6,000,000 for one of pic related

Based Abramsposter. Haters gonna hate

It's another "tank isn't invincible therefore it's shit" thread

I love tanks, but the abrams isn't a bang-for-the-buck sort of tank, which is bad

Your next line will be “tanks are obsolete in modern warfare”

>$4.3 trillion per year
>can easily be defeated by a few cheap RS-28 Sarmat ICBMs

is warfare obsolete in modern warfare?

Attached: USA.gif (1100x704, 191K)

Actually it is, does the superiority of American equipment threaten you?

>which is bad

How is that a problem when you spend as much on your military as the next 15 countries combined?

Literal retardation

they followed soviet defensive doctrine to the letter

Non Americans are always so jelous. We never think of you

following doctrine to the letter despite losses and not adapting is pig headed stubbornness and uncreativeness as expected from Arabs

>cost equivalent to the tax revenue of an entire province
>le meme horse and lance
>extra thick overlapping plate armor (tm)
>arming sword (tm)
>can easily be cut in half by superior crafted folded Japanese steel, just like any knight
What is the point? Are Nobles simply justifying extorting taxes from their fiefdom by producing this shit? They aren't so much better than a few trained pikemen that they can actually rectify the high cost

Attached: echizen-seki-24-Edit.jpg (4288x2848, 1.61M)

No, it really doesn't. RPG catastrophic kills on our actual Abrams's are exceptionally rare. Nothing is full-proof, our number of tanks and times on patrol ensure statistical outliers.

Can in your case have never ever equated to will. You are cherry-picking and I think you know it.

Attached: An M1A2SEP Abrams Tank from the 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, (1280x765, 117K)

t. Leaf
You can save more money for bribes otherwise

Challenger 2 is the worst modern tank. How did they even design something so terrible in the 1990s. At least the newer M1 and leo2 models can blame some flaws on being upgraded versions of older tanks.

That money goes to Americans who then spend the money in America. It's pretty basic bitch trickle down economics

>leaf praising the Abrams and not Canadian Leopards

Attached: 34223957076_fe435dd1cd_o.jpg (1600x1068, 678K)

>$3000 rpg can take it out
uh rpg29's and kornets are gunna put you out like $700,000 dollars a rocket and it's likely going to take more than one.

Why would he praise german puffed up marketer garbage

>expecting leaf not to be a cuck
bruh

>6,000,000 for one of pic related
for what you get, its a good value
>le meme uranium shell
impact depth means that maximum density is required for penetration through armor
uranium is much denser than steel, allowing it to go through a thicker thickness
the only competitor is tungsten, which is also popular for rounds
>extra thick armor(tm)
this true
>big guns(tm)
also true
>can easily be destroyed by a $3,000 RPG, just like any other tank
M1 abrams have taken 30 or 40 RPG hits before, even RPG-29s have been survivable
it is extremely rare for a 1-hit kill; and even rarer for an unrecoverable kill

I'm sure there was a military somewhere at some time who went through this thought process and proceeded to just arm a bunch of poorly trained people with obsolete equipment because it was cost effective.

I dunno chief. I'd say we have to take an objective view at total number of patrols, the number of patrols where an Abrams was taking fire that could be a danger to it's main capabilities and the number of patrols where an Abrams was completely destroyed ie unable to be repaired or refurbished. Then let's look at the cost for new vs the cost for refurb (not repair) due to damage. We will then have essentially the likelihood for loss of service life of the chassis and the cost for replacement given "total loss". Interesting data that could be valuable would be cost of upkeep, also I'd like to see cost to refit for new tech on older units and how that impacts the original number set from a better survivability or performance standpoint.
Given all that data and comparison then I may or may not agree if it's worth the 6mil.

I think your brain is the only thing obsolete here.

Attached: Where_44c509_6691842.jpg (900x793, 71K)

Man the "should have bought chinese" posters are getting wordy with their shitposting.

It serves a purpose that is not fully realized in modern COIN operations in cities.

Tanks are the kings of open combat. Cities are a no go, this was realized in WWII. They aren't outdated, they're improperly used. Yet, despite that improper use, cause pretty much everybody to flee instantly when they pop. Abu the goat farmer will fuck with many things, but tanks and attack helicopters ain't it.

They're primarily taken out by IEDs, and most are fully survivable mobility kills.

>Cities are a no go, this was realized in WWII.
tanks are useful in city combat, as their armor and big gun allow them to destroy enemy positions holed up in heavy cover like buildings or rubble
they are just used purely in the infantry support role, tanks are used solely in support of the infantry rather than as a concentrate spearhead