This is an American tank. Say something rude about it

This is an American tank. Say something rude about it.

Attached: 1561098216913.jpg (1024x683, 126K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mv7sx-GAiDg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It lacks cupholders

I would happily watch it run over commies.

NO
TEA SET

Seriously? That's a huge oversight.

That's a nice picture. Thanks op.

thats an Impressive, versatile, reliable tank.

This is an Abrams love thread now but >41837655 is unforgivable

That paint scheme is dope. Never seen an Abrams look so good.

Most were made in the '70s and are needing maintenance constantly. They're worn down and experience high breakdowns.

Honestly fuck Congress for ordering more. How about rotating them out to be brought back for total factory refurb.

>How about rotating them out to be brought back for total factory refurb.

for what reason? we have something like 5,000 just sitting in storage. bring in the active ones, strip off all the good bits, and upgrade the stored hulls to M1A2 level. easy peasy.

If I remember correctly the army started upgrading all of them to A2 during Desert Storm. I think stripping an Abrams for parts is a bit heretical. The chassis will outlive ANY component inside it. Especially with the US method of logistics, there's enough parts to bring tanks back to 0 miles.

We have too many of the damn things, but there's no feasible way to scrap those chassis, dear God they're everything proof.

>dear God they're everything proof
that was the point

it burns well.

Attached: 1538028895704.webm (1280x720, 2.79M)

i...it's not like i even like you, abrams-chan

Attached: 5459455.jpg (600x482, 44K)

Yes. So why waste them? Put new ones in theatre, bring the old ones back to at least Europe and refurb.
>We have the parts, funding in useless places, and gas

youtube.com/watch?v=mv7sx-GAiDg

It's crewed by Americans

Almost as good as pic related

Attached: ztz-99a.jpg (960x638, 85K)

>Shows video of ammo rack's blowout panels working perfectly
The tank its perfectly fine, it just needs to drive back to base and get an ammo rack refit.
Unlike Russian tanks, an ammo hit isn't game over

Attached: IMG_6125.jpg (1280x853, 257K)

That looks like Brazil in 2022

Like he said. It burns well.

I mean yeah, technically he never said the tank was destroyed, only burning. If we want to argue semantics, but we all know that the only people who post that video in Abrams discussions all are too retarded to know that Abrams getting ammo racked doesn't actually do anything and they all think its destroyed.

Just keep them away from Germany. We know what happens when they get excited about new tanks

it gets shit on by foreign ammo from "almost" the same gun.

Because if the plant shuts down, then we will probably lose the institutional knowledge for building the next MBT. This is already a massive issue in aviation, since the companies that can do it are few, and not getting a contract can mean the end of that company.

>american

Attached: ECE35C65-D0D7-4C26-A28E-87D81C97B21A.png (530x663, 51K)

>dear God they're everything proof.
Except from APFSDS from almost literally any other NATO nation with MBTs

Why it so big for to hold big fat americans?

Attached: 1553927224332.png (225x217, 101K)

Fuck you motherfucking pieces of shit sniping my entire 2.1-km max-range tanks.

It's ugly like most burger gear.

Anyone else seeing a onions boy face on the M2s optics?

>Most were made in the '70s
>started production in 1979
>10,000 abrams made
I doubt most of those were made in 1979

No autoloader in year of our lord 2019, needs negro in the back as bio-loader.

>drive back to base
>while under fire
>with no ammo

>60 to 70 tons weight

Fat like average american.

Average american dick, you mean, filthy commie.

Nigger tank

>thinking that all of the Abrams' ammunition is inside the ready rack

Oh user you're silly.

It's old and needs replaced, especially the Turbine.
>Honestly fuck Congress for ordering more
They haven't made a new-built ayybraps since the mid '90's so IDK what you're talking about.

Attached: uJwJxx1.jpg (1108x784, 133K)

>This is an American tank. Say something rude about it.

Shitty turbine needs 2x the amount of fuel and 10x the amount of air (dust, dust filters) for the same performance as a diesel.

>The chassis will outlive ANY component inside it.

Doubt it. I saw the documentary where they refurbished them, the chassis is actually super fucking flimsy and not stiff at all. If you check pictures of destroyed abrams, they often look physically warped and have their bolted on armor plates blown off in all directions. Generally the tank does not seem to be build very sturdy at all.

A Leopard 2 for comparison has the armor packages welded into pockets of steel forming lots of closed stiff torsion boxes which leads to a much stiffer chassis and turret which barely deforms at all.

Adding to that, the one A6M the canadians borrowed and drove over a gigantic IED was repaired and is still in service. Shows how resiliant the chassis really is.

>ey often look physically warped and have their bolted on armor plates blown off in all directions
If you have absolutely zero idea of what you're talking about, is it that hard to just not make a post?

>IT'S JUST A GOOD, SOLID TANK

Attached: image.jpg (581x480, 26K)

>He doesn't like the American Military aesthetic
So what's *your* poison? ERA plates or sharp edges?

Attached: bradley.jpg (1280x720, 153K)

They have the Leopard, which is better according to their marketing team

You hold a valid point, but I still believe, say the same factory overhauling the parts so the tanks are mechanically new, would suffice for less monumental funding

If it was, poland woudn't be

>average Russian armored division size: ~300 MBTs
>average combat load for M1A2: 40 rounds
Hahaha pathetic burgerniggers couldn't even take out 1/6 of a Russian armored assault before being rendered impotent! How embarrassing, enjoy losing the next war!

You're aware there's other things than tanks in an ABCT right

Abrams looks so much more aesthetic without that damn tan color

Attached: 2p1377myp3431.jpg (1024x681, 180K)

Attached: abrams_2.jpg (1920x1080, 683K)

test

senpai

i just came

Attached: abrams.jpg (1024x576, 219K)

>needing maintenance constantly
Tankers live to serve the machine.

Blowout armor panels on the ammo compartment worked as designed. What is your point?

t. seething eurofaggot

>Thinking one tank will take on a whole division by itself.
Ivan, stop drinking youre dumbfuck juice

>too pathetic and cowardly to fight a division alone
aww does the poor faggot American want a blanket to cry into? lucky for you faggot, russia doesnt care about the US or there would be screams of roasting abrams crews and rows of t90s on the front lawn of the white house

Same here man

>russia doesnt care about the US
mega-jej

a loader for a tank is a better trade-off than a autoloader(almost same speed,more awereness and, +1 crew).

Does it think no one will see it because it is hiding under that tiny blanket?

I have faith with this American armored vehicle.
Yet again one of few pinnacle of American engineering.
Not absolutely perfection, but there's plenty of space for improvement.

operated by niggers and spics

>being this dense

Since when did the EU start getting shills?

Back to green and not a minute too soon. That’s a jack worthy tank

>for to
I know this was a bait post but you can at least sound literate

We’re talking about tanks, not your mother’s twat.

Autoloaders were pretty bad back when the Abrams, Challanger and Leopard 2 were designed, with manual loaders often offering superior preformance to the (french and soviet) autoloaders of the day. T

his is however no longer true, which designs like the Leclerk and Type 10 showing you can made a western style MBT with an effective autoloader, and get superior rate of fire and volume reductions without impractical levels of logistical support. Volume reduction will only become a bigger concern as armor is forced to operate more and more often in urban and semi-urban areas, and all around protection and additional and larger secondary weapon systems become more valuable.

Attached: abr'ms MBt.png (1023x671, 1.18M)

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
[spoiler]))))))))))))))))))[/spoiler]

Attached: 1540023336224.jpg (1600x848, 404K)

british cho*bama armor PEAK tank fail
aka 1/4 of my front armor is autopen for >30mm guns.

Attached: challenged tank mark two.png (1207x751, 1.07M)

Ah its the autist with his irrational hatred of chally 2.
You're wrong btw.

Shitty, unreliable, gas-guzzling 1970s tank. Breaks down constantly, Needs refuelling constantly, Too heavy. Too large. Most are now unserviceable and rusting in the desert. Took very heavy casualties in Gulf War 2.

>I'm a retard who gets his info from Blacktaildefense

b-b-but its meant to go hull dow...
m-m-muh good fire control sys- 16.0 hp/t (11.9 kW/t) at 75.0t.* power to weight AHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHA

Attached: allied COPE.png (678x482, 140K)

Reducing crew size increases crew workload and fatigue.

>Shitty, unreliable
Compared to?

>gas-guzzling
Fixed with APU. Turbines only devour fuel when at idle. For the American logistics system, keeping them fueled isn't much of an issue.

>1970s tank
Nearly every MBT in use right now has its design started in the 1970s or not long after.

>Took very heavy casualties in Gulf War 2.
Define very heavy. When I search for a total figure of losses I see the number just over 500 (which counts both total losses and those that were sent back to the US for repairs) for the entire tank's history (across all those operating it), compared to over 10,000 built.

Attached: 1491270883810.jpg (3735x2490, 1.05M)

t.coping mutt

Now what's the armor around the gun in the T-14's turret?

REEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: glowing thread.png (1321x995, 1.73M)

Wrong

Ah wait, you're russian. How many
russhit tanks have been destroyed, how many abrams and challies have been lost to enemy action?
I think we need an image like the aircraft one.

basically just the gun itself acting and the MANtlet, cheeks are hollow and autocannon resistant, no more. Also hard kill
A
P
S

Inb4 damage control and butthurt

i actually love all tanks, dont wanna see any of them get destroyed. im just baiting you because im bored....

Posts image with no reference to challenger or abrams. You're drunk ivan, have a nap.

Literally made of cadboard and broke down on its unveiling parade. Cope harder ivan.

So the gun will be knocked out by a substantial hit, rendering the tank unusable in that role. The crew drives back to their depot with something broken. Reliance on APS is not a proven concept and it's doubtful it will work all of the time.

Correct. Learn2numbers

All numbers are classified stop this meaningless rumbling about whats better. This is now officially an AESTETIC tank Thread.

Attached: A E S T E THIC.jpg (1280x720, 243K)

But formthese 10000 built how many were operational? How many were war ready and how many were sent to that front? Still for a shitty war against an agonizing foe 500 of these tanks is a large number.

in b4 AFV

Attached: bmp be with me.jpg (800x460, 99K)

Trophy is well proven in the 2014 Protective Edge, with zero tanks damaged even under kornet and rpg-29 fire, but it's really the only one that's been in heavy combat.

>Compared to?
Any other modern MBT.
>Define very heavy
IIRC it was about 20-25% losses, I'll have to look it up. But it was lousy.

I'm actually terrified that no replacement for Chally 2 has been ordered and that there probably isn't any manufacturing knowledge left.

Don't know how many of the 10,000 were deployed to the frontlines. The US took them for both wars with Iraq and in both only lost double digits of M1s. 21 in 1991 and 80 from 2003-2005 (Again, not all of them were destroyed.)
500 losses/damaged, across multiple nations, is not bad for a tank which has seen heavy fighting across multiple conflicts. That total comes from 2006 so it's gone up a bit due to Iraqi and Saudi losses in the years since.
Taking losses does not negate good performance, it's to be expected when these tanks are actually being used.

Was talking about crew numbers, silly.