Attempt to create the most advanced tank in the world

And despite a very similiar concept and design there are quite significant differences between the tanks.

Everything on the Leopard 2 is streamlined for easy use and maintenance. The diesel engine give the L2 half of the fuel footprint of the M1. There is nothing that can't be faster replaced on the M1.

That's actually the main reason why Leopard 2 tanks dominate that Strong Tank contest every year. Everything is just easier on the Leopard 2 than other tanks, especially that mess that the Soviets designed.

>hey kids
>you wanna buy some freedom

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-07-19 at 12.57.10 PM.png (1738x1368, 1.13M)

*there is nothing that can

>Everything on the Leopard 2 is streamlined for easy use and maintenance. The diesel engine give the L2 half of the fuel footprint of the M1. There is nothing that can't be faster replaced on the M1.

I love when people talk out of their ass

not that guy but why not try refuting what he said with evidence? the rest of us who are lurking would appreciate links and sources to good info. that's why we're on this thread to begin with.

Slap a boosted CAT deisel into a Tiger 2.
All done.

The burden of proof is on the guy who said:
>"There is nothing that can be faster replaced on the M1."
to present that point still, before the other guy needs to bother showing anything to refute it.

There is no reason to feel attacked. The M1 is still a massive improvement regarding maintenance over previous American tanks despite a way more complex system.

But the Leo 2 is designed as a tank for a conscription army.

You misunderstand. I'm not here to educate the ignorant and retarded, I'm here to laugh at them.

Well, in that rather infamous test between the Leopard 2 protype and XM1, the XM1 lacked so many basic features but weren't part of the American requirement list.

The XM1 lacked ABC protection.
No independent telescope for the commander
No underwater ride capabilities
And the L2 was forced to use the 105mm gun and not the 120mm.

It was rather strange.

>looking like an idiot
>somehow having any high ground

Attached: 1560061744127.jpg (1309x1840, 279K)

>blah blah burden of proof

that's not getting me any closer to good books and sources, user!

let's just forget this faggoty argument you're insisting on and just start posting good sources for tank info.

no, I get it, you're a fag. this is clear.

>he actually thinks this

>no new IP

>not that guy but why not try refuting what he said with evidence
His turbine vs diesel comparison was wrong.

Attached: 1561281873329.png (631x483, 14K)

>be ignorant
>say stupid shit
>hahahaha oh wow all these people laughing at me are stupid!

>Make bullshit claim about MUH LEO BEST REPAIRER EVERYTHING
>Get asked to show a source
>Can't do it, so just calls the other a fag

Ah Leo fanboys. All the same.

What are you implying?

he is right though.

Turbine's fuel consumption stays basically the same at full output or less than full output, while a diesel engine actually scale to a large degree.

thanks, this is actually one of the things I most curious about regarding that post, since "half of the fuel footprint" was a big claim.

where does this chart come from? if I am reading the chart correctly it appears that the diesel engine was significantly more efficient than the AGT-1500 (but not anywhere close to twice as efficient), but with the development of the LV-100-5 this gap had narrowed considerably. however I did some googles and I'm finding that the LV-100-5 was never actually put into service? what do you know about this?

I don't see you doing anything else than being butthurt and greentexting.

it is already understood that that poster is retarded. it is time for the rest of us to move on from this and go back to discussing tanks.

Swedish and Greek trials showed that in a real world trials that the L2 has only half of the fuel consumption of the M1. The M1 would only have a better than "twice the fuel consumption" if the L2 and M1 would drive on a highway at full speed.

It's accepted reality. Not sure why people

>Swedish and Greek trials showed that in a real world trials that the L2 has only half of the fuel consumption of the M1.

can you dig up some links/sources/books for this? I've heard about these trials but I don't know a lot of details.

>Not sure why people

because they do, user. because they do.

>where does this chart come from?
apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a402644.pdf
>it appears that the diesel engine was significantly more efficient than the AGT-1500
I haven't read the report in a while, but IIRC it's comparing the MTU 883 to the 2 turbines.
>however I did some googles and I'm finding that the LV-100-5 was never actually put into service
It was going to be built for the Crusader Self-propelled artillery program after winning the "AIPS" contest for the ASM project in the early 90's (Longer and not important backstory on that will be left out). As a bonus, it would be refitted to the Abrams fleet to increase their capabilities, as it could be dropped in to the Abrams with no major changes-unlike a diesel. It improved fuel consumption at full output by a lot, but the main benefit other than greatly reduced size was the 50 percent reduction in fuel use at idle/low power.

Attached: 43d1c96725aad3642810dcd55882d2d9.png (510x324, 264K)

thank you for the link and the info, user

why did the LV-100-5 never make it to service? was it because the Crusader never went anywhere?

Wherboo pls go

'The M1's current AGT 1500 gas turbine engine is the top cost driver for the tank program, making up some “64 percent of its overall sustainment costs .”'

'When an AGT 1500 is overhauled, not all the components are replaced; so with each subsequent overhaul, the engine loses more life. A new engine should deliver about 1,000 hours between depot maintenance events; we are now getting less than 500 hours out of the AGT 1500. The engine then has to be rebuilt, at a cost of approximately $250,000, but never regains its original performance'

'the AGT was found to consume fuel at a rate ...70% higher than previous diesel engine tanks.'

apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a402644.pdf

Pretty much. Rules state that you have to make a new program and open up bidding all over again for legal reasons. It's a nightmare of peace time bureacracy

>was it because the Crusader never went anywhere?
Pretty much. If it had entered service the Crusader would've been, and still would be, the best artillery piece in the world. Unfortunately the Army decided they wanted the impossible with FCS and killed a decade+ of army modernization.

Attached: crusader.jpg (1912x1063, 548K)

Wearboo pls come back

maybe they should have tried an iterative process of fitting 1 or 2 innovations at a time to match soviet developments, rather than trying to make a future tank all at once

maybe an M60 with 120mm gun and TOW missile as a stop gap to tackle the T-62 b

Nobody had any interest in building 5000+ tanks every 8 years because the wests economies weren't run by the MIC

But that what they did with the batches.

>attempt to create the most advanced tank in the world
>fail

Attached: T-14_Armata.jpg (2500x1666, 662K)

No. There's also the development process which needs to design, test, etc a new tank, to say nothing of the production facilities. There's a reason why the USSR were building 3 different MBTs at the same time, and it wasn't because of efficiency

How many are even built?
How many of them even have all the advertised features?

this is a nice post

>That's actually the main reason why Leopard 2 tanks dominate that Strong Tank contest every year.

The actual main reason would be that they don't teach soldiers the basics anymore.

Field repair is barely a thing for US tankers. If there is a problem they will call support.

defence-blog.com/army/u-s-field-artillery-back-to-learning-manual-methods-after-russian-intervention-in-ukraine.html

defence-blog.com/army/u-s-army-released-declassified-images-of-next-generation-combat-vehicle.html

>hold my beer

Attached: Chrysler TV-8.jpg (630x638, 37K)

I like this design but I also hate it. why not put the reactor in the hull? seems like a lot of weight to throw around when you're just trying to put some rounds on target.

any examples of nuke tanks with hull-based reactors?

>why not put the reactor in the hull
Part of the idea was to make the tank buoyant. This required maximizing the internal volume of the turret, which was helped by keeping the reactor in the same huge compartment as the rest, I think.

around 100, still more than 2a7s and sepv3s altogether

It wouldn't've been
Russia's goal was modularity. It was supposed to be a unified chassis to limit the impact of mass-manufacturing dozens of specialized variants.
Unfortunately, post soviet economy just doesn't have the need for it

Neither of you have any sources. One claims for, other claims against, but you're both posturing that you're informed one in the argument when you're both know-nothings.

this is my understanding as well. I guess I'm too much of a brainlet to comprehend the thinking behind it, aside from "it's the 50's bro, atom is future, y u mad?"

Why would you bring russias failure into all of this

>why would you post tanks on a tank thread where we talk about tanks that people post

Indeed, I mean, this is the board where we talk about tanks. What's the point in posting tanks here? It boggles the mind.

If Russia's goal from the outset was purely a matter of modularity, they wouldn't have paraded the thing around as a Generation 4 MBT. We can argue all day about the how and why behind the T-14, but there's no denying that the Russians were trying pretty damn hard to build an MBT that would be on the cutting edge of armored technology. There was really very little "Well, it's cool, but do we really need it?" compromises here; they blew their wad on one tank, and the price tag shows it.

Attached: T-14 Armata(2).jpg (1280x853, 255K)

>attempt to create the most advanced tank in the world
>succeed
>realize that the most advanced tank in the world doesn't really do anything better than a lot of existing tanks, because you're still bound by the inherent drawbacks of any other tank.

Attached: MBT-70.jpg (3072x1728, 1.7M)

At the end of 2018 Russia had 8 Armata in service.

real world engineering basically lives by the rule KISS, keep it simple stupid

by trying out pretty much every shiny new tech without seeing if it worked first, they ended up adding features of only theoretical or dubious value
>rotating driver cupola was supposed to keep him oriented with the tank, only disoriented him
>152mm gun launcher was unreliable
>20mm retracting AA gun was complex and difficult to use, inaccurate anyways
>hydro pneumatic suspension was difficult to operate
>special spaced armor was too voluminous, ended up putting driver in the turret
ultimately, they only thing that the MBT70 accomplished was that it was fast, could accelerate quickly, and had good reverse

pretty much nothing in the MBT-70 was used in future tanks

The American variant didn't even have a functional tank.

Succeeding in building an advanced tank does not mean succeeding in building a good tank.

this

I get a bit nauseous trying to picture how that would feel to be in.

reminds me how the Cheyenne helicopter had the same thing for the gunner. He would rotate with the gun

Just a reminder Germ*ns never produced a 120mm armed variant ever it was mere Germ*n woderwaffa-wankery as usual.

I love the idea of a primitive 20mm CROWS Anti-aircraft turret. There was just so much shit that overcomplicated everything. On paper, it was a great tank, but the growing pains of all the new technologies made it not worth it.
>Prone to cookoffs
>Caseless ammo useless in wet/damp conditions
>remote turret useless
>Weird spinny center
Its fun to use for Fire Support in Wargame though

Like 80 before being cancelled. In other words not nearly enough to be meaningful

>attempt to create the most advanced tank in the world
>succeed

Attached: Char Mitrailleuse 2 Colorized.png (1380x792, 2.34M)

a contract for 435 M1A2c was signed in 2017, can't seem to find data on how many are currently in service but easily more than armata

>inferior ammo for tier
>10 second reload

Don't forget that Congress--particularly the anti-war wing of the DNC and media--was throwing a fit over Crusader's weight (they loved to add in the weight of the resupply vehicle and pretend that was the total "system" weight).

This was also during the period when we were uncertain about who was going to be the next enemy, and were debating strategies for rapid deployment to anywhere in the world direct from CONUS (the goal was a brigade in 72 hours, and an entire *division* in 96). Heavy equipment was looked down upon at the time, and there was a great preference for things that could fit on a C-130 (~20T).

I hadn't heard that. It's an interesting idea, particularly given all of the rivers in Europe. You'd still have to get ammo to the tanks, though.

Is the soldier in the foreground a manlet, or is the t-14 fucking hueg?

It's a real shame since we could've actually had a much more mobile force with the reduced-weight crusader to fit the gun and RSV into a C-17, along with that 40 ton tank that TARDEC was planning. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
It's both- Russians are turbo-manlets and the T-14 is quite a bit larger than Soviet era MBTs.

Attached: fcs40.jpg (1313x1285, 229K)

half the point was excessive mass for radiation resistance against neutron bombs and such
wasnt worth it, but the tech was

it also had a 127mm airgap between its inner and outer armor, to help deflect rounds
external armor causes tumbling, while the thicker inner layer catches the round

the price for this was that it was incredibly bulky to the point the driver didnt fit in the hull

When people analyze the fuel use difference between an turbine and a diesel, they typically only analyze the tanks themselves, and not the fuel used up by the fuel trucks themselves and the logitistical burden of supplying the men in the fuel trucks and the trucks that bring supplies for those extra men, etc etc

With a diesel engine of similar output, the USA could maintain he same number of tanks in the field, in both Gulf Wars, with tens of thousands of fewer men, and a total of about 1 billion dollars saved cheaper, which means voerall faster deployment for the same amount of force brought to bear

I think that only works with full-bore AP rounds, not LRPs, (which tend to shatter rather than deflect) like the Soviets had been shifting to with the T-62 and T-64. That being said, ATGMs, RPGs, and other such HEAT-centric anti-tank munitions made up a massive part portion of Soviet anti-tank capabilities, so the concept was still relatively sound.
pic unrelated

Attached: M48 with T-95 152mm Test Turret.jpg (4032x3024, 1.49M)

The saddest part, is that the best thing would have been a partial acquistion, and then acquiring the FCS NLOS artillery, for a mix of both

Instead, we are stuck with an excessively manpower intensive and outdated piece that has less survivability and utility than either.

Would have been a wildly succesful design had Moscow retained all the territory, or reconquered it from the USSR, and the client states remained allied, and the old network continued to exist

oops

it could work against APFSDS better than solid armor, and could theoretically stop the T-62 rounds
but T-64 APFSDS would pierce it