The US Army and USMC would be much better off with 120mm armed M60s than the gas guzzling Abrams piece of shit

>Outnumber the T-72

Does this moron not realize there's an ocean between the US and any theater they'd face T-72s?

He doesn’t like gods gift to tanks, the Honeywell AGT1500. More powerful than a diesel of the same HP rating.

Sprey is so out of touch with reality, even Sparty looks at him funny

ever heard of western europe?

So when did they finish the bridge to western france from Virginia

Tell me how many rail lines there are from New England to France.

Why the fuck would you even want to be as wasteful with soldiers lives as the Russians?

Attached: brainlet4.jpg (588x823, 109K)

How much fuel is one combat day?

It's Sprey, so who knows- It's whatever he wants his magic machine to be.

What? I’m pretty sure that was written during the Cold War when Americans would theoretically be fighting in Western Europe in support of NATO in the event of a Soviet invasion.

>bomb shithole
>get oil
>tank pays for itself

What kind of mutt are if you haven't figured that out yet?

See

That is some Sparky tier delusion. Best alternative to Abrams would probably be Abrams with diesel engine.

That is pure autism. Literally a tank that is essentially useless against anything that isn't tank. The all in the front armor is retarded as fuck.

A lot of people have and there’s still an ocean between us and them too

What’s your point? What do rail lines have to do with anything? Do you know what a boat is? Have you ever heard of sea shipping?

Imagine putting Sprey and Sparky together in a locked room for a month. Maybe throw in Bbfag and Armatard as well. Imagine the concept ideas that we would get

Yeah, it'd be great if the US actually took some spoils of war to make our military operations net profitable but we seem to just bomb the place into the stoneage and then spend hundreds of billions of dollars just hanging out there and "rebuilding" the place for decades afterwards without really gaining anything. Also, where were the oilfields in Afghanistan again?

Based war economist

>without really gaining anything
user, who does the rebuilding? Who gets paid to set up bases and build infrastructure? Someone is definitely gaining something or we wouldn’t go to war in the first place. Maybe it’s not you and me or the country in general, but it’s not us who call the shots.

...

No oil, but they have something like $1 trillion US in lithium, not that it matters because the Chinese scored exclusive mineral rights.

I always just figured it was a convenient excuse to set up a massive US military presence right next door to Iran.

And since that worked so well then might as well do the same thing in Iraq and have a massive US military presence on both sides of Iran.

You can move armor MUCH faster by rail, you're not going to beat the Soviets in a numbers game in terms of tanks from the other side of the Atlantic.

Another fuckwit who doesn't realize that the gas the Abrams uses is just a fraction of the gas being used by the whole division it's attached to.
Like, halving their gas use will barely show a difference on the total.

Tanks don't exist in an operational vacuum user.

Makes me wonder if we had a hawkish President and Congress instead of Obama and Co. if we would've gone ahead and overthrown Tehran in the early 2010's.

The joke went over your head - Its a Spreypost

It honestly seems like that's what we were going for but the economic crisis probably ruined that plan.

IMAGINE THE SMELL

What was the reason they went with a turbine anyhow?

Immediately available torque and short dash acceleration, smaller footprint than diesels (at the time at least), better performance in cold climates

You’re really underestimating how much material the US could move across the Atlantic during the Cold War.

Put antman in too

US Army did studies about optimal tank engine in late 50's and early 60's. They found out that turbines were at the time better than diesels. When Abrams was being designed in early to mid 70's turbo diesels had caught up. Turbine is smaller, but it is more expensive. Turbine is more reliable, but that comes at price essentially all repairs having to be done at depot level, that reads essentially replace the engine and ship the broken one back to factory. Turbine burns way more fuel, essentially more than the space saved by smaller powerplant is taken by extra fuel and it still can't match the range of same tank with diesel engine.

My guess is that majors and colonels that made tank engine studies in late 50's and early 60's became generals. When Abrams was being designed in early 70's, junior officers simply didn't want to make their superiors look bad. Telling your superiors that they are wrong about something might mean shooting your own career into foot.

You are underestimating how much of equipment was already deployed in Europe and they only had fly in reservist crews across the Atlantic.

Attached: rm0001.png (921x510, 88K)

Only nerds call the 113 a Gavin

Attached: 1maximum.gif (625x626, 527K)

You're wrong.

Here's a big hint as to one of the key deciding factors was: wouldnt it be nice if we had a powerful engine that could make use of civilian infrastructure and use gasoline as other fuels as needed?

Might as well have a 120mm Gavin.

Diesels run on jet fuel just fine, just use more oil. The two fuels that are only ones Abrams has ever ran on. During cold war there were plenty of fuel stockpiled in Europe, tanks would have been destroyed long before they would run out of fuel.

youtube.com/watch?v=1wwUTEkRano

Not gonna lie though, upgraded M60s tickle my fnacy.

Attached: 1424035522557.jpg (1024x789, 112K)

At least post the best M60 upgrade, faggot.

Attached: sabra1.jpg (620x321, 43K)