what tank would /o/ own?

Panzer

File: Typhoon PORTADA.jpg (112KB, 900x471px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 900x471px

Can i have a Typhoon instead?
Was never big on tanks.

File: Tank_KV2_eastern_front_1941_6.jpg (48KB, 900x545px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 900x545px

meme tank

>>16683635
>pigfat
>cant turn
kek

>>16683658
get out aerofag

File: somua-s-35-06[1].png (308KB, 550x413px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 550x413px

S-35

File: 1445796785205.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

BT series tanks best tanks

always loved this.

No i am not a yank (Aussie)

File: M1A1_ABRAMS_TANK_weapon_military_tanks____ee_2494x1546.jpg (1MB, 2494x1546px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2494x1546px

>>16683699

>>16683696
Fun fact: You could actually remove the tracks from these and steer using a traditional wheel for greater speeds.

Probably a Cadillac Gage Stingray or a M8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrw20j0ga6Q

But I'd actually rather have a V-150 since they're street legal, paint it white with UN markings to freak out paranoids for the lols.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtEzeJmzSow

File: TOG2_Tank_Bovington.jpg (246KB, 1840x1032px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1840x1032px

TOG II
I've seen this in real life and its scary how big it is.

File: 9.jpg (79KB, 1024x623px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x623px

>tank
>not wanting something that's armored as well as amphibious and has the potential for road registration with legal dimensions and wheels

File: IMG_0145.jpg (171KB, 790x570px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 790x570px

Hi-tec Nippon steel.

File: Centurion.jpg (69KB, 640x458px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x458px

>>16683635
Centurion.
> Modern enough to be fun to drive.
> Sounds like a tank should; rumbly engine, clanking tracks, exhaust everywhere
> More reliable than Chieftains
> Still available in the wild in large numbers
> Still in service in some countries, so you can get parts

File: arl44-tank-paris[1].jpg (92KB, 650x454px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 650x454px

>>16683718
>posts the meme tank
Real monster coming through.

File: 7DfA6KM.gif (3MB, 484x337px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 484x337px

>>16683731
you want tank go into water? BT go into water.

>>16683731
>potential for road registration with legal dimensions and wheels

I'm british; you can register whatever the fuck you want to drive on the road, so long as you have a license for the weight and the tracks.
And you'll get fined if you chew the road up, so fit rubber pads.

>>16683744
But does it come out again?

>>16683751
We just build more BTs comrade.

>>16683751
Yeah, but it'll be far easier with wheels in most places. Also it's exceedingly hard to find tracked amphibious vehicles with legal dimensions. Only a few tracked vehicles are amphibious and most tracked vehicles are tanks and too wide for road legality.

t-34-85

>>16683731
You sound like someone is going to stop you from drive tank on the road?

>>16683788
I'd rather it not be the last thing I do in life.

File: AlvisStalwart.jpg (210KB, 1200x899px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1200x899px

>>16683766
Again, you can register whatever the fuck you want on the roads in britain.
If I wanted practicaly, I'd just drive my DD around. But if I want a tank, I want a goddamn tank, not a 'wheeled reconnaissance vehicle' that'll founder going across a muddy field.

File: 1200px-Leopard_2_A5_der_Bundeswehr[1].jpg (359KB, 1200x803px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1200x803px

Leopard A2 plz

>>16683806
I'll have you know that 99.12% of the global population don't like in the UK, and some of them post on /o/.

>>16683816
Then they're fucking cucked by tank control. aren't they?
Apparently the only issues with tank ownership in britain is applying for licenses for the guns. The machineguns are heavily rstricted. The main gun is a single-shot weapon, however, and is legislated like an air rifle.

>>16683708
The turbine made the Abrams basically the fastest MBT currently on the market (45ish MPH). In a conventional war I'd imagine some thrifty engineers would remove the limiter to get the full speed out of it (rumored to be about 65MPH but it overloads the suspension on bumps and eventually grenades the transmission)

the thing can run on almost any combustible fuel, meaning it can operate well in a full scale conventional war with minimal supply lines

the intake filter design means it can operate safely in sandstorms.
>the turbine rotates a shaped drum that spins the air before entering the turbine
>air passes through holes in the drum and the debris gets separated and ejected from the intake

for US Armed forces, they also have depleted uranium in the composite armor. Supposedly the overseas sold versions lack this.

the M1A3 diesel upgrade is only because
>easy access to thermally guided weapons, making the turbine an easy target
>diesel exhaust won't cook the infantry

in the rural areas, the M1A2 is the best choice, with the future M1A3 w/ TUSK being the urban variant

M1A1 units will remain in service until a targeted 2021+
M1A2, 2050
M1A3, likely the same as the A2

>>16683809
I assume you mean Leopard 2A6, the A2 is a 1980's relic

>>16683766
for legal road size, the largest tracked vehicle you'd find would be an IFV

>>16684098
The Abrams might be a fast piece of shit but that's the only thing going for it. To put things in perspective, let's compare the T-72 to Abrams:

>mobility

This can be further broken down into two metrics, tactical and strategic mobility. Tactical mobility is how well a tank can maneuver in combat. It's determined by things like fast a tank can drive off-road, how powerful the engine is, and so on. Strategic mobility is things like operational range, ease of transport and airlifting, etc.

The Abrams has a small advantage in power to weight ratio, but it's strategic mobility pales compared to the T-72. The T-72 is easier to transport due to being smaller and lighter, it uses much less fuel, and requires less frequent maintenance than the Abrams' turbine engine.

A tank is no use when it can't get to the fight. Any slight advantages in the Abrams' tactical mobility is completely out weighted by it's crippling shortcomings in strategic mobility.

Verdict: T-72 wins in mobility

>firepower

In modern times, this is a tricky comparison to make, since advances in ammunition and fire control are being continually developed and fielded. However, there are some key differences inherent to the design of these two tanks.

1. The T-72 has an autoloader, the Abrams does not. Unlike human loaders, autoloaders will never fatigue, can load while rapidly driving over rough terrain, and allows the tank to be made smaller and better protected. This gives the T-72 a decisive advantage over the Abrams.

2. The T-72 has a larger caliber gun, allowing more potential for developing stronker ammunition.

3. T-72's ability to fire missiles from it's gun barrel gives it greater flexibility than the Abrams

4. Any American superiority in fire control and electronics are nullified by the new T-72 variants now entering service.

Verdict: T-72 wins hands down in firepower

File: K2_Black_Panther_main_battle_tank_South_Korean_Army_South_Korea_002.jpg (85KB, 633x424px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 633x424px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro4yhp9L6Ok

>>16684098
It was revolutionary at the time, but then NATO meant everyone had to keep up with it.
And the T-80 is faster, when it works.
Multi-fuel engines have been standard since the wehrmacht.
Chobham armour has layers of all sorts of shit, mostly to defeat specific projectiles. Density changes to stop KE penetrators, ceramics to defeat shaped charges, etc.

>>16684177
Strategic mobility is eased by foreign policy. Stage tanks and ammo where you expect trouble, fly crews out there.

> Autoloaders
They jam. Human loaders don't tend to. Autoloaders can't fix tracks, cook, operate a machinegun, or load quickly. Or take a hit.

IIRC, the next variant isn't the A3. It's just incremental fixes to the A2.

>>16684098
>protection

Once again, this is a difficult comparison to make, since new types of ERA, composite armor, and active protection systems are being continually developed and fielded. However, there are still persistent inherent differences between these tanks, so let's compare them.

1. The shape of the T-72 is much smaller and lower than the Abrams, making it harder to hit in the first place and therefore more survivable.

2. The T-72's autoloader gives it a substantial advantage in ammunition safety. The turret can be made smaller and better sloped, and the ammunition is safely stored in the autoloader carousel close to the hull floor, whereas the entire back half of the Abrams turret is it's enormous exposed ammunition storage.

3. The Abrams uses depleted uranium for it's armor. DU fragments and dust are fatal to humans. The Abrams' armor will quite literally kill it's own crew if penetrated.

Verdict: T-72 wins in protection

tl;dr T-72 is a better tank than the Abrams in just about every relevant metric.

File: hqdefault.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

Too bad they're too expensive, even a fighter jet to display in your backyard is cheaper. I'll probably just build myself a small scale replica instead, they look really fun

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

File: kv2.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

seconding this

>>16684177
Fairytales Putin reads his teddy bear before bedtime.

File: Læffy.gif (868KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 300x169px

>>16684139
I dont know much about tanks, so I'll assume you're thinking of the one I have in my mind.

I was in the goddamned communications-battalion, not armor!

>>16684177
the T-72 is an odd beast. A Russian operated model that is well maintained and upgraded is basically a cheaper tank that can go toe to toe with an M1A1. But exported T-72s are often outdated and/or poorly operated.

in terms of "strategic mobility", the 120mm smoothbore was chosen for that reason. If you send an Abrams to any location NATO occupied (or where a NATO tank was sold), you don't have ship ammo unless you want DU rounds. the 120mm ammo design is basically cloned across all NATO tanks (except the Challenger 2 with Sabot rounds)

in limited war (ie most of what we see today) the T-72 thrives with a smaller supply line. in total war, the Abrams levels it with fuel flexibility.

as far as the missile system on the T-72 goes, it's only available on units produced from 1985 onwards, so most Non-Russian nations lack the capability.

conclusion: in an export fight, the average Abrams is superior to the average T-72. US updated and operated model vs latest Russian model, the T-72 is more cost effective.

neither model is well suited to urban environments though, given the T-72 core was designed for the fields of Europe and the M1 was designed to specifically combat the T-72 at the time.

my personal opinion is that tank development has stagnated since the berlin wall fell, we need a good war to convince the bean counters that tanks deserve a budget

>>16684203
>T-72 is a better tank than the Abrams in just about every relevant metric.
Every conflict that the T-72 has been in disagrees with this.

>>16684203
>3. The Abrams uses depleted uranium for it's armor. DU fragments and dust are fatal to humans. The Abrams' armor will quite literally kill it's own crew if penetrated.
if a modern tank round penetrates the crew cabin of any modern tank, almost everyone is dead anyway. Even kinetic rounds turn the pierced armor into shrapnel.
>>16684370
to his credit, most of the T-72s that have seen combat are mostly piloted by shitty crews and are 20 years out of date.

>>16684370
forgot to add that your posts are (mostly)False.
M1A1
Entered service 1986
Crew 4 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 57.15 t
Length (gun forward) 9.83 m
Hull length 7.92 m
Width 3.66 m
Height 2.44 m
Armament
Main gun 120-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 2 x 7.62-mm, 1 x 12.7-mm
Elevation range - 9 to + 20 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 40 rounds
Machine guns 12 400 x 7.62, 1 000 x 12.7
Mobility
Engine Avco Lycoming AGT1500 gas turbine
Engine power 1 500 hp
Maximum road speed 67 km/h
Range 465 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 40%
Vertical step 1 m
Trench 2.7 m
Fording 1.2 m
Fording (with preparation) 2 m
Armor via.HEAT=1480mm
T-72
Entered service 1973
Crew 3 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 41 t
Length (gun forward) 9.53 m
Hull length 6.86 m
Width 3.46 m
Height 2.19 m
Armament
Main gun 125-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 1 x 7.62-mm, 1 x 12.7-mm
Elevation range - 5 to + 14 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 39 rounds
Machine guns 2 000 x 7.62, 300 x 12.7
Mobility
Engine V-46 diesel
Engine power 780 hp
Maximum road speed 60 km/h
Range 500 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 40%
Vertical step 0.85 m
Trench 2.8 m
Fording 1.2 m
Fording (with preparation) 5 m
Armor via.HEAT=430mm

>>16684370
Russian tankery is shit. Iraqis were even worse, before they got perforated en masse.

Ethiopia has had a pretty good record with Soviet tanks, but they were invading Somalia with T-55s to take out islamists with technicals and RPGs.

>>16684209
nothing is more dangerous than an angry /o/tist who knows how to weld
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zRsmcIaB1Q

File: 20101026020110.jpg (251KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1600x1200px

Leopard 2-140 prototype, was meant to be fitted with an autoloader, too.

>>16684431
I fucking loved destroyed in seconds when i was younger.

>>16684432
they're working on a Leopard 3 I think, so the 140 might come back if NATO wants to move to that caliber. The Germans usually dictate what MBT cannon size is used in NATO

File: abrams with a 140 mm gun.jpg (89KB, 900x712px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 900x712px

>>16684432
Could be mounted on the M1A3 too.

File: M1autoloaderprototype.jpg (108KB, 900x722px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 900x722px

>>16684456
a 140 autoloader would be a monster

File: BT-2-Burning-Out.gif (3MB, 301x220px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 301x220px

>his tank cant do a burn out.

>>16684479
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-9uzLBtMtY

>>16684479
>13mm of armor

File: wr9m843ggicdhrupqdri.jpg (47KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x450px

I know it's not a tank, but it seems like it'd be great fun even if it can't crush the cars in front of you.

This or the M1128 famalam

>>16685347
oh and as for tracked probably the M270 MLRS because muh rockitz

>>16683649
>>16683635
>Wanting the shittiest, most unreliable tanks possible

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

2MB, 720x404px

>>16683809
Can't beat the Germans when it comes to tanks.

File: Czech T-54.jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>16683635
I'd get something that I actually have a chance of maintaining, i.e. pic related

>>16683731
also a good choice

>>16684370
monkey models and shitty crews are to blame tbqh

>>16683635
A few of the Russian Smerches are going to be discontinued from service so you might be able to drive those.
4 MPG here I come!

File: Animu Tanks 3.jpg (287KB, 2338x1700px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 2338x1700px

M2 is kawaii desu

File: Soviet_cavalry_tank_BT-7m.jpg (34KB, 484x331px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 484x331px

>>16683635
BT-7 so I can drive it on the road and go fast.

>>16683635
Def King Tiger like you posted OP

File: 1425762551734.jpg (54KB, 611x450px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 611x450px

>>16684512
>no armor
>no armament

File: 18482897720_dd96f8af0b.jpg (69KB, 500x339px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x339px

the cutest

>>16686014
the armored version is an Army technical demonstrator and not in production yet. the unarmored version is available for purchase

>>16683658
>Not a Tempest

File: 6507d4f068395a5279304a1266c43fd8.jpg (182KB, 872x551px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 872x551px

M551 Sheridan anything bigger and you are compensating

>>16686048
this guy gets it

File: 1460350372648.jpg (569KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1920x1080px

Like I care about reliability and armor, a PZIV would be dope

File: 15845502725_571cd8a6dd_o.jpg (129KB, 1350x1012px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1350x1012px

Magach 6B Gal Batash.

File: 1944-Buick-M18-Hellcat-Tank-Destroyer-front-three-quarters1.jpg (2MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1360px

>>16686398
I was just about to post this, fastest thing on tracks for over 40 years, the BT can suck a dick. Also 5:1 kill ratio against "superior" German armor.

>>16686416
>>16686416
It's not a tank though

>>16686333
didn't firing the main gun often knock out the missile system

File: Soviet_T-80.jpg (2MB, 3000x1997px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1997px

T-80

muh gas turbine
muh two weeks to the atlantic
muh reactive armor

>>16685578

Every tank made from the last few decades could do that

>>16686662

muh failed tank

>>16686685
I don't think chechnya is a fair trial of the tank, the Russians were bankrupt then and had untrained crews. They drove them into cities with no infantry support.

>tfw no more fulda gap

>>16686707

Chechnya was Russia's chance to prove themself, look at how that turned out

>muh untrained crews
>muh no money

Yeah whatever man

File: M551_Launch.jpg (37KB, 686x332px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 686x332px

>>16686640
at times yes its also aluminum and cant take more than a 50cal hit

so it's pretty much a Bradley Fighting Vehicle

>>16684098
muh

KV2 brah! Most troll tank ever built.

>>16684177
Mobility
T-64 and T-84 are the fastest soviet/post soviet tanks.
Firepower
120mm fires the projectile at higher velocity allowing more penetration. While HEAT does less damage.
Ukraine developed the KOMBAT missile being able to be fitted for 120mm guns.
Also Israelis did the same thing with their LAHAT missile.

>>16687718
'Fastest' does not mean 'most mobile'. Can you fire while moving, or maintain high speeds across rough terrain?

If you want mobility and striking power, then two ATGM teams in a Lynx win every time.
The two teams of men take up positions ahead of the advance and knock out some tanks, stall the advance, then the helicopter goes to town with it's own missiles, calls in artillery, and fucks off.

>>16689349
>The two teams of men take up positions ahead of the advance and knock out some tanks, stall the advance, then the helicopter goes to town with it's own missiles, calls in artillery, and fucks off.
>I don't understand Soviet doctrine
nigga that heli would be Swiss cheese before it got the chance to do jack shit

File: 1487247671980.jpg (305KB, 918x610px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 918x610px

Bless this thread, may many jews, arabs and niggers get squished by their wide tracks come the day of the uprising.

>/o/ discussing tanks
Civic, i-i mean civil.
>/o/ discussing cars
pic related

>>16689363
Haven't you seen what they do? They hide behind terrain. Can't shoot what you can't see. ATGM teams can hide under camoflage until the advance, fire off a few missiles, and leg it while hell falls upon their former home.
If Battlefield 2 taught me anything, it's that tankers fucking hate anti-tank missiles and they will stop at nothing to hunt you the fuck down.

File: 300px-TKS_P1010141_2.jpg (24KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x225px

>tfw no qt roadster tankette
Imagine one of these with modern engine tech

File: Sturmtiger-Minden-Ger.jpg (193KB, 1200x830px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1200x830px

b/c bigger gun = bigger fuck u

>>16686352
>FWD

File: 800px-M18_hellcat_side.jpg (130KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 800x600px

>>16683635
A Hellcat with a Hellcat engine swap.

>inb4 not a tank

File: A box with an 88 in it.jpg (56KB, 850x567px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 850x567px

What's the civic of the tonk world

What's the miata of the tonk world

>>16684177
>1. The T-72 has an autoloader, the Abrams does not. Unlike human loaders, autoloaders will never fatigue, can load while rapidly driving over rough terrain, and allows the tank to be made smaller and better protected.
Autoloaders can only autoload. The loader can load, fix equipment, and do many other task. In rough terrain, the gunner is the bottleneck in firing speed, not the loader. Fatigue doesn't matter in Cold War and modern macro doctrine, since most tanks aren't expected to survive long enough for it to become a problem. Ammunition switches are way easier with a human loader, and jams aren't as prevalent, and they're more easy to fix. The last thing is the nail in the coffin for the autoloader: the US Army will insist on a loader untill autoloaders can unfuck themselves. They never will. Next iteration of Abrams might feature an autoloader, with the loader functioning as backup and drone controller.
>2. The T-72 has a larger caliber gun, allowing more potential for developing stronker ammunition.
First off, 5mm isn't significant. Second, you could probably fit a 140-150mm gun in both, given the Leo2 140mm project. Third, it doesn't matter. The US has always had better kinetic penetrators, and Russia will always be playing catchup.
>3. T-72's ability to fire missiles from it's gun barrel gives it greater flexibility than the Abrams
The US tried gun-fired missiles in the past, and figured out that it doesn't work as good as a good serving of proper M829. The Russians are mostly abandoning it as well.
>4. Any American superiority in fire control and electronics are nullified by the new T-72 variants now entering service.
The T-72B3 packages consists mostly of a new gun, upgraded engine, and MORE ERA COMRADE. ERA is great against shaped charged and sandniggers with RPG's, not so much against the aforementioned serving of M829 APFSDS.

Verdict:
>T-72
>Relevant
Pick one, and only one.

>>16684203
>Once again, this is a difficult comparison to make
No it isn't.

>ERA
Irrilevant against modern kinetic penetrators.
>Composite armor + active protection
Not included in T-72 upgrades.
>Shape matters!
Not if your armor is worse - which it is.
>Autoloaders are safer!
They're a liability when they jam, that's what they are.
>Depleted uranium is bad for you health
Yup. So is depleted uranium when it comes flying through your T-72, because the ERA didn't stop it. At least the hull armor in the Abrams will only kill you after 20-30 years. The T-72 is immediately fatal in it's lack of protection.

To scuttle an M1A1, US troops couldn't even damage it with their own ammunition - which has been shown time and time again to be perfectly effective against T-72's.

File: hqdefault.jpg (43KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 480x360px

M24 Chaffe obviously, the cutest.

File: 600px-M1A1_HA_frontLOS.jpg (72KB, 600x556px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x556px

>>16684333
>the T-72 thrives with a smaller supply line.
[citation needed]

>Missile system
>Being relevant
Pick one.

>T-72 is more cost effective
How would they be cost effective if they can't penetrate the Abrams? Their newest Svinets (KEP) can only go through ~650mm @ 2000m, not nearly enough to reliably penetrate the M1A1 frontally, nevermind a newer model. I can't think of a singel 125mm HEAT round that'll go beyond 1000mm of penetration.

Meanwhile, M829A4 will reliably penetrate 850mm @ 2000m.

>my personal opinion is that tank development has stagnated since the berlin wall fell
You've been living under a rock then. You could line up one of every single tank that served in WW2, pit them against an Abrams (with plenty of ammo, of course), and the Abrams would still come out on top. Doctrine has changed massively, from Cold War with it's 2-minute survival rate, to asymmetric warfare right now. You also severely underestimate the greatness that is the current lineup of NATO tanks.

>>16684387
>>16684422
>>16685770
>muh monkey models
>muh shitty crews
Ruskiboos everyone.

>>16684387
>if a modern tank round penetrates the crew cabin of any modern tank,
Actually, I know of two former crew members who got lung cancer. Tanks themselves never got penetrated, but the dust created by the impacts was apparently enough to create massive health problems down the line.

>>16686640
Anon, the main gun WAS the missile system.

>>16686398
>tfw no M18 Hellcat to compliment your Army-themed Challenger Hellcat
Why live?

File: Magach.jpg (115KB, 1279x758px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1279x758px

Magach 7C

>>16689759
> Civic
T-72. Cheap. It's a decent-ish tank, but not superb. It does everything about average ish. It's cheap, and there's a huge used market and a wealth of aftermarket mods available.

> MX-5
CVR(T) series. Light, fast, and cheap. Aluminium unibody for strength and lightness, vast variety of mods, and is still maintained to current standards with new models.

>>16689939
No, the tanks are shit and cheap as well. It's just that the crews are awful as well, and the monkey models sold to the middle east are fucking terrible.
The Iraqi T-72 variant, the Lion of Babylon, was made worse so it could be locally produced. Fucking deathtrap.

>>16689759
I think think that the US is to tanks what Japan is to cars, so I'd say both the Civic tank and Miata tank should be American. The Civic then is probably the ubiquitous yet flawed M60, and the Miata is of course a Hellcat.

File: IMG_0221.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>not already owning a tank in 2017 already
Come on now

File: IMG_0218.jpg (117KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 768x1024px

>>16690063
More shity pics

>>16690063
>>16690075

My grandpa owns a salvaged Patton he bought at an auction but all he uses it for is to drink in the cupola and blast johnny cash whenever we come over

Will post pics if the thread is still up by tuesday

>>16690063
What tank is that?

File: IMG_0219.jpg (105KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 768x1024px

>>16690075
Pew pew

>>16690131

>vans

you must 18 to be here

>>16683809
its road legal right ?

>>16690146
What do you want to wear sandals with straps like you? old fart

File: 1944-buick-m18-hellcat-tank-destroyer-front-three-quarters-view-in-motion.jpg (406KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 2048x1360px

>>16683635
i've always wanted a hellcat. it gave me a massive boner when Dodge announced they were naming their most powerful cars after those beauts

>>16689973
>Army-themed Challenger Hellcat
that sounds sexy as fuck

File: 1465239430195.jpg (221KB, 1214x753px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1214x753px

I wouldn't own a tank, but I'd own an assault gun

File: ChKPqkqW4AAmO7h.jpg (46KB, 600x478px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x478px

>>16690230

File: M25 Chaffee, or mini pershing.jpg (216KB, 1200x914px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1200x914px

If /o/ wants street legal tanks try any of japan's recent tanks.

They're specifically made to be lightweight as to not destroy bridges if nipland was ever invaded, and their treads are meant as to not fuck up urban roads too much.

iirc that's why tanks don't ever parade on non-specified streets and why parade streets look different that normal roads.

A chaffee would be pretty aesthetic though, a tiny pershing capable of sick skids

>>16690212
>it gave me a massive boner when Dodge announced they were naming their most powerful cars after those beauts
It's named after the Grumman Hellcat (the airplane) , not the tank destroyer. I also think Buick, and by extension GM, would throw quite the bitchfit if they said it was named after the M18.

Too bad, because then they could've named the upcoming Demon as Wolverine.

File: TOYOTA COROLLA.jpg (51KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x400px

>>16683635
ahem

>>16690256
nice. i'd like to do that to my charger if it wasn't canadian. might actually do it when i build the 318 mopar i've planned for her

>>16690278
you're right. gm wouldn't be happy about that. well, it's still a nod to the military so my erection won't be affected too badly

File: L30.jpg (38KB, 544x378px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 544x378px

>>16690267
why don't they follow the swedes with tyres that can be lowered?

>>16686398
The only correct answer itt

File: Wiesel_1_TOW.jpg (498KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 1280x960px

>>16689559
sup

>>16684203
>3. The Abrams uses depleted uranium for it's armor. DU fragments and dust are fatal to humans. The Abrams' armor will quite literally kill it's own crew if penetrated.
If the T72 is hit, because it doesn't have blow-out panels IIRC, it'll fucking light the ammo racks and toss the turret. This has been seen in almost every dead T72. Abrams will lose it's ammunition, but the crew will be alive to escape.

>>16692498
>Abrams will lose it's ammunition, but the crew will be alive to escape.
assuming they closed the doors to the ammo. US crews do it, but not as much for the exported units

>>16692498
>DU fragments and dust are fatal to humans.
well you're not supposed to grind it up and snort it moron

File: 10TP_8b.jpg (85KB, 1000x544px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x544px

>>16690393
Because most tanks can be driven without their tracks on roads.
this is why they have rubber wheels.

File: IMG_20170218_223734.jpg (4MB, 4048x3036px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4048x3036px

>>16683635
I kind of have one. Although it's a bit more plastic than what OP was hinting at.

File: 6a26a984af616ef1f9f40071140d35436e4c4559.jpg (27KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 680x680px

>>16692655
2/10

File: 1466096843665.jpg (91KB, 630x565px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 630x565px

Ill leave this right here...

http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (196KB, 1280x730px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x730px

How about a sweet airborne IFV yeeeeahhh

>>16689797

>>Depleted uranium is bad for you health
>Yup. So is depleted uranium when it comes flying through your T-72, because the ERA didn't stop it.

I just fucking died

>>16683635
I'd take an Abrams with the turret replaced with a C-RAM. It's got more target flexibility than the 120, and provides automated protection against incoming artillery. Cons are less protection against RPGs and practically zero effectiveness versus modern MBTs. Fortunately, that's why infantry and air support exist.

>>16684203
>The Abrams uses depleted uranium for it's armor. DU fragments and dust are fatal to humans. The Abrams' armor will quite literally kill it's own crew if penetrated.

HEAVY
METAL
POISONING

You have to ingest the stuff, and a fair bit of it too.
Cite a single CONFIRMED source of anyone dying from DU exposure they received while in military service.

>>16690097
Looks like a Sherman.

>>16693236
Not him, but source: a close friend of my uncle. Served as an M1 crewmember in the Gulf War, got lung cancer, a big payout from the army, and and got to live off that payout untill he died.

>>16689595
bigger disability of any movement

>>16684203
>The Abrams' armor will quite literally kill it's own crew if penetrated.
That's the least of the crew's worries if the armour is penetrated.
I mean, you don't see any iraqi tankers bitching about DU poisoning from the shells that hit their tanks, do you? No. They are dead.

>>16692509
DU is pyrophoric. It catches fire in air at high velocity. That's why DU projectiles are so nasty; they hit the armour, penetrate, and then enter the gap surrounded by their own flaming dust.

>>16693236
Gulf War Syndrome from poking around destroyed iraqi tanks and anything hit by the ubiquitous DU projeciles.

File: m3.jpg (220KB, 1280x886px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1280x886px

>roomy
>comfy
>easy to maintain
>several guns to choose from

sadly forgotten

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

507KB, 720x500px

>>16692217
wiesel a CUTE

>>16693713
>bait
>bait
>bait
>bait

rightfully forgotten

>>16693766
shut up faggot

File: 1379212072211.jpg (265KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1280x960px

meep meep.

can be maintained by off the shelf VAG parts.

File: 1452302053170.jpg (17KB, 300x192px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x192px

>>16693766

>>16693846
> Off the shelf VAG autocannon
> Off the shelf VAG tracks
> Off the shelf VAG sloped armour plate
> Off the shelf VAG tracked vehicle road wheels
Suuure.

>>16694021

The engine components you dope.

Wiesel 1: 2.1 L Audi 5-cylinder in-line turbo-diesel
Wiesel 2: 1.9 L Volkswagen Straight-4 turbo-diesel with direct-injection

The idea was to be able to raid VAG stores everywhere for spare parts etc to keep it running in case of war. Your supply chain becomes less complex if you can borrow parts from civilian vehicles.

>>16694134
The lifespan of a military vehicle is far longer than the lifespan of any given civilian sector engine design.
By the time you need to do that, they won't be available.

>>16684098
The Leopard II is drives 45ish mph (70km/h) in normal mode as well, the operator can overrev the V12 multifuel turbodiesel if he presses a button to drive even faster speeds over 100km/h are common.
It also has 47000Nm of torque and 1500hp.
The Leopard II has high cyclon airfilters as well, wich remove 95% dof dust before the main filter.
It is also able to drive trew a river due to a snorkle, as long as the water in only up to 4 meters deep.
It also has the more powerfull version of the Rheinmatall 120mm Glattrohrkanone, the Abrams has a simmilar gun, but it is less powerfull.
The Leopard uses Tungstoncarbite penetrators in this gun, wich can penetrate more than the depleted uranium ones the Abrams uses due to the higher velocity.
It has 2 MG3 as secondary weapon systems, wich can fire 1300 rounds per minute each.

It also wins the tank olympics pretty often.

>>16684456
The Abrams turret couldn´t even handle the full power of the 120mm used in the Leopard II, so I doubt it could handle a 150mm.

Theres going to be an inter-board tank tournement on War Thunder.
Join https://discord.gg/RMPNnaw to represent /o/

>>16685578
>Can't beat the Germans when it comes to tanks.
Except in combat conditions, where complexity is a death sentence.

>>16694341
Well, german tanks had a pretty good K/D ratio the only problem was the amount of german tanks in most situations.

>>16694219
>The Leopard II is drives 45ish mph (70km/h) in normal mode as well, the operator can overrev the V12 multifuel turbodiesel if he presses a button to drive even faster speeds over 100km/h are common.
Common? Hell no. It's destructive on the transmission, treads and engine itself. It's considered a WEP (War Emergency Power) setting, and rightfully so.
>It also has the more powerfull version of the Rheinmatall 120mm Glattrohrkanone, the Abrams has a simmilar gun, but it is less powerfull.
The Abrams uses the exact same Rheinmetal smoothbore gun, it's just a barrel difference.
>The Leopard uses Tungstoncarbite penetrators in this gun, wich can penetrate more than the depleted uranium ones the Abrams uses due to the higher velocity.
[citation needed]
Besides, the added velocity could be due to the 11 calibres of extra barrel length. Also, hgiher velocity does not equal higher penetration, since tungstencarbide is more prone to shattering than DU.
>It has 2 MG3 as secondary weapon systems, wich can fire 1300 rounds per minute each.
1300 RPM isn't a tactical advantage, it's a logistical problem.
>It also wins the tank olympics pretty often.

File: mGWGh.jpg (51KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x480px

>>16683635

>>16694644
That is litteraly reving the engine to 2850rpm and only increases the wearIt is common for the Leopard to be able to drive that fast, not to do most of the time.
>The Abrams uses the exact same Rheinmetal smoothbore gun, it's just a barrel difference.
The one of the Abrams is shorter and has a lower muzzle velocity, but this is /o/ not /k/.
>hgiher velocity does not equal higher penetration
The higher velocity is the entire point of a subcaliber penetrator in a smothbore canon.
>1300 RPM isn't a tactical advantage, it's a logistical problem.
It has 4750 rounds stored for these belt fed modernised MG-42s.

File: 1375434189867.jpg (34KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x600px

>>16694658
This nigga gets it.

File: 1481349045278.jpg (159KB, 1100x719px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1100x719px

Type 62 OwO. It's like a T-54 but more kawaii

>>16684257
woah

File: teyhnythn.jpg (1MB, 2858x1900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2858x1900px

PPPFFFFFF(fart sounds)

>> ctrl f challenger 2
>>no results

Ishygddt

File: A-10.jpg (2MB, 2353x1266px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2353x1266px

>>16683635
Do flying tanks count?

>>16694503
>problem was the amount of german tanks
Complex tanks are more difficult to produce, resulting in less tanks for battle.

>>16690256
olive green is the best color for cars after black/white/silver.

>>16683866
>machine gun heavily restricted
>Main gun legislated like an air rifle

what the fuck, England?

>>16702729
what? we should just be allowed to drive a fully functional, heavily-armed tank around? yes that's a really good idea considering how many shitskins keep pouring into this country.

...although, it would help reduce those numbers, maybe...

>>16694341
This was true in wwII but they learned since then.
Yes the leopard's combat systems are complicated, but the drivetrain is modular and the engine is a bulletproof diesel powerpack. Unlike the panther, leopard is not likely to break down and leave you stranded even if there is a malfunction.

>>16683736
If you go full speed, you can do a full 360 in it and then keep driving in same direction, if you have a loose surface, like a wet field or something. Also have fun with an unsynchronised first gear

>>16702973
>we should just be allowed to drive a fully functional, heavily-armed tank around?
I don't see why not, it's not like tank rampages are common in Britbongistan

>>16697392
type 62-chan is a qt

>>16700056
It's probably the two-piece ammo.

>>16703433
>it's not like tank rampages are common in Britbongistan
Because they get two gallons to the mile. We literally can't afford to fill the fucking thing up.

>>16703533
The same two-piece ammo that's NATO standard and has been since the days of 105mm?

>>16690097
M47 Patton