Abrams - why?

The Abrams being a gas guzzler is a meme considering it actually has the logistical power to keep it fed. I mean, it's not like it was part of the fastest armored spearhead in military history.

you sound poor

Mean miles before failure - 152.
Most of the Abrams ever built are now unserviceable and sit in the desert being cannibalised for parts.

Attached: 1419281159448.png (390x470, 12K)

they already have lots of them and it made some jew in washington a lot of money

Bait thread but you got me

>Heavy
Suspension carries that weight and the engine moves it around quite nicely
>Crippling logistical footprint
Good thing we have the best logistical machine to back it up
>Gas guzzling
More efficient than diesel, can also take quite literally any fuel
>Does nothing better than any other tanks in service
[Citation needed]

>Suspension carries that weight and the engine moves it around quite nicely
Why does it need that weight to nothing better than lihter tanks?
>Good thing we have the best logistical machine to back it up
massive use of resources that could be used for more useful things and you're proud of it?
>More efficient than diesel, can also take quite literally any fuel
terrible, terrible mileage even by MBT standards. followed by a fleet of vulnerable fuelers. Constant stop-start to refule means lousy operational momentum.
>[Citation needed]
Name one.

Armor layout is much better than it's peers. It has composite armor around its mantlet and lower front plate. Leo2 is probably its closest competitor but is lacking in armor on the sides in comparison. Leo 2 hull might be weaker at the front as well.

(you)

The M-1 Is by far the best combat vehicle in the world because of its crews. The us tank crews have overcome every climate every enviroment and come out on top every time. The machine is nice but the crews are what make the US M-1 Main battle tank the BOSS of the worlds armor. If i was wrong in any way the US wouldnt be top of the global food chain :)

it creates jobs

It would have been even faster if you needed less logistics.

And while it may not be an issue for a nation who spends as much on their sand nigger invasion force as the next 15 countries combined, it is an issue for any export customer.

>More efficient than diesel, can also take quite literally any fuel
Just no.

Also, multi-fuel diesels has been a thing for decades.

>>Does nothing better than any other tanks in service
>[Citation needed]
Then name something it does better then say a French Leclerc, ROK K2 or German Leopard 2?

Is that why they keep loosing SETC?

Is it true that the Abrams could run on whale oil?

The Abrams does have some other fuels it can use, but I'm not sure about that one. Sounds more like the Chieftain, which was supposed to be able to use pretty much anything without suffering any loss of quality...because the engine quality fucking sucked no matter what you put in it.

Attached: 1492805221062.jpg (800x582, 64K)

Yes. The problem is fitting a whale into the fuel tank.
GDLS has released information about a prototype mobile whale press about the size of a small office building that can be shipped alongside armor deployments to provide whale oil on the go in the event US forces should discover one. Beached whales, no longer an unsightly cetacean mess, are now a logistical opportunity for Abrams tankers everywhere there's a suitable body of water.

On marches, yes it is more efficient than diesels. When it's idling, it's not as efficient (but that's why we have APUs, don't we?)

>Then name something it does better then say a French Leclerc, ROK K2 or German Leopard 2?
ergos, fuel choices, torque, acceleration, maneuverability, quieter engine

For the purposes of the US military, it's perfect. There's a reason we're keeping them until 2050.

>The engine can use a variety of fuels, includingjet fuel,gasoline,dieselandMarine Diesel.[2]
If it burns, it can be used

Literally a death trap

Then I feel really bad for anyone who has had to ride in another tank.

Problem is, you infact spend a lot of time ideling with a tank, no matter wich one you choose. As you say, there are some advantages with a turbine, but there are also a lot of disadvantages, and they seem to outweigh the advantages, considering noone else kept the concept.

>For the purposes of the US military, it's perfect
That doesnt mean its generally better, it just means it suits your doctrine very well. The S-tank was perfect for Sweden, as it suited their doctrine, but that didnt make it an overall great tank.

Crew survivability is probaly the only thing it is top tier on. If there is any tank I would want to be a crew of it would be that.

>Crew survivability is probaly the only thing it is top tier on.
Which is why the US scrambled to add Trophy before MAPS was even finished.

What? They decided to do that because the MAPS programe was going way to slow and they wanted an intreim system. Its not the tanks fault that the MAPS programe was poorly managed.

Always look for ways to improve. Thinking "We're good with this" means you will get overtaken and then be scrambling to play catch up. And if someone has something that looks more promising, don't be ashamed to choose that over something that may not work as well when finished.

The brutal-est of honesty.

Attached: blunt truth.jpg (620x387, 55K)

The tank is done. the future is about LAV's, arty, and airpower.

>and come out on top every time
Who have they fought? Only the worst army on earth with monkey models of moneky model T-72s crewed by half--trained demoralised conscripted Arabs with no air cover. Even then in Gulf War 2 the Abrams suffered heavy losses - 8% wasn't it?

t. turret tossing champion slavmobile

>Lousy operational momentum
Tell that to the Iraqis

>the man who can't read doctrine and won't read history

literally advocating a regression to second generation warfare

People has said that since the 60's user.

You mean the ones who escaped to keep Saddam in power in Gulf War 1 because the Abrams slowed everyone to a crawl? VII corps used over 8 million gallons of fuel of which over a quarter was used by 1800 Abrams to move 170 miles in 89 hours. Average speed 2mph due to the Abrams

>it is an issue for any export customer
America has no permanent customers or clients only interests

This actually took longer than I expected. Then again Jow Forums is a slow board.

>America has no permanent customers or clients only interests

Why would they need to be permanent?

>Ywn be a sandman who stumbles across a multi-billion dollar piece of military equipment just sitting there

Attached: thekiss.jpg (750x500, 384K)

i'm still waiting for the end of m113.

JP-(4,5,8) ARE diesel fuels.

The T14 will reign on the battlefields of the 21st century. The Abrams is done for.

>massive use of resources that could be used for more useful things and you're proud of it?
A strong logistics base isn't useful?

Yeah, all 5 of them.
Also
>*breaks down*

>*breaks down*
Who died for this?

Attached: 1526635665541.png (160x160, 11K)

Sure, but it's much larger than it needs to be because of the demands of the Abrams when other tanks with equally good if not better performance impose far less of a burden.

OP is just assblasted that he can't buy one,so he have to swallow that tin can cuckpard 2.

It's almost like the enemy gets a vote, and militaries have to occasionally adapt/create new systems in response...

Too bad Russian tank crews don't train that much to keep operating costs down, prolong the service life of the tank fleet, are underpaid, and get extorted by their NCOs and junior officers.

I applaud the use of ignorance.

The fact that a Leopard 2A4 beat a Leopard 2A6 shows you how much the individual tanks mean in SETC.

Are you a retard for real?

user was bragging about US tank crews, not the tank itself. And I pointed out that US tank crews usually loose against euro tank crews.

>Then name something it does better then say a French Leclerc, ROK K2 or German Leopard 2?

Ammunition selection, RWS, hard kill APS, blue force tracking, crew protection, IED protection, general protection against off angle hits.

Yes the US tied for second in the last SETC using a randomly picked platoon from the unit on rotation in Poland.

mobility in heavy, bogged down terrain thanks to that turbine, the lack of a standard diesel engine is its only real differentiating factor

Thats not true, they came 3rd, behind both krauts and austrians.

Also, they were not entirely randomly selected.

The US is probably the only country that can support such a device, russkies for example couldn't afford to use T-80s in chechenya

The Americans tied with the Germans last year.

You mean blending with 4GW.

Look buddy, when your military and tank is on top of the World with no hope of ANY military Coalition in the Current timeline of taking down the US War Machine, then you can talk shit.

Until sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and let us save your asses AGAIN.

Ruskies could barely afford to use a fucking mule with a cart in chechnya

If you cannot support a gas turbine engined tank you likely cannot support tanks in general given the percentage of your army’s overall fuel consumption they take up.

Russia’s problems in Chechnya were not a result of the equipment they used, although it was politically useful for UVZ to scapegoat a competitors vehicle.

>outrun your supply lines
>guise why are we low on gas

No. They did not. Germans got the silver alone.

Because they don’t do ties in the end, scorewise they were tied.

And the krauts did said points in less time, so thew won.

Time is part of the score.

Not in the last moment

I like you

youtube.com/watch?v=uuLzLt1Q7z8
squeaky whispering death my dude

Time is part of how the score is calculated, if they had the same score but the Germans were faster it would mean the Americans achieved better specific results.

>although it was politically useful for UVZ to scapegoat a competitors vehicle
Fucking this. The T-80's gas turbine worked fine. The issue was that it had the poor fortune to be the premiere, and thus spearhead tank in the major assaults in Chechnya. They took heavy casualties, yes, but assuming the same tactics no other tank would have fared any better. It just so happened that all the terrible pictures we saw of destroyed tanks were T-80s, which made it very easy to blame them for what was objectively one of the worst failures of military planning and strategy in modern history.

Attached: T-80.jpg (1024x648, 85K)

Are you bragging about a spearhead whose opposition surrendered the instant they realized the invasion had started?

>bragging about a tank so powerful the enemy doesn't even bother trying to fight it

Sure as shit sounds like it

"Gas guzzling" turbines are a meme since APUs were introduced. Turbines will fully replace diesels once full electric drive is introduced because they are superior with regards to mass, mechanical simplicity, and power density.

>Russians
>planning
Yes, well...

I liked the idea behind the t-35 tanks. But I would tweak it more modern designs of the cannon like the abrams but with a 2nd gun in the rear to cover sides and rear with another non-driving crew. Thinner profile but longer to work with a 2nd smaller cannon system

Attached: t35 tanky comrade.jpg (616x411, 66K)

Russia only makes monkey models.
Howelse would Russians use them?

Every country tried multi gun tanks. There's a reason why they never came back.

like an up-gunned lvt(a1)?

True, but I think with newer viewing technologies and less load on batteries it might be worth exploring a prototype again. Auto loaders have come a long way, night/thermal vision cameras, etc.
Kinda, but lower like an abrams and thinner if possible.

yeah, like remote rear-corner guns set below the back deck of the main turret

I also feel the next major war is going to involve cities and suburbs. Thinner tanks would be a plus, but also all the building corners and building corners so tightly packed will be a huge danger to a normal tank. But in that setting you may have to hit into a brick building or right below rooftop with a cannon and not just machine gun spray. All while still moving to not get cornered.
Correct but I will most likely want more blast radius or vehicle disabling. 1 guy active on it would be best while the rest pay attention to the front.

give it to the vehicle commander on a CCTC setup just below the cupola ring?

I'm thinking light repeating guns in the 20-35mm autocannon range

>I also feel the next major war is going to involve cities and suburbs. Thinner tanks would be a plus, but also all the building corners and building corners so tightly packed will be a huge danger to a normal tank. But in that setting you may have to hit into a brick building or right below rooftop with a cannon and not just machine gun spray. All while still moving to not get cornered.
APCs are a thing.

No.

Yeah that is why prototypes need to be made, you want that 360 with your main and second cannon but I think 2 systems would work better as long as your driving gets the notes.
Those can also be attached to the rear gunner as secondary. Dont think we need to worry so much about aircraft. for now.
This is more to deliver heavier damage with heavier armor. APCs are nice to be behind in a pinch, but tanks are just better at taking hits.
Basically just throwing ideas out there. It never hurts to brainstorm and find something awesome can now be done that couldnt before.

Attached: Itty Bitty Shotty Thingy.png (598x412, 366K)

You forgot the most important part: multi-fuel capability. We run 'em on JP-8 because it's kindest on the parts, but if you needed to, you could use Gas, Diesel, or even canola oil. This is much easier in a turbine design than in a piston engine.

>emily blunt will NEVER step on your balls
just die in my sleep already
( ._.) ( ;_;)

>Multi billion
Your a fucking idiot

was thinking more technical and LAV engagement with advanced warheads and penetrators, not aircraft defense, you even mount them as casemates (or a combination of casemate or sponson and "chin" mount HUD-controlled) on the rear quarters of the turret, which would let you expand the turret deck, using them as a counterbalance against the main gun- more room for the secondary magazines, I assume compact autoloader feeds to make them chainguns, and use whatever space is left to enhance the crew positions