/k/ - Weapons

Will you retarded gorilla niggers contribute?

www.hartziel.de

German website dedicated to tank turned plinking target.

List of images sorted by vehicle type:

www.hartziel.de/typen.htm

If you ever wondered what we did to those 2x120mm Hetzer Prototypes: DO NOT CLICK IF YOU HAVE EATEN RECENTLY

www.hartziel.de/_typen/vt_kasematt.htm

>>645597

>Hetzers left to rot

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>645603

just

GIVE IT TO ME

>>645604

No. Fuck off. We will keep shooting at rare prototypes.

>>645604

Alexander, you can buy old soviet surplus direct from Boland or Czech if you really want some old tech to play with.

>>645603

You're the sort of person I beat senseless and leave for the injuns.

>>645196

>T-34

Is that a dead gommie of just a Wehrmacht pretending to be one?

>>645210

Good god what the fuck happened to that M4? Was it shot by light flak or some shit?

>>645663

>Probably shredded by a Wirbelwind.

I thought they made a very small number of them, that was my first thought but real life doesn’t work life War Thunder (if it were the third Reich would have collaspsed in a year as T-34s bounce 80% of shots and a Sherman can bounce 3 point blank shots from about flat on to about 10% to its side from a tiger fuck you I’m still so mad about that fucking bullshit)

>>645671

How dare you say we shouldn't be able to profit off of all our hard work. If it wasn't for archivists like us, you wouldn't be able to see this footage at all. You should be grateful. :^)

>>645663

>>645656

>>645667

>light 20mm flack

>penetrating 96mm of RHA

I'm pretty sure that vehicle was a live fire range target. Much like that picture of a similarly swiss cheesed M3 Lee that actually ran after being used as an A10 training aid.

>>645798

>4x 20mm flak can ultimately make a Sherman tank look like Swiss cheese

Did WT really doubt that? I thought that flaks being used primarily as anti-tank weapons, even though they were designed as AA, was wiki-tier factoid

>>645798

>max penetration 40-49mm

>M4 effective front armor thickness 96mm

>vehicle in picture clearly has penetrating hits through the front

Its pretty clear that the culprit was not a 20mm AA gun. There was even a time where a 20mm flacktrack unloaded into an accidentally deployed training cromwell made out of mystery potmetal much thinner than the real deal's armor thickness (which is much less well protected as an M4) and the shells stuck out of the soft steel like a porcupine instead of shattering like if it had hit proper RHA. The crew then protested to keep their training tank because it was lucky. (and because it was faster due to it not being made to spec)

>>645949

If I'm recalling the same story, it was softer armour as it was supposed to be a training version of the tank.

>>645930

Wut?

>>645997

How did flak intercept aircraft with relative accuracy when Germany did not have proximity fuses?

>>645949

>clearly has penetrating hits through the front

>clearly

No, not really. We don't know if the rounds actually went through. Most of the hits are in the sides. 4x 20mm guns will do that to you in 2 bursts.

But like >>645953 said, this is a canadian sherman used as a training target.

>>646012

see embed related

>>646017

2:16-2:21

That sounds like a terrible idea.

Forgotten Tanks

Warning: contains extreme gore and mutilation

>>662194

Those are so cute

>>645667

Yeah, warthunder is extremely biased against German tanks. It's a Russian product, what do you expect?

>>680526

They only performed badly when they were operated by shitskins and when used in cities

>>680526

T-72 platform has more kills than Abrams.

Because it kills its own crew.

>>646017

If only they made instructional videos like this nowadays

>>680594

I dislike tanks with short guns

>>680605

that first webm is just blowout panels doing their job retard.

>>680526

Lack of training and the T-72 models were older imports

>>681176

>>681185

I love how retards pretend blow up panels means the tank is still working.

Even when the second pic shows almost 100 of them in various state of destruction (with some being repaired/refurbished, sure, but so what?), and literal dozen of pics of completely wrecked ones (protip: Iraq bought less than 150 of them).

It's amazing you retards think that having a tank take a hit that immediately puts it out of combat but it's not destroyed is A GOOD THING. It's just testament how maneuver warfare is misunderstood.

Tanks takes hit. Ammo blows up "safely". Crew bail the fuck out (exposing themselves to enemy fire due to the BEST TANK DESIGN EVAR) because the fuel it runs on and of which most of the Abrams is made of, due to it's retarded gas turbine consumption, is also on fire and metal being metal (and before you start knows that DU is pyrophoric, so US ones are actually gonna burn worse), nobody want to die cooked alive slightly slower than being exploded alive.

Let's be mad and assume the crew followed procedure and managed to hit the extinguisher on the way out and it works well enough.

Well you have a slightly used tank that is 100% out of combat, since it's out of ammo, out of fuel and it's crew is running for their life.

What happens next is whoever shot the tank… gets a new slightly used tank that it just has clean a bit and to feed fuel and captured ammo.

>But you need training.

I'm giving it to the first rifleman team that figures out forward, backwards and fire. I'm sure it's gonna take them half a good half an hour to get trained…

>But it's gonna get destroyed.

I don't care I've got plenty of riflemen teams, that one just has tracks and a 120mm gun.

Let's assume you started a 100 VS 100 fight.

Let's assume you give as good as you got.

Let's assume the enemy has "slav' shit".

The enemy has 50 of his own tanks. And 50 of yours.

You have 50 of yours left.

Congratulation you started the fight with even odds you fought equally… and you're now 1 VS 2.

>But it saved the crewmen.

Maybe. If they were lucky. If they weren't they were killed or captured along with their fixable tank. Who cares? Well trained crew do perform better than poorly trained crew but not 50% better, and it's extremely dubious a crew that narrowly escaped death will perform as well in their next tank (when and if they get it, because by the time a new ones comes the fight might be thousands of kilometers away).

Getting a new tank and a new crew is just easier logistic.

Maneuver warfare is all about movement if on an engagement you lose you are leaving behind "fixable" gear… you're gifting it to the enemy, which will, very quickly, cause a snowballing effect because in modern warfare you don't actually fight battles to a stalemate, you either win and occupy terrain or you lose and cede ground.

And every time you lose gear, it's not only lost from your inventory, but if it's not destroyed it's added to the enemy inventory, DOUBLING your loss.

Which is why so much emphasis is put on DENIAL tactics and why even against sandpeople that can't possibly find a way to move then fix a damaged Abrams the US commanders systematically orders airstrikes on unsecured assets. Because lost gear is NOT SUPPOSED TO SURVIVE THE BATTLE. Else it comes back biting you in the ass.

Abrams are designed assuming the US forces will be doing the recovery (so that they will always win) and limit losses of human lives.

Russian tanks are designed to limit actual strategical losses.

It's also why soviet caliber where always designed in a way it's easy to adapt captured NATO assets to use them and not vice versa. You're never gonna fire a 105mm shell trough a 100mm barrel, a 120mm through a 115mm, a 155mm through a 152mm barrel, a 5.56 rounds through a 5.45 barrel, etc…

The opposite? It's gonna take some adaptation but it's definitely definitely not impossible.

>>683600

It's just the average french slavaboo who thinks Russia is best forever.

>>683600

>tank crews NEVER EVER bailed out and returned to the field in a new vehicle

I'm sure some, somewhere did. I'm just telling you that from a military PoV you're better off shipping a new tank with a new crew than bothering keeping crews alive beyond reasonable. Because NO, training a half-decent tank crew isn't anywhere as hard as training a plane pilot. But for all intent and purpose a tank crew without a tank is just as useful as tits on a gun. And shipping tanks without crews to a battlefield is… borderline retarded.

>ISIS is rolling around in hundreds of captured Iraqi abrams

Yes they are. They didn't got hundreds of them because the Iraqi didn't have hundreds of them to start, but they got at least 40 of them (which is a third).

The Hezbollah dozen the MSM has been crying about are ones they took back from them.

They didn't changed hands once… but twice.

And all three sides figured out a way to use them in combat, because no, no one is dumb enough to let a usable tank laying around in wartime, even arabs and even if you don't have the parts/know how and can only use it as a pillbox. It's common sense.

>Cite plenty of additional reason for not wanting shit to stay on the battlefield.

And somehow this is a counter-argument to my point that leaving repairable shit on the battlefield is a bad idea? Burger.

>Wars are fought using officers pistols. Source: TFB-TV.

My whole point is that a tank that loose all it's ammo and most of it's fuel after a SLIGHT HIT to the rear/side of the turret is just as useful as one that blows up completely after a slight hit to the rear/side of the turret (and is far less of a headache to manage).

>>683639

tankies

>>683639

Reasonable safety features for crews are having a floor hatch that allows you to not have to do what's on the video, aka leave a tank in trouble without getting instantly MG sprayed by the people that put it in trouble or even more simply so that your crew isn't trapped (or worse drown because they drove too close from the water/fell down a storm drain) if the driver fucks up and flip the tank (which is something far more common that people think), protection against the most common anti-vehicle threats (100+mm heat round), fire extinguishers that aren't toxic to humans, a reasonable ratio of fuel/space, an armor that isn't made of a metal that burns easily.

Guess which one of the features I listed the BEST TANK EVAR, lacks, yet is standard on every other tank.

All of them.

T-72 design isn't great, no argument about it but the idea that M1 are better because they have the exact same problem (a well placed RPG round at the back of the turret put the tanks out of the fight), but "people don't die from it" is retarded "muh fee-fee" logic, in the context of warfare.

>>683639

Its better to have equipment go sky high than your enemy use it. The English learned that lesson the hard way, the bolsheviks learned it the hard way and so on.

>>683655

Frenchie is right and his points flew right over these retards' >>683639 >>683600 heads like a horny mosquito

>>683655

>protection against the most common anti-vehicle threats (100+mm heat round)

Are you really saying the Abrams doesn't have this?

>fire extinguishers that aren't toxic to humans

Other tanks like the Leopard 2 use halon too, it's more effective than CO2. The danger of Halon is also overstated.

>a reasonable ratio of fuel/space

Worse than western tanks, but certainly better than any Soviet tank.

>an armor that isn't made of a metal that burns easily.

Uranium only burns in a powder form.

Floor hatches are obviously good, but there is no reason for you to just make shit up.

>>683674

I will hack you

>>683676

>Are you really saying the Abrams doesn't have this?

Almost all tanks without active or passive protection against HEAT are vulnerable to this.

Almost Abrams that were lost are to an AT-3 or modern RPG round (and not kornet. Arabs say "kornet" for "ATGM" as they discovered the term with the success of Hezbollah against Tsahal. But most of what is used are Iranian/chink/Nork bootleg AT-3, you can tell that almost all videos are wire-guided missiles. Kornet are laser-guided. And have no problem going through the front of all MBTs they have encountered. Including M1A2S and Leclercs. But then it's a 150+mm round so… even a pure HE direct hit of 152mm would do something very bad to any tank. Putting tank sideways to disable it, is always an option) hitting the rear side where the armor is considerably thinner… right around the ammo.

Now granted if you have a highly trained crew, with a highly train cordon of soldier around, it's less of risk but it's 100% following the "german" school of tank design (which the russians, amusingly, were the main offenders. Until the T-80 disaster of the first chechen war).

Put all armor on the front and let's duel like it's a medieval joust, when reality is made of curves and obstacles that means you will rarely be perfectly in front of whoever is firing at you (especially in a surprise attack) and ATGM and other heavy HEAT round are the primary threat to tanks (which we know since israel arab war of 1967… so long before the M1 was a even on a drawing board).

>Uranium only burns in a powder form.

Absolutely not. It burns when it reach a certain heat threshold and when it has reach ignition it will continue burning on it's own.

In powder form it's susceptible to combustion… As in just by it's lonesome.

Depending static electricity in the air and especially in a closed environment, causing dust "explosion", like coal or aluminum (aluminum is also a bad idea, but the weight/cost issue can be justifiable for APCs).

Note that the M1 isn't the worst offender among the western tanks.

The worst offender for this is… the Leo2 as demonstrated in Syira, against an enemy that was already used to blow up M1 and T-72 every Tuesday and wiped out a whole team like it was nothing (and the Turks called them back, after not even 2 weeks of fighting and losing half a dozen, and are using M60 with load of ERA instead…)

>>683705

Not half a dozen… TWO dozens. Sorry.

>>683705

>b-b-but muh slavaboos

>>683705

>Almost all tanks without active or passive protection against HEAT are vulnerable to this.

Then why did you say that the Abrams is the only tank without protection against 100mm+ HEAT?

Abrams is no more vulnerable than any other contemporary tank.

>Absolutely not.

Then post an Abrams with burning armor.

>>683719

Also the guys that put out the second are probably dead from lung cancer now (as DU is pretty safe… until it starts burning).

Now repeat after me.

BEST

TANK

EVAR

>>683632

>Its better off that we lose all of our men and equipment instead of choosing to save the men because its too hard to ship replacement vehicles to a unit

Many German tank aces and American ones too lost tanks and got back into the fight. Had Kalashnikov's tank fucking detonated just as it was designed according to kekaku you wouldn't have the AK or PKM today. Are you seriously trying to suggest that during the Dunkirk evacuation the British should have stayed in their tanks on the beach and fought to the very end because it would have been unreasonable to get on the boats and come back to France in new tanks?

>no really! ISIS uses captured M1A1Ms that had their ammo ignited and ones that were found abandoned with no damage all the time!

So where are these captured M1A1Ms? Were they used against the Iraqis or Syrian army? They would clearly be present in propaganda videos shooting at their enemies as it would be a powerful image. Or were all of them blown up in propaganda videos because they didn't have the support structure to use such tanks and rarely use the occasional BMP-1 for running over POWs in front of the cameras?

So when were stolen vehicles turned around right there in the field ever used? I can only think of one occasion being the battle of the bulge where German tankers who had their tanks knocked out during the huge sweep captured abandoned M4s. Of course this was a last ditch desperation move and not applicable to your apparently transcended idea that if you make your shit out of explodium it will help you win. Even then once the captured M4s ran out of ammo or needed any kind of maintenance they were left behind as they had no support structure for such tanks at all. If you were to capture enemy tanks, you would need to capture their factories or a MASSIVE stockpile of spare parts, munitions, and maintenance instruction manuals for them to be any use other than "its better than walking" for tank crews that otherwise have no working vehicle. And again, that tank with no support structure will likely exhaust its ammo or need track maintenance at the end of the battle which are problems that cannot be resolved leading to it being abandoned for hopefully the crew getting a proper vehicle they can support and are trained on by then.

Furthermore, you are going to need fucking ammo and new blow out panels along with having to likely replace the bulkhead doors if you were to steal an Abrams from a battlefield. So where are you going to get those? I hope the tank had spare bulkheads and ammo that somehow didn't burn on it or else you will have to order those doors and pannels from the United States and hope they don't check the return address.

>warsaw pact ammo is totally interchangable with nato because I said so and couldn't do a 10 second internet search to find out that this is a bold faced lie

It was a fucking joke because a makarov is the only piece of combloc equipment that will fit a western cartridge in an albeit borderline suicidal way. 5.56 WILL NOT chamber in a 5.45 gun. And if it did, it would create dangerous overpressure just like in the mak. This is also getting in the way of the fact that 5.56 will barely even fit in a 5.45 magazine to begin with and certainly will not feed reliably. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE 5.45 was created to be ballistically coefficient to 5.56 because Russian advisors in Vietnam got a good look at captured rifles and ammo and realized it was superior to 7.62x39? So maybe you should stop fucking talking out of your ass on everything and spewing things that are OBJECTIVELY WRONG here.

>>683666

>>683668

>>683674

>(1)

>>683719

Don't the REAL Russian tanks also use depleted uranium composite armor? The first picture is from an Abrams that was lost in an intense ammo dump fire and is not battle damage.

>>683721

No one in this thread even said that. You just started sperging out like a retard from the get go with this shit.

>>683727

Also, holy fuck is the Abrams sexy in green.

>>683725

At this point and time they're literal highway of hell scrap i.e vaporized by airstrikes, iirc ISIS captured most of their shit in Iraq when they overran the Iraqi Army in 2014.

>stolen vehicles turned around right there in the field ever used?

Barbarossa, Kursk both of which were on a scale the like we will never see again. The Germans had a whole impromptu industry of refurbishing captured shit to the point they sold something like 100+ T34's to Finland.

>Russian advisors in Vietnam got a good look at captured rifles and ammo and realized it was superior to 7.62x39?

More like political dickwaving per Kalashnikov himself, hell the MO is considering switching back to it, though in a modernized fashion.

>>683725

>implying you need logistics to run tanks

If you run out of ammo, use it as a battering ram; if you run out of parts and can't maintain it, use it as a pillbox. You don't need support structures to support a war, you just need balls to the wall savagery and a hard as brick dick

>>680526

they were designed for cold war, with cold war mentality. why make super overpowered tank when you will lose 10 000 of them in the first ten minutes either way? they made a tank for the kind of apocalyptic war that never happened

honestly, same goes for leo and abrams, but this one was ductaped with money armor

we really could use some more modern tanks.

>>683797

The canadian and the frenchie deserve to be used as mobile mine-clearing devices, since they're not concerned about survivability of the manpower, and no need to train them for that.

>>683797

Also note how higher the crew losses were already at the end of WWII due to the first RPG ancestors.

>>683725

>They would clearly be present in propaganda videos shooting at their enemies as it would be a powerful image.

No they won't as even normies would take it as definitive proof the US is backing ISIS. Same way as you never saw them posing with Javelin despite both the Syrians, the Kurds and the Iraqi finding discarded CLU's.

Ammo you produce by the boatload, dicknuts. No one sane use ammo stockpile left by the enemy on the strategical level, as any self-respecting enemy will have sabotaged it since it's piss easy to do and a gigantic pain to check each shell propellant one by one.

It's gear you use, guns, guns barrel, chassis, engines, all the shit that takes a while and is hard to produce.

Almost all of WARPACT ammo can be used in NATO gear after minimal adaptation.

On the contrary you CANNOT use NATO ammo in WARPACT gear without considerable adaptation as typically it just won't fit in the barrels (which is exactly the metal part of any weapon the HARDEST to make especially for tanks/arty/field guns).

Do you think it's really a coincidence that ALL soviet guns are slightly smaller than NATO's?

It's not it's clearly meant to avoid having their own gear turned against them once captured, because of their experience in maneuver warfare (late war Germany had entire divisions fielding more Russian gear than German).

>>683839

Didn't they use them when they took Mosul dam from the Iraqi's?

>>683852

I think its true for bullets only. The Makarov being an example, cartridges don't work well in different guns, of course, but even during war time emergency where you've captured tons of enemy ammunition you can't even pull the bullets to use in your factories if things get that desperate. How smart this was, how true it all is, I don't know.

>>683977

>Our next objective is to find a machine shop and chop the rivets and welds out of our rifles so we can dismount the barrels and re-bore our chambers as well as chop up our bolts to take this captured capitalist ammunition!

I'm rather sure that he meant it the other way. Based on what I've gathered you could make an AR-15 run with 5.45x39mm simply by replacing the barrel and the bolt; and the difference between the rim diameter is a mere 0.4mm, therefore one might try to use the original bolt and hope for the best. Meanwhile 5.56 NATO is simply too big for an AK-74, therefore it wouldn't fit at all. Even more, 5.45 kind of works with the STANAG magazine, although you can only load some 15-20 cartridges, and it's a bit far from reliable. But you could just cut down the magazine well and weld on a new one for AK magazines. Appropriating a machine shop where you replace the barrels of captured M16s and modify the magazine well is a lot less work than building a completely new AK factory from scratch.There were crazier conversions done in history, like vid related. Also, he speaks about an actual total war that goes on for years, the kind of war where you can run out of equipment.

>>684200

is he ok?

>>684199

The thing about late war crews is they were either Otto tier from sheer luck or they were here is how you drive tank, reload gun in tank and off you go tier due to oh shit soviets everywhere. Pre war crews were better off to not having the pressure that said late war crews, as in they had the luxury of time to train. Went for the Luftwaffe and infantry for the most part.

>>684225

Third pic, I'm a laughing.

>>683797

>Also, why is everyone assuming that if a tank is knocked out but serviceable that it will be captured by the enemy and not recovered by the US?

Because we arent assuming that US enemies will forever be 3/4 distracted on a different front by someone and unable to offer real resistance.

>us first army

>1943 to 1944

Literally a period of advancing lines and ridiculous propaganda, its bullshit stats and you know it. Im supposed to believe there werent even wounds? Burns? Sprained fucking wrists or papercuts during the escape?

>>683668

His point is that because the tanks are cooked, the crew deserve to die too.

Lawl, this french faggot will defend muh Russia to his death.

>>684280

>Most of the "tanks" in 1944 on the ukrainian front (the one that collapsed) where Czech (or french or Panzer II) chassis with Soviet guns mounted on them.

>And had they not done this the germans would have collapsed a year earlier.

This smells straight outta Soviet propaganda.

Provide proof?

>>684327

If you aren't sure what the graffiti in the third says, its saying that tank is a baby stroller of the french army.

>>684331

The two officers on the left of the bowler hat guy have that look of why the fuck man.

>>684307

I'm not seeing the fucking stats.

Images say nothing.

>>645196

>>645704

Im sorry, I must have misread. An M3 Lee did WHAT?

>>684401

>Genuine Russian tanks in Russian service also make use of DU armor as well

Stupid amerilard being stupid. Unlike the burgerstani, Russian engineers rely on other things than bulk thickness of frontal armor for survivability, most notably the projectile interception systems. It could be, oh I don't fucking know, because they have warheads of their own design that penetrate frontal armor of any tank in existence. But they also have dynamic armor because underdeveloped nations such as yours still use crap like kinetic penetrators and single-stage HEAT which is readily stopped by an active protection of even such basic level. Beyond that, a plating that stops 30mm rounds is perfectly sufficient.

>>684417

Has that magic system ever been put to battle?

>>684401

>Then please explain to me why the Iraqis which had a shit ton of armor fought so poorly?

Because they're Iraqi?

And you have to swift through the ungodly amount of US propaganda.

Per US own evaluation of the 1991 action most Iraqi tank divisions ESCAPED, with the battle of 73 Easting being A STRATEGIC VICTORY FOR THE IRAQI.

Yes they got completely wiped out (which is a tactical defeat)… but what where they doing?

The whole thing was a rear guard delaying action to allow the retreat of most of the republican guard towards Basra.

The US got delayed and never managed to actually secure the road allowing the republican guard (with most of their armor, which was most of the Iraqi armor) to regroup and hunker down in Basra.

And this failure to eliminate the republican guard led to two things. One the iraqi had reformed their lines and were now hunkered down in their own territory and ready to engage in proper urban warfare (which certainly played a part in Bush decision's to stop there) and the subsequent repression using his loyal elite heavily armed troops that allowed Saddam to stay in power.

Now the US claim they never wanted to dispose of Saddam (which is about as believable as the soviet claim that they didn't want to annex/puppet the whole of Finland when they started the winter war). Most of congress and a shitload of generals themselves always saw the conclusion of the gulf war as… a "strategic miscalculation" (AKA the US like sniffing their own farts so much they actually believed they had destroyed the iraqi army… despite it's core escaping unscathed). Which in turn led to a new war in 2003.

Now if you have to do the same war twice for the same reasons… did you really, won the first time?

Now there is no doubt the coalition could have curb-stomped the Iraqis… but the fact remain that's not what happened. US leadership thought that saddam was done as US generals (in particular the chairforce) were guaranteeing that "yes yes we totally destroyed the Iraqi army"… except subsequent observations and evaluation once the dust had settled, revealed that the chairforce (as usual) had GROSSLY overestimated it's effect (that's a problem since 1940 and yet no one smack them in the mouth to tell them that until a ground unit bring back picks of charred tanks they are not to assume they hit anything) and that indeed the vehicles destroyed on the "highway of death" were mostly Iraqi civilians (oops) fleeing koweit (koweiti, like most gulf arabs don't work, most of the people living and working there are muslim migrants workers of other nationalities) mixed with the screening troops that were ordered to stay put (while the republican guard, the real army, was legging it) that tried to flee in a complete rout (and surrendered in mass to the coalition when allowed to).

Maneuver warfare and war in general is not about K/D ratios.

You can win all your fights and lose the war (France 1940… in most engagement French B1/H35/S35 and British Mathilda turned German Panzers into mincemeat. Except the germans were still advancing so fast, the slow moving french and british armored unit, and even slower infantry support, had no time to perform maintenance, let alone occupy and secure the areas where they were. So despite the fact that when they were fighting they were wining they were constantly on the backfoot) and you can lose all your fights and still achieve your objectives.

Gear and tactics need to serve strategic goals creating a doctrine.

A Russian tank goal is to ultimately be a cheap tool as tanks in Russian doctrine are to be as numerous as infantry platoons and to be used to overwhelm the enemy everywhere the enemy tanks… aren't. To create that "backfoot" situation that will force the enemy tanks to spend it's time moving around to catch up rather than fighting.

>And again, if you can only point to one time in 40 years where the lack of bottom escape hatch was confirmed to have caused the death of a crew

Ahahah.

First link in google M1 tank drowned.

https://archive.is/ciMxq

Name ONE TANK where the drivers dies if it gets in the mud headfirst. I clearly remember others (river banks collapsing in Iraq) but I can't find them. It's non-combat death… so it's terribly easy to call it an accident and not communicate on it.

The thing is a fucking death trap for the crew IN PEACETIME already. It doesn't magically get better in wartime.

>>684426

T-90's in Syria have laughed off TOW's.

>>684426

T-90 in Syria/Iraq have been documented to shrug off TOW-2 (aka best US heavy ATGM available).

Note that the jamming doesn't activate, it's not that it doesn't works, it's just sandniggers being sandniggers, the system doesn't work if the hatches are open (as on Russian ones it's coupled to the active interception system. If the tank isn't buttoned it's a bad idea to have shrapnel flying around, especially if you're trying to leave or are doing something outside the tank) unless you actively do a maneuver on the tank electrical panel to allow it (switch a dummy fuse).

As you can clearly see even a simple safety feature becomes a liability when the average user is 1 IQ point north of a disability pension in developed countries.

That's the first and foremost problem with arabs and their tanks, the tanks aren't the thing that is working poorly.

>>684459

it was a 70s tow hitting the latest t90 version though; another hit on the turrent with the now lost reactive armor parts would have turned the tank into an exploding pinata

>>684482

Kinda explains why the russian military isn't keen on adopting T-14 as their new MBT.

>>684459

I'm sorry, but I've come to the point where I don't trust half or more of the "combat" footage I see. So much of it looks staged that it really gets you wondering, questioning, "is this all staged for propaganda purposes"? I saw a Kurd video of them supposedly destroying a OttoTurkRoach Leopard, but it was like this video, the tank crew just sat in their tank, sitting in a stagnant position. You know, just sitting there like they are waiting for something to happen to them. The camera crew is close enough to get a good shot of the footage. Everything goes very smoothly in this hectic combat situation and the footage is capturing things exactly as it ought to be, strangely enough. Not suspect at all.

I'm not denying the fact that new high end tanks have great HEAT protection, that anti-ATGM stuff will put tanks back to where they used to be potentially, or that Leopards can't be blown up, that some combat reports that are more reliable say the same things, but a lot of these videos look strangely set piece and too good to be true.

People say the ISIS beheadings are fake, but I think propaganda combat footage is by far the easiest of all. Grab a poor camera, use the advantage of combat and poorer camera to make "authentic" Blair Witch Project "real' footage, viola! Things that aren't very powerful propaganda, but yet "real" enough to be believed.

>>684483

It's completely overkill and it's expensive.

Again they have T-90 they aren't using… because T-72B3 are just cheaper for virtually the same thing. And they're making new T-72 (B3 are new prod, not soviet ones. Soviet/90's upgraded ones go by "BM")… when they could make new T-90 (which they make in large numbers for export). Yes the T-90 is objectively better… but not by such a significant margin that they feel it warrant it's cost. It's the complete opposite of what we do (when we sacrifice arms and legs on budgets to have a handful of "super upgraded" tanks).

They will do what they always do, they will make a small batch for a few front line tank brigades and progressively switch to the new chassis, very likely on a downgraded version without all the bells and whistles as what they like about tanks is numbers and mobility (and the "armata system", which isn't a tank, the T-14 is the tank, is all about unifying both the replacement of the old as fuck T-55 family of chassis that are still ubiquitous and the aging T-64 and subsequent family of chassis).

But T-72BX will still be around in 2050 like T-62 are still around, even if by then France and Germany have maybe 12 Leoclerc superwaffen Europanzer each and they have 1000 T-14.

>>684487

>But T-72BX will still be around in 2050 like T-62 are still around, even if by then France and Germany have maybe 12 Leoclerc superwaffen Europanzer each and they have 1000 T-14.

LOL, the delusion of this slavaboo.

And 2075, the fleet of 100-ish Su-57, am I rite?

>>684459

>>684447

I've seen this shit before on half/k/, it's a fucking dud.

Is there any other example?

>Amusingly since they're deployed ISIS captured and used at least 2 due to the fact that they survive so well…

ISIS uses Abrams as well, I guess Abrams are good?

>>684490

You can shit on M1 all you want but nothing will ever take away it's retarded thick armor plating on all sides, you need some serious fucking guns to take it out.

>>684491

> Big Brother never lies, he only tells us truths

> all footage from all sources of media that claim to be from combat or other "real" or "reality" sources MUST be authentic

> even if the enemy fakes footage for propaganda, we never do

> there isn't a constant war to set narratives and affect morale both for and against people

> all video is real, the camera never lies

Keep your eyes and ears open, friend.

>>684492

Abrams has been shown to survive ATGM hit as well, see >>680605

The slavaboo will screech HUURRRRRR the crew leaves the tank, it's completely useless now.

>>684482

>It's not 70's TOW it's an E3. The rebels uses BGM-71E (and some F even) in their long range version no less, AKA it's the 2000's version that is what the current US arsenal is made of.

Provide proof.

>>684496

>supersoldier

Where are the bulletproof power armors? Where is the heavy machine gun?

>>684498

It was a joke, implying that they're not any better than sandniggers they're fighting - not in the "surviving the battle" department anyway.

>>684499

They are fucking outnumbered, outgunned and without support.

Infantries are soft targets regardless of the million dollars spent on them.

>>684503

Excuses, excuses. These literal niggers literally don't aim their guns, if these guys were tenth as competent as advertised they'd remove all the kebab and went home unscathed. Even ignoring this, what the fuck kind of tactical decision it is to slowly move outside a vehicle while you're being ambushed? They should've all hopped in and ran away full tilt like the rest of the company did.

>>684509

>Excuses, excuses. These literal niggers literally don't aim their guns, if these guys were tenth as competent as advertised they'd remove all the kebab and went home unscathed.

LOL if this is true, NOBODY would have died in any African wars, including the Rhodesian.

>Even ignoring this, what the fuck kind of tactical decision it is to slowly move outside a vehicle while you're being ambushed? They should've all hopped in and ran away full tilt like the rest of the company did.

Retarded decision.

I don't defend them, I'm just saying they are still soft targets in the end.

>>684509

Actually nevermind, I don't want to hear it. The fact of the matter is that the decision was pants on the head retarded and resulted in the entire squad getting killed. The rest of the guys just ran away in their trucks and none of them got hurt.

>>684500

Yeah he was just a little lightheaded afterward ;^)

>>684511

If a nigger were to magdump in a completely random direction while you stand out in the open a mile away, there would be 0.1% chance that you'd get shot. The way they normally aim, that's more like 0.1% per bullet. However, a half-competent soldier should have upwards of 10% chance to hit a man at that distance. That's not to mention, one should be able to use the fucking cover properly, something niggers don't do seemingly out of principle, just like aiming. The point being, practice shows that between some of the best and the worst prepared armies in the world, the man to man fighting ability difference is pretty marginal in spite of supposed astronomical skill gap.

>>684513

>>684509

Now that you say that, it is very strange. Why did they decide to basically just stay put and not book it out of there? Very stupid.

Perhaps it is darwin being exploited on the special forces, weeding out the retards.

>>684515

Again, I don't defend muh NATO soldiers.

I'm just saying they are just infantries and aren't bulletproof.

>>684409

And how is an engine going to be running when on a road march to maintain that 40mph cruising speed? And a diesel engine with the same power as a turbine engine will be so much heavier and larger that you will NEVER get the same power to weight ratio out of it.

>>684431

>NATO's goal in desert storm wasn't to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait

>Iraq's goal in desert storm was to flee kuwait with their tail between their legs

Yup, that sounds about right to me. And their army was in a horrible state that had zero hope of achieving Iraq's actual goal which was to occupy Kuwait and cause enough NATO casualties to cause them to withdraw because they didn't care at all to preserve their vehicle crews which would have learned a lot of experience in the Iran/Iraq war. So they had a surplus of equipment and no crews because their crews all died horribly. But hey, at least it means Iran didn't capture any of their tanks right?

>again, pointing to the bottom escape hatches like its a huge "gotcha" moment

If you actually fucking read the sentence all the way through, you would notice that I said the only incident you can point to OVER THE COURSE OF FORTY YEARS OF SERVICE means that bottom escape hatches are more of a liability due to the loss of hull integrity against land mines vs the chances of ending up in an unfortunate situation like what you keep pointing to that literally only happened once. I'm willing to bet many more crews would have been injured or killed by landmines and daisy chained aircraft bomb IEDs had the hull not been solid. You can't fucking have your cake and eat it too.

>>684459

>it was a TOW-2

>dude, trust me

>the super tank also would have jammed the wire guided missile too

>dude, trust me

<ignore the part where the crew panic bails in fear of being broiled alive all according to plan and also do so out the top hatches and don't die instantly

>>684482

>I have lied out my ass about burning radioactive armor, deadly fire extinguishers, the Abrams lacking any kind of reactive armor, WARPACT guns being compatible with NATO ammo to the point that it was all designed that way, but please trust me when I continue to spew bullshit like this without any sources at all to back it up besides saying a lot of official looking words

>>684556

I don't get it, is that proof it's a TOW-2 or something?

>>684557

BGM-71E = TOW2.

>>684558

Please prove it's the same fucking TOW used against that particular T-90?

>>684554

>And how is an engine going to be running when on a road m

Retard a tank isn't supposed to ride on roads, that's why it has treads. No wonder you've been losing tanks to fucking IEDs if your most powerful vehicles are literally being used as trains on predictable tracks. This is as dumb or dumber than the Iraqi retards using their tanks as pillboxes.

>>684559

Numero Uno) America is the primary supplier of anti tank weaponry to the terrorists which are TOW-2s, they knew they were attacking a tank, the range is makes sense as well. The preponderance of evidence is on the side of it being a TOW2 so you better have some compelling evidence otherwise. Please prove something else was used.

Numero Dos) Why do you think a TOW-2 has a chance of penetrating the T-90 or even the later T-72 variants? The best of the TOW series is only 70% effective as the Kornet, which the Russians use to test their fucking tanks. American anti tank missiles are nerfed to under 1000mm RHA because they know its going to end up in terrorist hands and they don't want it to be a danger to Abrams with its 1100mm RHA glacis in the future. Please provide your rationale for thinking TOW-2 stands a chance because I don't get even why you're butthurt.

Numero Tres) An export russian tank crewed by dirt monkeys that didn't even have the sense to button up much less turn on the Shtora just shrugged off a large anti tank missile with a good hit right on the turret ring. It doesn't matter what kind of missile it was, the important part is that the tank itself kept moving after the hit, is solid, exceeds expectation. I've yet to see an Abrams shrugging off anything that wasn't built before polio was eradicated.

>>684482

>It's not 70's TOW it's an E3. The rebels uses BGM-71E (and some F even) in their long range version no less, AKA it's the 2000's version that is what the current US arsenal is made of.

pruufs?

>>684554

>And how is an engine going to be running when on a road march to maintain that 40mph cruising speed? And a diesel engine with the same power as a turbine engine will be so much heavier and larger that you will NEVER get the same power to weight ratio out of it.

Explain how the Leopard 2 with around the same weight as the Abrams uses 30% less fuel then?

There's a reason why everybody except amerilards abandoned the retarded gasturbines-for-tanks-concept.

>So they had a surplus of equipment and no crews because their crews all died horribly.

What part of "the republican guard escaped which kept saddam in power" didn't you understand, fatty?

>THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.

proof?

>Retard a tank isn't supposed to ride on roads,

holy shit you're retarded beyond down syndrome.

>>684568

I do wonder, if having a turbine engine is such disadvantage in fuel usage and other things like you noted, why do they still use it? There has to be a reason other than keeping the jobs of the industry alive, I assume. Do they go faster? Do they have more range?

Why did it get chosen over a diesel engine?

>>684568

>holy shit you're retarded beyond down syndrome.

Well someone who formats his texts

like this

doesn't have much of a margin to talk about who has and who doesn't have down syndrome

unless you're talking from experience

of course

>>684563

So literally dude trust me?

>>684564

So no direct proof, but speculation.

Please prove first it's a TOW-2 in the first place.

>>684572

>>684568

Well go ahead. Provide ONE single example of TOW used by syrian rebels with it's markings showing it's not a TOW-2, compared to the half of dozen pics I've found with a simple google query.

I'll wait.

>>684570

It takes up less space in the tank, the engine itself is lighter which lets you carry more armor per tank weight. Kind of offset by having 2x bigger fuel tanks though lol… But that was the original rationale.

It actually might make sense if we switch to exotic electric weapons and propulsion because a turbine free to rotate at max speed can gemerate electrical power more efficiently than apiston engine. Its why hybrid submarines use them.

>>684572

Its not speculation it is evidemce. Your debate opponent has provided more evidence than you have, this isnt 'innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt' we are judging events not people. Provide counter evidence or fuck off.

>>684580

Hes going to go back under a rock with no response but then months later claim everyone who debated him was a russian lover/agent in another thread and we had no arguments except our patriotic love of russia. Screencap this post take my word for it the fucker will do it.

>>684580

>>684608

I have nothing to prove otherwise since:

1. First, you have to prove that syrian rebels ONLY have access to TOW-2.

2. That specific TOW used by the syrian rebels is a TOW-2.

Now you are using reductionist logic hurr pictures show syrian sandniggers only use TOW-2 thus they ONLY have TOW-2, that shit is not logic.

>>684617

You do know that the launcher is pretty much the same across the board. Most likely an E model of rocket being used like the rest considering no markings are being showed.

>>684618

>most likely

Proof?

>>684617

You can't see the missile markings on that picture.

Congratulation on proving you can't even comprehend basic English.

>>684630

>The turbine is more fuel-efficient at 95%+ load

ftfy

>>684518

Inexperience of the African theater.

In Afghanistan afghans takes pot shots at you for being there. Afghan armed forces looters run away when shoot at so even normal villagers do this.

You retaliate, maybe shoots one or two, the 5 or 6 left run away or there was really just one or two (and they run away seeing you were up for a fight).

In Africa if the local wildlife feel strong enough that it can take potshots at soldiers… it means there is a LOT of them. So you haul ass and get out there and come back with armor (armored vehicles are a MUST have in Africa, ghouls don't aim but they're very enthusiastic about it).

Also recon is done in force at never less than 12 men and 3 vehicles (no matter how many local "soldiers" are with you) and all 3 vehicles have at least one MG with a 200rnd belt (preferably twice that) and you never split up more than running/shouting distance.

4 whites guys in a car anywhere in Africa are zombies. They might still be walking but they're dead already.

12 men with 3 MGs can hold off 200 ghouls that rely on juju to hit.

4 men with ARs can be run over by a local gang armed with machetes.

>>684970

What do you think about vid related? tl;dw is that everyone's favourite Larry had a tricked out CAR-15 that he used in Panama and in the Gulf War to "hunt SCUDs". He said that their experience was part of the reason the US Army switched to the M4 from the M16, even though he himself says that they should have used 7.62 guns in the Gulf War.

>>684973

It's a nice carbine is what I think, but he clearly stated where the "problem" is.

The M4 is retarded as a general purpose service rifle, because it can't do "general purpose".

It's fine replacing MP5 (or SMGs that were still in service in the 80's in most commandos units) as commandos aren't supposed to get in long range firefights, CQC and surprise actions is their job by a 5.56 carbine, but if you're replacing a 147 gr projectile launched at 800m/s rifle by a 62 gr launched at 850m/s (instead of the 1000 it was designed for) at some point you got to admit that it's not gonna be able to do the same thing because it's half the energy and even if 5.56 flies better than 7.62… it's nowhere near two times better.

The problem is not a technical problem. It's a doctrinal one, the "chechenisation" of conflict.

First chechen war. Russia sends conscripts, a full cycle was done since the collapse of the Soviet Union, conscript where barely kept fed and warm, let alone trained. Conscripts get slaughtered.

Russia leaderships reacts, sends in guys that are actually still trained (spec ops). Spec ops end up being used as "line" infantry… it kinda works but not well and is clearly unsustainable and leads to a full on Pyrrhic victory and Russia is forced to withdraw (which will lead to deep changes and reform of the Russian army).

The moral of the story is: Spec ops aren't magic.

Commandos forces outside of their elements (surprise, CQC) aren't exactly better than regular infantry.

They're often worse. If it had been 12 guys on a Stryker (US medium infantry), or 3 Humvee (US light infantry), they wouldn't had been attacked in the first place and had they been they would have won. And had they actually been linked to their proper support assets, as combined warfare dictates, it's quite possible no one on their side would have died.

Different tools for different jobs.

Some commandos (french, UK) does train for long range desert patrols. But that's all they do, that's a specialty, like combat diver or hostage rescue. And it comes with specialized vehicles and equipment.

When you start to think that "every spec ops should be able to do every jobs" that's when they start dying (we've had a bunch in France recently too) and is a telltale that either a military is stretched too thin or that the higher ups have no idea of what they are doing (and typically both).

>>684996

Like Vickers' said, it's a 200 meter gun. It rocks in those 200 meters, but beyond that it begins to falter.

What >>684996 said is spot on. Special Forces equipment needs are not indicative of what line infantry needs. Both need to have access to different tools for different jobs, and have enough support at the fireteam level to make use of said tools. Trying to find a single caliber or projectile that works at close and long range is going to result in diminishing returns. Same with the lead throwing platform. And with training.

Giving your troops a swiss army knife may allow them to do a lot of things, but probably not better than with dedicated tools.

Now there are some outliers, red dot optics with or without magnifiers, better controls on the gun, .300 blackout (It has it's own issues though) to name a few, that can bridge some of those gaps in an economic manner. But almost all of them can be adapted to a gun that is better at that distance than one that NEEDS those bits to become effective at the same range.

Close range guns need to be developed for 0-200 meters. General line infantry guns need to be developed for 200-400 meters. And longer range general line infantry guns need to be 300-700 meters.

Now keep in mind that this does not cover support weapons, just the general issue rifles/SMG for infantry. You are still going to have belt fed MGs and DMRs and grenade launchers, but they need to be built to suit their purpose. The MGs need a robust magnified optic paired with a red dot, as does the DMR. The GL should be standalone with the option of attaching it to your primary, unless it is a dedicated standalone shoulder fired system.

As for SF? Their needs are way to diverse to use them as the model for infantry. There will be some crossover, but in general it would be for specialist positions like Sappers and Combat Engineers. And very rarely for the majority of the GIs.

It would also do wonders to expand the idea of Special Operations Capable units and personal. You don't always need all of your SF boys to be doing SF, but you need a strong, solid core of professional SF to work with. Give specialists more access to training that can allow them to be called in when a nearby SF team needs specialists in a certain field.

>Oh man, this op would be cake with a little mortar support.

>Damn, we don't have anyone that can speak this dialect available in the teams right now.

>A little more sniper support would do wonders for this.

>An extra MG section right here would cut off any reinforcements.

>A dedicated tank hunter team could save a lot of lives.

>We need a lot more medics if this compound is as full of hostages as you say it is.

>>684996

>>684973

>>685031

Even old feudal minded line infantry standard liking guys like me have to admit that the mixed squad is the way forward at this point. Whacky ideas about replacing the light machine gun are insane, it is the one piece of squad equipment that can't change except for extremely specific special operations duty. If you go with assault rifles, or even assault carbines, you end up needing battle rifle or now DMR support to supplement that lack of range in certain conditions. The dream of the standardized rifle for all 8-12 men of a standard infantry squad will have to wait, until something major super comes along to radically change things.

The negative parts of heavy specialty is that it becomes an organizational issue at the very least, now you have to attach how many specialized units to base minimum unit what/ An anti tank sub unit to every company, do you stick them to a platoon, place them in the heavy weapons platoon of an infantry company? How many DMR and where do you allot them? Full sniper support where and how? Small special operations forces find this easy, doing this along an army is more difficult, and trying to organize this and find replacements in a third world war would be insanely logistically difficult. Finding new units to equip new units, then organizing sending DMR, tank busters, snipers, ect. to these highly diversified units as they take casualties is an issue.

Standard line infantry advantage for its disadvantage with this issue: loss of specialization, but ease of equipping standard units and replacing losses. Give them man a rifle and standard equipment for the theater and send him.

The universal and constant problem of the diversified squad has haunted us from its earliest days back in WW2. SMG's can't be used very effectively at extended ranges, if you get into a longer range fight with weapons and people who can fight at those distances, the SMG and carbine soldiers find themselves pretty well out of effect. This reduces the squad's ability to use its full manpower and weaponry at ranged battles, or parts of battles. The one advantage of the battle rifle squad is that its never out in this type of trouble at range, the entire squad can fight and provide fire support at long range. The carbine and SMG heavy units are meant for close range, and they do well in their element, but in extended range fights they often have to sit back and let the other weapons do all the fighting. The battle rifle may be a harder to use close combat rifle, but it does provide the most universal squad in terms of logistics and ammunition, and requires the least specialization. Then again, one is tempted to insert assault rifles, carbines, and SMG into the squad for close combat. Or go the very common route of carbines and rely on the LMG to do all the heavy lifting.

The potential weakness of the assault carbine squad of modern make is that even though it works to a certain extent in limited warfare where the 1st world country has the material advantages and heavy firepower monopoly, things would be different against another super power or major third world war scenario. Today the boys with the carbines rely on artillery and airstrikes, which are at their disposal, their DMR and machine guns to win fights they have the immediate firepower disadvantage at. When you fight another major army, you may not have that artillery and heavy weapons advantage, in fact THEY might have the advantage on you. The mitigating factor in this is, a large conscript war would often see the quality of troops drop dramatically, and the amount of soldiers who would, and are capable, of firing at extended ranges drops.

Things to think about.

>>680607

>z-zero lost in combat!