ITT - Tanks

Would the M1 actually dominate the modern conventional battlefield?

>also, tank thread

Attached: 20160711adf8526162_025.jpg (3600x2400, 1.62M)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raseiniai
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

If it is well supported it will definitely be a force to be reckoned with

Attached: 20160903RAE8602292-8.jpg (3600x2395, 793K)

that is a must to any tank,a lone tank is basically soviet bias tier if you are lucky enough and the enemy is dumb enough.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raseiniai

Attached: 1519589153093.jpg (2048x1365, 437K)

As long as the crew is competent and get enough ammo and fuel.

OD Abrams makes me feel tingly.

Attached: 1521842674106.jpg (3267x1838, 3.22M)

UNF

Attached: 1527333421290.jpg (1600x1701, 511K)

Challenger 2 maybe. It is heavy as fuck but what is a tank if not heavy. The bongs keep them to themselves.

For opening up other vehicles on the field, navigating through tough terrain including barbed wire trenches, or rapid response, I challange you to find a better balanced vehicle. Merkava has it beat for strictly urban combat while the Leclerc would beat it in a race, but then again the former can't navigate a steep incline without flipping over and the latter would be penetrated by an angry glare.

Combined arms managed through the Integrated Battlefield Command will dominate any adversary

Is the Challanger 2 still the heaviest armored NATO tank? When was the last time it had a major revision? Either way, it is in dire need of a new gun.

holy jesus,abrams have so much shit glued in the turret,that i ask myself if the main gun is main anymore.

Attached: lw_helmet_crop.jpg (800x655, 643K)

Attached: 1527317292733.jpg (2830x1890, 3.63M)

The gun itself only really fires HE and support ammunition. Bong tanks have been relying on cannon-fired AT missiles for a while now.

>OD Abrams makes me feel tingly.
You need to talk to your Chaplin, and check for STDs

>we will see OD Green painted M1A2 SEP V3s with the Trophy APS in our lifetimes

God I'm ready

Attached: 1416958325577.jpg (800x493, 105K)

Like all modern MBT's, a properly supported Abrams is a sledgehammer on the modern battlefield.

Attached: abrams_trophy_poland2.jpg (960x664, 62K)

Attached: 1526200162707.jpg (1600x1200, 268K)

it...it's not like that! M1-senpai would never...baka.

heh, the sherman was shit. It couldn't even survive a single hi-

Attached: 1525380295750.jpg (736x453, 70K)

hey lard fat,hard arterries don't stop bu-

Attached: 1528718696639.jpg (600x400, 63K)

Not a white flag in sight!

>what is spalling.
any one of those would have been enough to kill the entire crew.

Attached: 1507584495548.jpg (600x315, 50K)

>The gun itself only really fires HE and support ammunition.

The Challenger 2 fires very capable DU fin just like every other tank in NATO and for a long time was the only tank in NATO to make use of an L/55 main gun until the advent of the Leopard 2's L/55.

Attached: what.jpg (225x224, 8K)

Attached: 1527288569375.jpg (4057x2840, 1.39M)

Attached: 1527319589839.jpg (1840x1449, 367K)

It had a 55 caliber gun and yet its ammo holds it back to M829A2/DM33 performance out of an L/44.

Attached: 1524538941623.jpg (800x523, 153K)

The actual LOS penetration capability of the CHARM 3 is classified so it's not like anyone on this board, including you, would know what it is anyway.

Attached: Preview (3).jpg (650x433, 95K)

i still believe if the nato x soviets started a war,it would be the most aesthetic war in the universe.
now all we have is sandniggers against terminator countries because sandniggers are too dumb to see the folly of their actions.

90% of all wars today are fought with NATO x Soviet equipment, and have been for the past 60 years.

Attached: 1516464521194.jpg (1920x1080, 772K)

but where are the soviets?it's not the same thing.
it lacks that "good x evil" feeling.nowadays kids think that being a commie is the best thing ever,the soviets died,but they won the war.

You're just gonna have to wait for the eventual China + BRICS vs NATO + Partners conflict.

Attached: 1511405868335.jpg (1209x776, 209K)

this, at least the russians were/are hard

we don't even get to fight anymore, these islamics just light fuse and run away or take potshots from across a valley. say what you will about the commie scum but at least they would have stood their ground and fought.

>brics with china
i could understand russia but why brazil must get to fight against nato?it makes no sense,the americans are so close,it's a waste of time.
india and south africa are "closer" to china.

Based Al-Qaeda T-90

Attached: HTST90.jpg (1200x673, 154K)

You think obscure NATO countries like Montenegro are gonna join the fight too? BRICs is an alliance just like NATO, but not all of them would join in.

>what is spall liner

I actually read about it yesterday. This was the thickest part of the tank. Behind armour there was transmission, behind it a wall 20-30mm thick.

Also, it's genius how you could just unscrew the whole thing and replace/repair it.
Compaired to german or other tanks, where you had to take everything out through small hatches or take off the turret.
Sherman was God tier in maintenance terms.

>those deflections
I can hear the ricochet in my head

Attached: 1521249440645.jpg (418x745, 82K)

Thats the transmission cover, the crew isn't directly behind it.

It's 90's era ammunition and its general dimensions make it physically impossible to be on par with newer 120mm APFSDS.

>OD hull
>top equipment is light colored tan

You know that actually blends really well.

>Would the M1 actually dominate the modern conventional battlefield?

No, but a whole bunch of them and their supporting elements would probably beat just about any comparably sized fighting element in the world.

>equipment that ranges from serviceable to top-of-the-line
>the most and among the most recent institutional experience in large scale "symmetrical" armored warfare
>the most institutional experience coordinating large numbers of armored vehicles
>nominally literate, relatively well trained soldiers
>if all else fails, they'll have called in air support well in advance of anything failing.

The only instance of gun-fired missiles actually being used in combat I can find any evidence of is some M551s throwing some shillelaghs at an iraqi bunker in the gulf war, since they were going to be retired anyway.

so: sauce

To be fair, I feel like China and Brazil have a much bigger obligation to support their organization than Montenegro does.

does it even float tho?

Attached: tankboat4.jpg (1000x671, 222K)

lame

Attached: Project 1204 Shmel.jpg (1632x920, 594K)

Attached: Vosh-Class.jpg (800x533, 343K)

a e s t h e t i c

Attached: 141123_Grafenwoehr_JMTC_Koch_00311.jpg (1600x900, 138K)

>Eurobeat intensifies

Om german tanks you could unbolt a large piece on the front upper armor, and then use the crane on the turret to lift it out.

It wasnt as good as the sherman method, but not as bad as many would have it

The US basically invented system engineering during WW2. Thats why most of their stuff was just good enough, cheap enough, and synergied with other systems and industries.

Germany, england and most other countries basically had a kind of industrialised artisan design and manufacturing

I love the Leos sexy curves

Works really well in forests actually.
The new helmets and rigs om norways army was all CB/Tan
Blenda in really well in woodland, and works amazing in winter with snowcamo too

Attached: Abrams.jpg (1088x726, 314K)

What are those things on front of hull? Dozer blade attachement points?

The Abrams looks so much better in anything other than desert beige.

Attached: Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2018.webm (854x480, 2.62M)

Attached: Strong Europe Tank Challenge USA.webm (1280x720, 1.11M)

Okay, since we are talking about M1s why was it a must for the maker to put a gas turbine in it? Why couldn't they make due with a normal diesel engine like in Leos, Challengers, T90s, Merkavas or other 3rd gen MBTs?

There must be something that the gas turbine does better then a diesel engine for all the extra trouble of maintainence and more fuel consumption. Does it give more HP/Tonne?

Attached: hcZJj.jpg (1024x768, 145K)

Attached: abrams front.webm (1280x720, 1.97M)

Attached: M1A1 Abrams.jpg (3000x2000, 1.31M)

Attached: US Army M1A2 Abrams.jpg (2560x1600, 1.59M)

Attached: US Army M1A1 Abrams 0.jpg (4398x2474, 2.09M)

Attached: US Army M1 Abrams.jpg (3000x1837, 2.95M)

>There must be something that the gas turbine does better then a diesel engine for all the extra trouble of maintainence and more fuel consumption. Does it give more HP/Tonne?
probably because any flammable liquid will work in a turbine, with all-out nuclear warfare and bad supplylines in mind
the brits tried it too with the Chieftain

Attached: USMC M1 Abrams, 29 Palms, California.jpg (2000x1333, 617K)

Attached: USMC M1A1 Abrams California.jpg (3008x1960, 1.24M)

Attached: US Army M1A1 Abrams in Germany.jpg (1942x1600, 1.26M)

Attached: US Army M1 Abrams NATO colors.jpg (2304x1728, 906K)

Attached: USMC M1 Abrams 4th Tank Battalion.jpg (4160x2649, 2.75M)

Attached: Abrams Yuma Proving Grounds AZ.gif (260x146, 990K)

Attached: US Army M1 Abrams Germany.jpg (2048x1365, 464K)

Attached: US Army M1 Abrams Germany 1.jpg (2048x1365, 478K)

Attached: US Army M1 Abrams Germany 2.jpg (2048x1365, 472K)

Attached: M1_Yuma_Proving_Grounds_Arizona.jpg (3872x2592, 1.47M)

Attached: Australian Army M1 Abrams.jpg (3000x1996, 946K)

Attached: Australian Army M1 Abrams, 1st Armored Brigade.jpg (4910x2499, 1.47M)

Attached: Australian Army M1 Abrams tank.jpg (2592x1728, 790K)

Attached: USMC 0.jpg (1822x1018, 142K)

Attached: 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division_170907-D- (5760x3840, 2.33M)

Attached: USN_USMC_140403-M-AQ282-306.jpg (4360x2906, 3.25M)

>Sherman jumbo
>thicker than a normal Sherman
That part of the tank was thick and angled so much it could bounce panther shots

Who's that guy in a frame?

Neither Merkava or Leclerc are nearly as well armored as M1A2 Abrams.

Merkava has really weak hull front while Leclerc has less armor on the turret and hull front than tanks like M1A2 or Leopard 2A6.

That reminds me I've got a couple Leopards I can post to

Attached: Bundeswehr Leopard2A7.jpg (5616x3744, 3.15M)

Attached: Bundeswehr Leopard tank.jpg (2048x1365, 1.13M)

Challenger 2 uses two part ammo which limits the length of the penetrator when compared to US or German 120mm. The propellant charge is also pretty anemic compared to other 120mm ammo so there is no way L27 APFSDS performs anywhere near M829A3 or DM63.

Attached: Bundeswehr Leopard 2.jpg (2048x1365, 218K)

Attached: Bundeswehr Leopard 2 tank.jpg (2048x1365, 487K)

Hafez al Assad

Attached: 1458551864359.png (1920x1080, 2.31M)

AESTHETIC

It has the heaviest armor but all other NATO tanks outclass it now.

bump

NATO colors are pure sex. objectively the best look for a tank.

1500HP engines were not common in the seventies