they had treads they would crush the ground they rolled over a lot of the time. With their hover engines, though, they can go very fast (like 90 MPH over paved ground) despite their massive weight and armor.

File: because1.jpg (112KB, 640x1442px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 640x1442px

>>13591845

>>13591707
Singapore?

Also Leopard 2s are bretty gud, better than reinventing the wheel IMO.

File: 2015-10-02_00002.jpg (452KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1920x1080px

>>13590556
>Armored Warfare.
Gross.

>>13592257
Yep.

>>13590842
Possibly the loader or the machine gunner/radioman.
Either the driver or the gunner is second in command and the other one is the third.

File: igywrdophwj3ony69bcn.jpg (17KB, 636x288px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 636x288px

>>13590064

File: Tank-2.jpg (138KB, 550x293px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 550x293px

>>13590064
>we are gods
Even when faced by muds?

File: 1377169774138.gif (58KB, 608x580px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 608x580px

>>13592323
Go to bed gramps, the mighty "brrrrrrrrt" meme hasn't been relevant since the mid-sixties.

I've been playing War Thunder recently. Driving tanks is fun.

File: M70mbt.webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

Tanks huh

File: kill bison bird.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

Why not both?

>>13590064
You certainly are representing the American military in an accurate fashion.

>>13593267

fucking love that shit

>>13592283
I'd fire my MANPADS into her cockpit.

File: German Leopard 2.webm (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

Make way for Germans.

File: Leopards.webm (722KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 600x338px

>>13593795

File: Leopards2.webm (720KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 854x480px

>>13593798

>>13591707
Bionix is pretty based. There's the other thing called "Warthog" that's been on the news recently, right?

The Leopard 2 seems to be pretty popular. It even came up in the 2014 Indonesian election debates, where one candidate wanted to buy Leopards to bolster the military. The other guy (who's now president) argued against it, saying that AFVs are the better investments for the current need for urban warfare. (Plus, Indonesia has lots of uneven terrain and shitty roads, so it was argued that MBTs aren't that useful.)

>>13592290
I remember someone said a manga artist or mecha designer (was it Nagano?) drew some nose art, were these the ones?

>>13592498
Honestly, if you'd realize how many trucks crammed full of warm bodies even the US is using, you would not discount the mess a good brrt can cause so easily.

>>13591669
lol you really think they leave the governors on in war zones?

>>13592498
Why don't you go back to reddit neckbeard. The A-10 wasn't even introduced until the 70's.

>>13590543
I don't think that's a Hind-D.

File: 1446560615555.jpg (379KB, 1600x1064px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1600x1064px

>>13594403
Here anon. Have a Super Hind.

File: Gepard_1a2_overview.jpg (1MB, 2496x1664px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2496x1664px

>>13594469
Mmm, yes.
Such helo
so delicious

>>13593239
Damn son I ain't seen an mbt-70 in action before. Pretty interesting tank. I mean i'd take the abrams any day, but it's cool to see how that tank got it's start from the death of this tank.

Why did WW2 america have a Sherman fetish?

File: GM.jpg (177KB, 920x780px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 920x780px

>>13595110

>>13593879
Yeah.

Though, like a lot of our stuff, the Leopard 2 is mostly for deterrence. We're just a goddamn island, a MBT is kind of overkill when you consider what our neighbors have.

It certainly would be interesting to know what the Bionix-based MBT would look like if they had went on with it.

>Singapore is rumored to have owned Centurions bought from the Israelis back then
>No real evidence of that except some books
Dammit, I want to touch a Centurion, its so sexy

>>13595110
costs too much time and money to build too much of anything else

if you gotta cross oceans to fight a war, logistics makes you its bitch, not the other way around

>>13593886
No; the ones Nagano did had his usual FSS design aesthetics--definitely not Belldandy & friends.

Also, his was applied on F-15s, not F-4s.

File: 0904dfee.gif (69KB, 600x389px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x389px

>>13593886

there were a few versions of the mystic eagle with different artists doing nose art

>>13595782

here is the nagano version, this was harder to find than I would have thought

>>13595821

also more info by year on the nose art

http://www.rose-ridge.com/NOSE%20ART%20WORKS.htm

File: 1998-945-08.jpg (37KB, 720x486px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 720x486px

>>13595827

my boy izubuchi with a great one

File: 1444075615100.jpg (296KB, 1600x1273px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1600x1273px

>>13595110
It was a versatile design that could be reconfigured, and was easy to maintain.

File: ka-52-1.jpg (80KB, 798x524px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 798x524px

>>13595020
Oh yes, such a delicious and supple looking SPAAG you are.

Yes yes, you will do just fine...

/k/, if you wanted to visit all you had to do was say so, we're happy to share the board with you guys, especially if you're gonna help get rid of the shitters. You just have to say so.

File: T-90 glow.jpg (157KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 800x554px

>>13590933

>>13590926 is a BMPT-72, upgraded version of the BMPT "Terminator" which itself is a T-72 chassis with different turret. Meant to escort MBTs and support them against entrenched infantry that MBTs might have a hard time engaging.

>>13590929 is a T-14 MBT, part of a new line of standardized vehicles made by the Russians to help simplify their line of vehicles. Not sure if the recovery vehicle is based off of the Armata hull as well, but you bet the Russians are going to be basing their new recovery vehicles on the Armata.

I'm kinda disappointed with the T-14 in terms of its aesthetics. I know the turret is meant to be completely robotic, but I was hoping for a much more orthodox-looking turret (IE T-90MS). I really miss the whole IR-dazzlers that the T-90A had going.

>>13595954
The T-14 breaking down in the rehearse for the parade was hilarious though

>>13595954
I think the IR-dazzlers don't work well, since India dropped it as well in the T-90M "Bhishma". It's sad, because the IR-eyes make the late T-72s/T-90 look so angry.

File: 1443872766251.jpg (350KB, 1280x839px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1280x839px

>>13596159

File: feed me chechens.jpg (49KB, 500x392px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x392px

>>13596185

>>13593934
FEED ME CHECHENS

File: 1445837150749.jpg (556KB, 1622x1324px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1622x1324px

>>13594065
>The A-10 wasn't even introduced until the 70's.
You say that like it is a good thing.
If it came out in the 60's its gun would have been barely adequate, but by the 70's it would have to deal with much harder targets like T-64's and T-72's.

File: bad tank.webm (374KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 320x240px

>>13598031
It can bitch slap though.

>>13597918
Luckily the A-10 was designed to ferry Mavericks to the combat zone and drop them on tank columns over and over, not to do much AT work with its cannon.

>>13591654
Those aren't barrels, they're launching tubes for anti-air missiles.

>>13591677
I thought our military had been a dumping ground for the miscreants of society since the mid-'60s (thanks for nothing, Johnson!).

>>13591707
You can't go wrong with the Leopard 2; it's the most cost-effective MBT out there.

>>13592286
Does this mean you've finally mothballed the old Bulldog?

>>13595110
Because AGF was staffed by a bunch of complete retards who favored a pants-on-head retarded armor doctrine that had been discredited as early as the African campaign.

File: 1328357789663.jpg (235KB, 1280x864px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1280x864px

> You can't go wrong with the Leopard 2; it's the most cost-effective MBT out there.
That's an odd way to spell Char Leclerc

File: Wiesel.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

Make way for Wiesel.

>>13595110

It was a solid, reliable, and relatively technically advanced tank design that could be manufactured in the tens of thousands, which easily fit on train cars and ships, light enough to cross many bridges, giving it excellent strategic level mobility.

It was very much on par with the other medium tanks of the war, and while it didn't handle the later heavy tanks very well, it wasn't a fucking heavy tank, so go figure. Tank on tank combat only accounted for about 15% of tank kills in WW2 anyway, the majority were lost to anti-tank guns, mines, artillery, and shaped charge rockets. low velocity howitzers had better HE shells, which made them better at fighting AT guns, field guns, and infantry, all statistically bigger threats than other tanks, which is why the response to the long barreled 76mm gun wasn't entirely enthusiastic. Same reason the Russians chose to go to an 85mm howitzer instead of a high velocity 76mm gun for the T-34-85; better AP performance shouldn't come at the cost of HE performance.

The Sherman had better than average ergonomics, which is a big deal in an age of manual steering transmissions in tanks. Many British and Russian tanks took massive upper body strength to drive, which could mean very fatigued crew. German tanks tended to have surprisingly easy to use transmissions, when they were working.

Also it turned out that the biggest factor in the outcome of a tank battle was who fires first, so the Sherman was considerably superior to most German tanks on the offensive, due to it's better wide angle search optics, padded gunner's scope, and gyroscopic gun stabilizer.

File: wiesel helicopter.jpg (45KB, 550x398px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 550x398px

>>13598676

I don't see why I should bother, Wiesel will fit.

>>13598676
It's somewhat of a historical irony that the Germans are the ones of all to start making tankettes again...

File: Leo beer.webm (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>13598769
Germans just love to make shit.

>>13598785
Ahh thats nothing my old man ran their T 55 with a mix of diesel and homebrewed plum brandy during the 90s.

>>13598759
>T-34-85
>85mm howitzer
The 85mm was an AA gun converted to be a tank gun. That gun isn't exactly a howitzer.
It just happens that a larger caliber gun has more effective HE shells thanks to jamming more explosive shit into it.

>>13598795

>You see, comrades, drunk tank is happy tank!

>>13598594
Has anyone painted one of these red yet? I know the frogs are huge weeaboos

>>13598594
Is that thing's suspension still lousy?

>>13598676
>stoppie with an armored vehicle

that was cool

Why is M3 Lee so cute?

File: thefook.jpg (16KB, 275x279px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 275x279px

>>13599269
>>stoppie

File: Panzer 2 cooking eggs.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>13599272
Panzer 2 was cuter.

>>13598676
It's adorable.

File: 1325338305623.png (507KB, 720x500px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 720x500px

>>13598676

>>13598676
>Honoo no Sadame intensifies

File: reaction_fu.jpg (14KB, 392x339px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 392x339px

>>13593239
>>13593262
>>13593267
>>13593795
>>13593798
>>13593802
>>13597989
>>13597999
>>13598059
>>13598676
>>13598785
>>13598807
>>13599316
>webm

File: tank flip.webm (670KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 640x480px

>>13601608
Is there a problem?

>>13601614
Yes.

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

3MB, 1280x720px

>>13601662
I'm sorry to hear that anon.

File: szhatie.jpg (103KB, 800x507px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x507px

>he still uses kinetic weaponry

>>13601797

>lol what is an i-field

>>13601805
Something that repels only a specific sort of charged particles.

>>13601807

It deflects laser in SRW

>>13593934

FEED ME CHECHNYANS!

>>13601682
Liar.

File: T-72.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>13601995
I am though anon. Perhaps sometime in the future we can correct this problem.

File: 1392631068931.jpg (60KB, 799x603px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 799x603px

>>13598759
the Sherman was considerably superior to most German tanks on the offensive, due to it's better wide angle search optics, padded gunner's scope, and gyroscopic gun stabilizer.

Most of that isn't quite right.
The sherman only needed a seperate periscope for the gunner to find targets because unlike German sights, the sherman never had dual magnification.
While a sherman gunner needed to look through a periscope to find his target and then move to the gun sight, on a German tank you just turn a knob to switch between X2.5 and X5 magnification.

>padded gunner's scope
Pretty much everyone used that.

>gyroscopic gun stabilizer.
Even if more than a few gunners knew how to operate and maintain it, the stabilizers of that era (and for a long time after) weren't good enough to actually allow for accurate firing on the move but were handy for keeping the gunner's sights on the target to allow for faster engagement when the tank stopped to fire.

>>13598124
>Luckily the A-10 was designed to ferry Mavericks to the combat zone and drop them on tank columns over and over, not to do much AT work with its cannon.
In that case the designers would have been better off not making an aeroplane that's over 10% gun and give it more than two hardpoints capable of carrying mavericks so it could carry more than four without melting the tyres on its landing gear.

>>13602023
Is there some reason you're unable to post gifs NOW?

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

3MB, 1280x720px

>>13602554
Unfortunately I have no tank related gifs. I am sorry for the inconvenience.

File: t-62 turret rails (2).jpg (74KB, 979x617px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 979x617px

I really hate Russian's hemispherical turret. It's look ugly.

>>13602607
Spare me your poorly feigned sympathy, it's just insulting.

>>13602626
youre an ass

File: comanche.jpg (53KB, 800x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x640px

>>13590593
Apache's are lame as fuck. Comanche's are where it's at. Sleek as fuck.

>>13602722
It's also dead

Military circlejerk threads like these make me want to cheer for ISIS

I hope your precious tanks get glassed by those sandniggers

File: raining.gif (803KB, 458x343px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 458x343px

>>13602722
Why do you have to remind me?
It still hurts.

>>13602747
Why do you hate Arabs so much anon?

File: missingthepoint.jpg (10KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 400x400px

>>13602762

>>13602762
Because they're ugly and dirty. But I would still love to see them blow up some dumb, fat, American high school dropouts. I mean soldiers.

>>13590064
Well, here is a sexy tank from tecno police 21C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDCu0NZpPq0

>>13602744
>It's dead now so it never existed.

Just because it's no longer an active project that immediately negates how amazingly awesome of a helicopter it is? Fuck no.

>>13602750
At least we can share our pain, brother.

>>13602762

I don't hate arabs but Islam is a scum-tier religion.

>>13602777
Trips confirmed .
This tank is sexy indeed.

>>13602607
>the front sprocket just falls off
What the fuck

>>13592498
>not posting the page underneath the tank

File: 1445999580779.jpg (137KB, 562x612px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 562x612px

Now you all know how to properly attack a T-62 in a A-10. You are welcome.

File: 1300945502672.jpg (98KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 900x675px

>>13602059
> Sherman Tank
Your mean the reusable coffin and Engineering Disaster ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBCZrMVVI2M

>>13605025
>engineering disaster

The Sherman was a lot of (negative) things but an engineering disaster was not one of them.

>>13606039
Can we summon the Shermanator here?

File: Tiger tank.jpg (61KB, 919x611px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 919x611px

>>13606949
Selbstverständlich können wir, Genossen.
ihnen zeigen, unseren Deutsch Stahl!

>>13605025
The Jumbo and Easy Eight were great though.
Wet stowage also helped minimize losses due to cook-offs, at least.
Besides, these guys were easier to maintain than their panzer counterparts.

>>13590926
I thought they designated the terminator as an infantry support vehicle and not a tank?

>>13590929
Ironic that you should say that about a russian tank.

>>13607606
>easier to maintain than their panzer counterparts.
The Shermans' panzer counterpart would be the Panzer IV.
It wasn't as easy to maintain, but considering that the Panzer IV was an older design that kept getting upgraded until the design hit its limits(and was match for the Sherman/T-34, though the T-34-85 has a slight advantage due to its gun), I'm pretty sure the Panzer IV wasn't that much worse.

>>13607714
Good point. The IV was the most reliant of the late-war bunch, imho.Too bad Hitler preferred to go with the schwererpanzeren just to turn the tide of the war.

>>13590064
by some logic cars are also rl mecha.

I want to rewatch GuP now.

>>13608007
Reminder that the movie BD's are only six months away.
God I hope Commiesubs will still have a gag sub for it.

>>13607714
>the T-34-85 has a slight advantage due to its gun

Explain.

>>13609212
The 85's gun was an AA gun derivative that could penetrate a tiger's armor at 600 meters.

File: pasi is happy.png (1MB, 817x590px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 817x590px

>>13598594
Gidings me? Leclerks are nearly 13 million apiece!

Also, here is a picture of the happiest metal frog ever.

File: British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg (216KB, 700x524px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 700x524px

>>13607606
>easier to maintain than their panzer counterparts.

We shouldn't talk of counterparts when the war showed that some design philosophy were simply better than other.
Complex ultra heavy tank made Nazi lose the war, but the Russian's T-34 medium tank was far more efficient than the Sherman.

Sure it wouldn't have been as easy to transport but you would have lost a lot less of them as well.

>>13609422
Phooey. Incredible numeral inferiority and the choice of opening an unnecessary new front by prosecuting a land war invasion on Russian soil made the Nazi lose the war.

File: 1296921643901.jpg (771KB, 1250x884px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 1250x884px

>>13609563
...if we really want to count all Nazi errors, an accidental bombing of a city by a English bomber started their bombing frenzy of Great Britain cities... thereby letting the English rebuild their airbase and their air force.
Let's add their craving for crazy superweapons. The Horten 229 might possibly have been the first stealth jet fighter (accidentally) but some plane were absurd from the start.
And their best Warship was so precious that they didn't let him fight even though the allies were scared of it
No need to mention their crazy tank idea
Though... submarines must have looked crazy too.

File: Unlucky.jpg (233KB, 999x749px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 999x749px

>All this Sherman bashing
>Meanwhile one guys says the T-34 is better

The T-34 was generally built to poorer standards, had worse ergonomics, and had major transmission issues amongst other things. The Sherman by comparison was reliable, easily repaired, and was always useful when deployed correctly. Its reputation as a poor tank is near-on a meme AFAIK and although I do not like using /k/ or being an armchair historian you could argue about it endlessly there.

Look at it this way; some British thought the Sherman was too dangerous because all of its ammo would cook off, meanwhile the Americans had no problem with this. The British eventually realized the problem stemmed not from the Sherman, but their own practice- the British stuffed as much ammunition as they could into their tanks regardless of room, the Americans did not When the British stopped, the Shermans were much safer to use and generally did well, again.

This is in comparison to the T-34 which usually always cooked off. Even Russians liked the Sherman.
http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

Even the Germans liked the Sherman, too! Again it was a simple, reliable, and effective vehicle.

It's like the GM of tanks, plain and usually shown jobbing, but hell if it doesn't work, and it did. Even for all the terrible documentaries about how supposedly bad it was most records don't really portray it as anything better or worse than other vehicles of the time.

Speak of the devil, there's already a T-34 thread in /k/.
>>>/k/28143663

File: 1305844977525.jpg (37KB, 780x421px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 780x421px

both army built shitty tank full of flaws, both got better latter.

>>13609422
>but the Russian's T-34 medium tank was far more efficient than the Sherman.
The tank with shit ergonomics, shit visibility, shit reliability, and shit quality control?
Better than the Sherman?

>>13609268
Why does Murka suck so much at ballistics?

>>13610438
Because Murka could do the same with a 76mm gun.

>>13610586
See >>13609212 and >>13609268.

>>13610586
And they never did deploy vehicles with that gun in large numbers because they think that tanks shouldn't fight tanks, and their tank destroyers that had the gun weren't common either. It only worked for them because they barely had to fight Tigers and Panthers on the western side, though the murricans had a tendency to recognize every german tank as a Tiger and every gun they have to be the 88mm.

Meanwhile, the brits modded the Sherman into the Firefly because they needed something that can kill tanks and their 17pdr was what they had.

>>13610697
>the murricans had a tendency to recognize every german tank as a Tiger and every gun they have to be the 88mm

That's what happens when you leave yourself with nothing that can fight on relatively even footing; the enemy becomes a boogeyman and your side's morale suffers accordingly (not to mention you make yourself look completely retarded at every level).

>>13607721
The Panzer IV also hit its design limits at that point.

The Ausf H is pretty much the most they pushed the design, J was a cheaper-to-produce model that is worse than regular IVs.

Honestly, the Panther was a good idea. Good gun(One of the best anti-tank gun in the war), armor at least on par with the Tiger from the front thanks to the sloped front, and mobility and terrain passability that was better than the Sherman and on par with the Churchill. Its pretty much the granddaddy of MBTs.
If they fixed the final drive issue(I dunno, use the Tiger II's final drive instead? Those things drive a heavier machine and have lesser problems), the Panther would be perfect.

File: P-47Thunderbolt echelon.jpg (371KB, 1024x813px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1024x813px

>>13610754
If you can blow it away with superior air power and/or artillery, does it even matter?

>>13610586
You mean the same 76mm gun that Ike found sorely wanting when it finally saw action?

File: myth-busted.jpg (13KB, 500x243px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x243px

>>13610901
>fighter-bombers
>combat effective

>>13610901
It makes your soldiers look stupid, that's why.

>the real life equivalent of ITS A GUNDAAM is ITS A TIGEEEEER

>>13610867
>mobility and terrain passability that was better than the Sherman and on par with the Churchill.
That reminds me.
Everyone needs to watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38

>>13610901
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/

>>13610867
The Panther had shit reliability and the French stopped using the things in a few years because they were so bad.
Meanwhile the Sherman was in use until, what, the 90s?

>>13611264
>shit reliability
Only the final drive is a major problem which was never solved(and probably would be solved if they used a less complex final drive that could take the strain of propelling the Panther like the one on the Tiger II)
Towards the end of the war, the Panther, Sherman and T-34 all had similar breakdown rates, since the germans improved the Panther from the shitty Ausf A(Ausf A is the one that broke down regularly) to Ausf F.

Each Panther/Tiger breakdown was more detrimental to Germany than a Sherman/T-34 breaking down since the allies had a gorillion of those things to replace those that broke down and shit tons of resources to fix them while Germany was the opposite.

>>13611264
>The Panther had shit reliability and the French stopped using the things in a few years because they were so bad.

The French wanted to get rid of their Panthers for the sake of their own industry.

>>13610687
Repeating yourself is supposed to prove what exactly?

>>13610697
>And they never did deploy vehicles with that gun in large numbers

Proportionally small compared to 75mm Shermans does not mean it was deployed in small numbers.

>because they think that tanks shouldn't fight tanks

Doctrine for the US Army was that tanks were for fighting everything, including other tanks.

>>13610909
>Russian testing of their 85mm gun, at 500 meters and 90 degrees (vertical plate)
>111mm with BR-365 APHE
>138mm with BR-365P APCR

>British testing of Americas 76mm gun, at 500 meters and 90 degrees (vertical plate)
>110mm with M62 APC
>131mm with M79 AP
>208mm with M93 HVAP

>>13611631
>Doctrine for the US Army was that tanks were for fighting everything, including other tanks.

laughing McNair.jpg

>>13611750
>he thinks tank destroyer doctrine = tank doctrine

>>13611768
Both comprise what is collectively known as armor doctrine, which was all devised by the same group of retards in AGF.

File: panther-ausf-g.jpg (215KB, 800x984px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 800x984px

>>13611406
>Ausf A is the one that broke down regularly
The models chronologically went D, A, G and then F.
The D was the most unreliable because it had been thrown into service prematurely to fight at Kursk.
It's from those 1943 panther D's that you hear all the "prone to suddenly bursting into flames" and "gearbox attempts to eat itself constantly" stories.

>>13609734
>tfw the sherman went on to serve in other countries for decades after the war
>tfw the Israelis gave it a supergun

>>13611637
>>13610909
Can we all just agree that the QF 17 pdr is objectively better than either gun?

>>13612010
Yeah, its Ausf D, I got them mixed up.

>>13612010
>>13612032
All this talk of panthers
Meanwhile I just want to cuddle with a Pz38(t)

>>13593795
>>13593798
>>13593802
>tfw the Bundeswehr is a joke now
Wufei was right.

>>13612205
The problem with the Bundeswehr is that it does not have a lot of public support. The way segments of German society is skating around its ww2 history is partly to blame.

>>13611406
question, why no one even bother to improve WWII tank, nowadays?
for example, they could simply modify those Spur Gear into Herringbone Gear for the Panther's final drive train, if changing different drive train was a difficult task.
those task is doable nowadays, compared to the past technology.

i bet there's someone out there would like to see the full potential of those German tanks driving around, once the drive train was improved.
or is there any actual rules & regulations for military vehicle restoration, to prevent any alteration of parts?

>>13612358
That's ruining the historical value of the tank itself, yes. The closest you could get to having your suggestion implemented is if they built a replica. Which is hard, because some of these designs had their blueprints destroyed.

>>13612379
i think it doesn't ruining that much historical value of the tank if it's an internal minor modification like Panther's final drive train gear from spur to herringbone. maybe it's just me.

moreover tank blueprint could be unavailable or unusable due to ages & reasons, & not to mention some parts have to be rebuilt in a modern way as those was not-in-production relics part, or maybe replaced by modern parts for convenience.
replica was a good idea but the resources is pretty limited. chassis, blueprints, engines & everything. pretty much to say, like scratch build a tank.
a few internal modification doesn't hurt a tank's appearance i could say.

File: 142724488228.jpg (404KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1680x1050px

>>13612358
If you want a WW2 tank, but without all the bullshit that comes with operating 70 year old technology, just buy a modern armored vehicle and modify it to look like whatever WW2 tank you want.
See this Panther?
It's actually a T-54 or something.

>>13612476
I remember when they vizmodded a Leopard I to 'look' like a panther for A Bridge Too Far.
Good times.

>>13612358
The ones that are operational probably has a few parts replaced with with those with better materials here and there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dhPW_ksFcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUoziqAhmMU

>>13612476
Yeah, you see them do that kind of thing in stuff movies, like Kelly's Heroes and Saving Private Ryan, which feature Tigers that one look at the roadwheels tells you aren't Tigers.

And the you get stuff like Patton, which just paints a bunch of M41s (IIRC) tan or grey with a Balkenkreuz slapped on and calls it a day.

>>13612217
It's just silly how much they are trying to stay away from their history.
Yeah, we get it, the guys that used to be in charge did terrible stuff, why are they tiptoeing around muh ww2 history? Learn from it and move on.

>tfw that old man in Germany who had a Panther that he restored in his garage got it confiscated by the government despite it being demilitarised

>>13612205
>>13612217
Pretty sad desu

The Bundeswehr would be capable of so much more if the German public weren't such pussies

>>13612572
Hah, I remember that story. He even had a flak 36 down there.
I heard he sued for damages because the police ruined his ride when they were dragging it out.

>>13590064
Everyone is just jelly OP. You can't have seen much action though if it's a main battle tank. Better than being burned alive i suppose.

>>13612572
maybe German still have a a bunch of proud arrogant elitist living around somewhere.

Hitler promised to bring back the glory & wipe away the shame from German but failed miserably.

>>13612358
>question, why no one even bother to improve WWII tank, nowadays?

For what purpose?

It's probably cheaper to get T-55s if you just want any old tank, and compared to anything WW2, they're excellent machines.

>>13613139
Why not?
Making historical replicas would be helpful for museums and such, and then there's the people that want to get a WWII tank for collection, if they don't mind a replica with modern materials and no history.

Besides, there are tanks that needs entirely new parts because their original components were blown up. Even more so for stuff like the Maus since none of its internal parts survived the internal explosion back then, its just an empty hull sitting there.

>>13612531
>M41s (IIRC)

You don't; they were M48s.

>>13598202
>Does this mean you've finally mothballed the old Bulldog?
We had Bulldogs?
I know Singapore had AMX-13s(You can see one of them from the outside of one of our military camps) that we retired after the Leopard 2s.

And then some sources say we had Centurions way back but there are no confirmation on that.

>>13615486
Sorry, that was was Thailand. I'm an idiot, shoot me.

>>13613212
A group of Swiss are building Panthers or Tigers from scratches these days.

>>13591668
Chlejem?

>>13617129
I wish Hollywood would get in on that and quit using cosmetically altered Russian tanks that everyone can see has the wrong running gear; then we'll get to keep making WWII movies with suitable facsimiles of period tanks since Bovington's not likely to loan out the genuine articles again after film crews comprised of retarded monkeys fucked them up.

>>13619905
In Fury they fucked up a historically correct tank.

>>13619989
>Lent the real thing out to a movie filming crew
>Tank comes back to you worse than before
They even had to raise money to fix the Sherman, right?

>>13609622
>all these mobility problems
They could have just put them in a field or some other flat area and it would have been good.

>>13619905
The fact that Bovington still has that E8 dolled up as Fury speaks louder than your autistic rant.

File: bov3_684x.jpg (124KB, 684x456px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 684x456px

The Sherman that was used in Fury apparently looked like this when they returned it to the museum

>needs its tracks replaced, amongst other repairs, in order to get rolling again

File: shermanwingsdst.jpg (59KB, 640x385px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x385px

>>13620533
!

>>13619998
>>13619989
so... in Fury, do they really fucked up a tank real time or just CG stuff that make it looks like real damage?

>>13620473
Amusing non-sequitur.

File: 1428153660496.png (10KB, 174x195px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 174x195px

>>13620768
They shoot the Tiger for real! damn them.

File: IMG_4220.jpg (429KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1600x1200px

>>13620776
You shouldn't use words if you do not know what they mean.

>>13620768
The tank was 'damaged' from wear and tear, the money the museum has gained from the publicity far outstrips the cost of fixing the tank in question.

File: mad Hitler.jpg (13KB, 268x268px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 268x268px

>>13620778
fuck. FUCK!

>>13620784
doesn't tank museum dispatch their very own driver to make those maneuver or send their own repairman & watchmen, at least?

>>13620784
I didn't.

>>13602747

Sweden is angry tonight.

>>13602747
M1s get BTFO by third world rabble with obsolete weapons all the time.

>>13620784
The tracks were broken during the filming, iirc.

File: laughing_mooninite-ws.jpg (36KB, 248x250px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 248x250px

>>13620891
And they say that tank never breaks down...

>>13622565
Where are you getting this wild notion.
It's reliable, not unbreakable.

This is besides how it's several decades old and went through the hands of unappreciative film goons.

>>13590064
>Legs are inefficient and just slow you down
That's why unless it's a super robot thing real robot stuff on ground doesn't make a lot of sense. Legs aren't there for walking on a mecha. They are for kicking/being aerodynamic/containing booster type things.

This is also my theory of why Armored Core games aren't as good as they should be because too much combat takes place on the ground as opposed to Zone Of The Enders where even low altitude stuff has mostly floating.

>>13622582
If you partake in any tank threads on /a/ or /m/ you would be familiar with that autist, he never tries on /k/ due to how fast he would get BTFO.

>>13622728
>he never tries on /k/ due to how fast he would get BTFO

Projecting pretty hard there, son.

File: 1414596288667.jpg (47KB, 650x411px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 650x411px

>>13602059
>In that case the designers would have been better off not making an aeroplane that's over 10% gun and give it more than two hardpoints capable of carrying mavericks so it could carry more than four without melting the tyres on its landing gear.

The gun was mostly intended for softer targets (like APCs, IFVs, and everything else that isn't a tank) and rear quarter attacks on MBTs, (which are still decently effective because engine bay,) while missiles, rockets and bombs did the balance of fucking shit up in the Fulda Gap.

Plus the A-10 was always intended to be disposable on some level, same as the Skyhawk.

Like, the cost of a pilot, an A-10, and the munitions it's been fitted out with is a lot less than the cost of the dozens of armored vehicles that it's going to maul before it gets shot down by a MiG-29 or SA-19.

But that's also the thinking behind the Apache and most attack helicopters, along with most other Artillery and MLRS systems in current use.

Tanks are more or less essential to modern warfare, because they're the only persistent and survivable system on the battlefield that can maneuver and hold ground alongside the Infantry, while being more versatile than anything but the infantry, because it's a fast moving, well protected fucking huge gun.

So pretty much everything built in the cold war was built around dealing with tanks, or making sure that whatever the other guy has isn't fucking up your tanks. (Because Infantry are a secondary problem in mechanized warfare, and particularly in CBRN environments.)

>>13622783
Observation =/= projecting.

>>13623535
There's no basis whatsoever for your conclusion, therefore it can only be that you are projecting.

>>13623652
"No basis whatsoever" meaning how you never try /k/, the reason being easy to surmise with your usual failures on /a/ :^)

File: 22040338631_e9139727fa_o.jpg (141KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1600x1067px

>>13597918
>>13598124
>>13602059
>>13622900
The A-10 was designed to provide CAS and rotor aircraft escort based on experience in Vietnam, the notion that it was designed to do suicide runs on Soviet tank zergs is as meme tier as BRRRRT being its primary anti-tank weapon.

>>13624366
If that's really the only reason you can think of then it's a de facto admission that you are projecting.

File: MerkavaMk4_ZE001m.jpg (4MB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3000x2250px

>>13590064

>>13624429
>STOP CALLING ME OUT! YOU ARE PROJECTING!!!
>REEEEEEEEEEE

>>13626694
I can do that too; look!

>STOP CALLING ME OUT! I'M NOT PROJECTING!!!
>REEEEEEEEEEE

See?

>>13627876
Now that you have gone full circle you get to explain why you were defending lazy bait.

>>13628286
>Now that you have gone full circle

?

>you get to explain why you were defending lazy bait.

What bait?

>>13628368
It might do you well to read a response chain before sharing your opinion.

>>13628400
I've been following it since it started. Feel free to answer the question.

>>13628522
Clearly you haven't, as the question was already answered if you had.

>>13628655
I have, and the question still has yet to be answered.

>>13628666
Then you should know the answer to your question.

>>13628669
So there is no bait. Clarified.

>>13620885
to be honest, it's a pretty shit tank that use turbine engines, despite the armament was fine, generally.

seriously, who the fuck think turbine engine was good for tanks? those turbine was best slap onto planes.

>>13629500

>seriously, who the fuck think turbine engine was good for tanks?

Fucking everybody in the late 70s.

The Russian T-80 was also built to be the ultimate next generation soviet tank at the time, and had a turbine engine. They were not built in very large numbers, though, due to the price.

>>13590064
shini! kisama!

>>13630897
dunno, how does a gas turbine cope in extreme cold anyway, i know it's otherwise superior to a petrol or diesel...

>>13631002
That's ok, you don't want to invade Russia in wintertime anyway.

Nonetheless the US military lives and dies by its logistics support and that gas turbine on the M1 is part of the logistics game the Army plays.

>>13629500
Preaching to the choir there.

>>13630897
The Russians learned their lesson after the first time around in the Chechen conflicts.

>>13631002
>i know it's otherwise superior to a petrol or diesel

You are mistaken.

>>13631022
Pretty crooked and retarded game.

>>13631103
FUCK OFF PIERRE SPREY

>>13590064
>Legs are inefficient and just slow you down
They're just for show. The guys upstairs don't get that.

>>13631002
turbine work much more efficient at lower ambient temperature, according to Thermodynamics theory. you are transferring higher temp (engine) to lower temp (ambient) when the engine in work; the lower ambient temperature it will be more efficient.
at least it provide more comfortable heat in extreme cold weather.

if you mean superior, yes. but ONLY for plane propulsion instead of tank engines or locomotives purpose. you need a lot of time to ready those engine in running condition in all situation.

File: 4thTankBrigade_-_T-80U_-11.jpg (2MB, 2250x1425px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1425px

>>13631103
>drive tightly packed tank column with no infantry support into a urban setting with tall buildings
>get shreked by RPGs from all angles
>its the tanks fault, not the tactics

>>13628676
You mean that there was bait, since you said you followed the response chain.

>>13631103
The only advantage a diesel has is fuel consumption, pretty much every other quantifier is in a turbines favor.

>>13631758
Because that's totally what prompted them to revert to diesel, right?

>>13631764
I did follow the response chain; there was no bait.

>>13631772
Diesel is also vastly more reliable and less expensive to keep running. It can also get moving immediately from a cold start, which is handy in the event of certain developments that require the tank to start up and get moving IMMEDIATELY.

>>13631920
>Because that's totally what prompted them to revert to diesel, right?

Russia's T-80s still have their turbine's, the X-cylinder diesel in the Armata chassis is the first 'new' engine Russia has used since the Soviet union fell.

>I did follow the response chain

You have shown you haven't.

>Diesel is also vastly more reliable

Being more mechanically complex and more reliable is a contradiction.

>and less expensive to keep running.

Fuel consumption, which was already given.

>It can also get moving immediately from a cold start, which is handy in the event of certain developments that require the tank to start up and get moving IMMEDIATELY.

Diesel's do not turn on as fast as you appear to think, especially when they are cold.

>>13632563
>Russia's T-80s still have their turbine's

Later models don't. Something about the gas turbine obviously made it unsatisfactory to the point that they saw it necessary to change it back to diesel.

>You have shown you haven't.

Except I have; there is no bait.

>Being more mechanically complex and more reliable is a contradiction.

Simplicity does not guarantee reliability, nor does complexity necessarily entail unreliability. The results in practice speak for themselves.

>Fuel consumption, which was already given.

Also requires a great deal more systematic maintenance (and the facilities it necessitates) more frequently. Service life is also pathetic compared to diesel.

>Diesel's do not turn on as fast as you appear to think, especially when they are cold.

My family had a diesel car back in the day; it was perfectly capable of running on a cold startup. Gets going considerably faster than a gas turbine, I'll tell you that much right now.

gasoline turbines also puke out heat like its nobody's business.

>>13632791
Don't forget about that jet fuel; shit lights up with alarming ease and is practically impossible to extinguish.

>>13632563
> mechanically complex
> Diesel
that's more to rigid, heavy duty than mechanical complex.

fixed few diesel engine when i was young. engine parts was rigid, heavy duty & less gap tolerance value compared to gasoline engine, but still it's a pretty simple mechanism when compared to gasoline, generally.
if you mean diesel fuel injector, it's complex. but when it WORK from the past, it WILL work for present & the future, unless some alteration was done or some unknown damage on the fuel injector.

diesel was the best choices as they provide more power & sturdy work compared to gasoline engine. gasoline engine was more to velocity job type while diesel engine was more to sturdy job type.

> Diesel's do not turn on as fast as you appear to think, especially when they are cold.
you need to turn on the heat switch for diesel engine for few seconds (probably 10 second or less, as the heater device specification was different from brands & locomotives), & later it will start like normal. failing to start, the heating process repeated again, but with few seconds.
after engine started, the heat generated later will provide more sturdy job for itself, as diesel works better when it get more heat.

turbine engine need to turn their fin blade to certain rotation (usually high RPM) before everything can be ignited & start. of course the air on ground is rich compared to the sky, but the problem is when turbine failed to start, you need to restart whole process again which was more time consuming.
bear in mind that to achieve high RPM in turbine you need more than a minutes. you can't speed up, example from 0 to 5000 RPM within seconds, like it was build from thin air, light weight stuff.
not to mention the motor driver that spin those fin blade to high RPM can be heated tremendously by itself during turbine startup, & need cooldown time when turbine failed to start, which prolong the starting sequence.

>>13632791
>>13632801
The Abrams was run on diesel for the first decade of its service, JP8 is used now because everything is run on it for logistical simplicity with helicopters. JP8 is also no more flammable than diesel.

Turbine exhaust is actually harder to see in thermal sights that diesel, read up on emissivity.

>>13632801
you could drop a match in jet fuel and it wouldn't ignite, what the fuck are you on?

>>13632756

>Later models don't. Something about the gas turbine obviously made it unsatisfactory to the point that they saw it necessary to change it back to diesel.

With the collapse of the USSR, the production line closed, and Russia was too fucking broke to re-open it, so they just found a satisfactory replacement engine and went with that.

>>13634854
>The Abrams was run on diesel for the first decade of its service

Yeah, that stuff doesn't burn as efficiently in a gas turbine and thus causes rapid fouling, which gas turbines are especially temperamental about.

>MUH LOGISTICS

It's rather amusing how much we wave our dicks about our logistical capabilities yet we can't manage just two different fuel types like every other military can. I suspect it may have had something to do with the aforementioned problem. Would've been exponentially easier and less expensive to just put a diesel engine in the tank.

>JP8 is also no more flammable than diesel.

I don't recall diesel being near impossible to extinguish.

>Turbine exhaust is actually harder to see in thermal sights that diesel

You mean gas turbine? That's not because the engine's shut off to save fuel, is it? Apparently that's pretty common practice.

>read up on emissivity.
>Emissivity is a measure of the efficiency in which a surface emits thermal energy.

What has that to do with the exhaust?

>>13634888
Pretty sure it wasn't matches that started all those spontaneous fuel fires.

>>13635355
And after their abysmal performance in the first Chechen conflict they realized that nothing of value was lost.

>>13635530
>whats emissivity
>spontaneous, unextinguishable fires
>diesel fuel fouls turbines

Thank you for the confirmation you have no clue and are relying on memes and nationalism.

>>13635811
Careful, he might actually be Pierre Sprey, from the fighter mafia.

>>13635811
>straw man
>ignorance of documented incidents
>what is residue
>ad hominem

Are you making some sort of half-assed attempt hypocritical humor?

>>13635871
>attempt at*

>>13635857
Speaking of memes...

>>13635875
Spreyposting is no meme.

>>13635871
>I don't know what it is so I will call it a straw man
>these documented incidents happened, trust me
>damage control

ok

File: PL-01_Concept_comparision.jpg (162KB, 1500x871px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1500x871px

>>13635875 >>13636396
Another anon here, you've still didn't answer his counter argumentation.

I actually know about Jet fuel on a personal basis, it is certain that it doesn't ignite from a burning match dropped into it, but it easily build up gas which can be ignited by a spark.
I'm not taking a side myself on the Turbine versus Diesel, each require very specific doctrine which may not work forever. Supply line are easier to attack today than it was before.

Turbine do have a very slow start up, and it burn so much fuel that you cannot go very far beyond your supply line (which become a problem if it's severed), on the bright side it is indeed easier to maintain and can burn a larger variety of fuel.
I don't know about its thermal signature but it cannot be lower than Diesel, not that it really matter (I don't believe in Stealth tank)

Diesel on the other hand start quickly and are much more economic. You can actually stay idle and jump-start it as needed or survive for month without fearing for your logistic, and albeit harder to maintain it is more than reliable enough to survive until a fight, at which point all odds are up.

>>13636396
>my straw man isn't a straw man
>denying existence of publicly available documents
>projection

Yep.

>>13637646
>I actually know about Jet fuel on a personal basis

In gas turbines? In aircraft or in ground vehicles?

>on the bright side it is indeed easier to maintain

Too bad it requires a LOT of it, and quite frequently.

>and can burn a larger variety of fuel

Already pointed out the problem with that.

>it cannot be lower than Diesel, not that it really matter (I don't believe in Stealth tank)

It's not just about detection, there's also the issue of being a proximity hazard; 1,700°F exhaust tends to have deleterious effects on anything and/or anyone in the immediate surroundings.

>Diesel [...] is more than reliable enough to survive until a fight, at which point all odds are up

That statement gives the impression that it becomes more liable to break down just from a development that in itself doesn't directly affect the engine. Please clarify.

>>13637646
Turbine exhaust is substantially more air than a diesel's, and air has extremely low emissivity.

File: crusher.jpg (156KB, 440x434px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 440x434px

>>13638036
> In gas turbines? In aircraft or in ground vehicles?
It doesn't make a difference, we are talking of the volatility of the fuel itself.

> Too bad it requires a LOT of it, and quite frequently.
No shit, I meant comparatively to a diesel. Those are very intricate. Surprisingly more than airplane although obviously the reason a jet-turbine will always cost more is because we are asking a lot more of it.
For ground vehicle however the red tapes disappear.

> It's not just about detection, there's also the issue of being a proximity hazard; 1,700°F exhaust tends to have deleterious effects on anything and/or anyone in the immediate surroundings.
Good point, I did forgot that consequences. Very critical around fellow infantry.

> That statement gives the impression that it becomes more liable to break down just from a development that in itself doesn't directly affect the engine. Please clarify.
I mean that what you only need to guaranty an engine to last until the next fight or and work during the fight. Beyond that you don't ask it to survive a direct hit and their complexity don't matter (too) much since it will be switched and sent to factory.

Said another way there's an upper limit beyond which reliability don't matter as much.
Example posted about WWII : the Russian T-34 was technologically inferior to the Sherman, but it was cheap enough to compensate it entirely.

File: BAE_Systems_ADAPTIV_Thermal_IR_Infrared_Adaptive_Camouflage_Invisibility_Cloak_Armor_Technology_3.jpg (508KB, 1024x662px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1024x662px

>>13638038
It doesn't matter much to modern IR sensor.
The Gulf war taught that even hidden in the sand, the heat accumulated during the day wouldn't dissipate fast enough

This is why BAE research are trying not to make a char invisible but make it look like something else than a tank.Not that I would bet on it. I don't think it would work even for a powered down boat with lot of water to dissipate its heat.

Recently it's been hinted at that even Nuclear Submarine couldn't hide anymore.

>>13638319
>Those are very intricate.

Fortunately they're not nearly as temperamental.

>the reason a jet-turbine will always cost more is because we are asking a lot more of it

Pretty sure there's more to it than that; procurement is one thing, but keeping the damn thing running will bleed you dry before you realize it.

>>13638319
The exhaust of a turbine is no where near 1700 degrees, these are not the same as aircraft engines.

>>13638348
If you are close enough to see a submarine with a thermal sight, you would already have detected it.

Also, Barracuda MCS.

>>13638693
The ability to locate a nuke sub's wake from orbit was demonstrated in the late 70s with Seasat. Seasat took measurements across most of the EM spectrum so I'm not sure whether or not it picked the wake via their thermal signature or not.

>>13635530

>And after their abysmal performance in the first Chechen conflict they realized that nothing of value was lost.

This is pretty much a meme spread by 1990s armchair generals. Very few T-80s went to Chechnya, and there's basically no reliable information on how well they did. Probably shitty, but that's no different from the rest of the USSR's armored forces deployed there. They were not prepared to fight a bunch of angry goatfuckers planting bombs everywhere and shooting rockets out of the sewers.

Ultimately, the move to the T-90 based on the T-72 was for (valid) budgetary reasons.

>>13598676
Walker Gear?

File: WP_original-aircraft_1024.jpg (570KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 1024x768px

>>13590064
Tanks are shit, jets are better.

File: Sukhoi fun.webm (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>13639915

File: whateva.jpg (156KB, 340x221px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 340x221px

>>13590064
mfw

>>13639925
>playing in background in original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIVijJWiIrQ

Is of slav plane, very squat form! Make dance in sky!

>>13638348
>Recently it's been hinted at that even Nuclear Submarine couldn't hide anymore.
Things hinted at tend to turn out to have been bullshit all along.

>>13639925
It's even better with music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w64XFQlZi0

File: SU-35.webm (722KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1280x720px

>>13640587
>>13640596

Is it ok to be a weeb in the military? Like outside of the Air Force or gay Intel jobs.

>>13640922
I'm sure the Navy is ok with it, it's nerd central over there last I checked.

>>13640926
King Nekketsu did double-duty in the Navy and suit work for bugman stage shows.

>>13641018
I really miss him, though I hear he's left Japan and is somewhere else now. Really cool guy, I found him to be an inspiration.

>>13641018
Could've sworn one of the other old guard tripfags from here was a submariner too.

File: FCS-MULE-ARV-2007.jpg (58KB, 497x380px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 497x380px

>>13638536
> Pretty sure there's more to it than that; procurement is one thing, but keeping the damn thing running will bleed you dry before you realize it.

There's more in that a jet engine must NEVER stop unless you told it too, must be extremely light, "electrically-harmonized" (you can destroy a plane just with its static charge) and overall operate at the very limit of what is feasible... unlike a turbine for ground vehicle which can afford dead-mass and to be temperamental.
Some criteria are common to both (ex: Foreign Object survival) but the added work to achieve FAA/EASA reliability for airworthiness increase the cost a LOT.
That's how a WC door go from 50$ to 10000$ to be fireproof and don't generate spark.

In any case, all this is not important since both Diesel/Turbine are above requirement, what matter is the fundamental difference like the fuel consumption, type of fuel, spooling time...etc

>>13638675
You are right, they aren't. I didn't thought to check that number (even if obvious) because the Turbine is too damn hot for surrounding troops anyway.

>>13638693
I meant that as in "we will soon know the position of any nuclear submarine anywhere on the planet", there is many way to scan the ocean and no big difference between scientific satellite and spy satellite.

> Barracuda MCS
You can reshape your heat signature but never hide it. That's why all air-fighter are getting IR sensor now. Shitty F-35 has 360° up to 50km.
Of course, if you can prevent sensor to automatically recognize you as a tank/truck/plan, this is already very valuable.

>>13638675
The design may be different but the function is the same (it even runs on jet fuel!) and the exhaust is hot enough to light up the surroundings.

>>13641643
>turbine for ground vehicle which can afford [...] to be temperamental

Just because it can doesn't mean it should be acceptable; not only is it a waste of time, manpower, resources and capital that could've been easily avoided with a properly maintained diesel engine, it also screws over availability and combat readiness. It's grossly inefficient and utterly unnecessary.

>Some criteria are common to both (ex: Foreign Object survival)

It goes without saying that you tend to find exponentially more foreign objects down on the ground than in the air.

>what matter is the fundamental difference like the fuel consumption, type of fuel, spooling time...etc

I agree, and as far as that's concerned my national military's standards are unacceptably low and their priorities pants-on-head retarded.

>the Turbine is too damn hot for surrounding troops anyway

Also dry grass, foliage and, hell, even other tanks!

File: F-35B_Joint_Strike_Fighter_(thrust_vectoring_nozzle_and_lift_fan).png (213KB, 1800x940px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1800x940px

>>13642026
> Just because it can doesn't mean it should be acceptable
Well, it is acceptable if it doesn't mess too much with combat performance. The question being "is it already too much ?"

To go on unknown ground, there's plans for hybrid propulsion, a smaller turbine powering electric engine (with batteries as buffer), such design would greatly reduce the size needed for the turbine, cancel the spooling and instability while making great use of turbines' simplicity.

That said, I do think Diesel is a safer way to go for a while.
...and mechs would be more cost-efficient than F-35. Also Prey is right.

Forgot to answer that
> It goes without saying that you tend to find exponentially more foreign objects down on the ground than in the air.
But a tank can allow itself to have filters with barely any loss of efficiency and MUCH more robust turbines (and they don't risk meeting birds at 800km/h).
One can bring up the DUST, but it only force to change part more often, something moot if its "reliable enough" for its task and easy to change.

All this to say that ground turbine are one or two magnitude easier to use than aircraft turbines. Still have to beat Diesel of course.

You know, this is seriously making me consider...who is more like a mecha pilot, airship pilots or tank commanders?

>>13642281
>it is acceptable if it doesn't mess too much with combat performance

You get largely the same combat performance with longer average time between failures from a diesel engine for a fraction of the cost.

>The question being "is it already too much ?"

As far as cost and complications imposed by it, I'd say yes.

>there's plans for hybrid propulsion

I heard that was already a thing.

>I do think Diesel is a safer way to go

And exponentially more cost-effective.

>>13642323
>a tank can allow itself to have filters with barely any loss of efficiency

Is that why they had to stop every hour and a half to spend an hour cleaning out those filters in the Gulf War? Diesel-powered tanks like the Challenger didn't have that problem.

>and they don't risk meeting birds at 800km/h

Birstrikes are not guaranteed and are apparently not all that common; ingestion and accumulation of dust is guaranteed.

>DUST [...] only force to change part more often

Again, an easily avoidable and utterly unnecessary expenditure of time, effort, resources and capital.

>something moot if its "reliable enough"

My national military's standards have taken a serious nosedive over the decades, and I suspect it may be directly related to the rising trend of corporatist tendencies among the brass (both serving and retired) and congressmen.

>and easy to change

Which is excessively frequent given their temperamentality, and it certainly doesn't help that they have the lowest average service life of all modern tank engines.

>ground turbine are one or two magnitude easier to use than aircraft turbines

When they work, which they only do in short intervals.

>>13590064
mechs are basically just tanks with legs