Now that the dust has settled, what went wrong?

Now that the dust has settled, what went wrong?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    russians are moronic

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      thats both funny and somewhat depressing at the same time.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Turns out making your tank a bigger target for next to no benefits was a moronic idea. Who woulda known??

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Turns out low profile tank was always a meme

      The duality of man.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Turns out low profile tank was always a meme

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Incorrect, the design was indeed fine, even good, for the time of the design.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how many wheels?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >US wanted a few good tanks
    >USSR wanted so many ok tanks they would still win with numbers
    >US tank is good enough it can be ungraded a dozen times over the next 4 decades
    >Russia is broke as frick and couldn't afford significant upgrades even if they were worth it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Optics and guidance systems made traditional profile reduction pointless, thus leaving you with a tank that's functionally just as easy to hit but way more cramped and less survivable compared to a larger design

      This too, the T-72 and the T80 just never got the same upgrade treatment our Abrams and Leopards got. If the Abrams was Russian you may have a dozen M1A2 SEPv3s for parade but the majority of the fleet being M1A1s with a large amount of bone stock M1s in reserve. That and the General Motors XM1 also entered service and maybe got an upgrade package or two

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The T-72, and all tanks with the carousel autoloader were not future proofed. When it was first introduced, the T-64 and T-72 had sufficient enough armor to protect against existing 105mm ammunition and other AT weapons to not worry about post-penetration survivability. Obviously, this changed with the introduction of the 120mm gun, better 105mm sabot rounds, and newer ATGMs. Moreover, being small and cramped, aside from making the crew's lives a living hell, meant that there was less space for future upgrades. For example you can't fit long APFSDS into a T-72/T-90 hence why they made the T-14. What upgrades they did make to the platform, Russia could not afford, were dependent on Western tech (like thermals), and were inferior to Western equivalents.
        The Abrams had the advantage of a more forward-looking design philosophy that anticipated future upgrades (120mm gun, CITV, and armor to name a few) and included things that weren't a concern to Soviet designers when the T-72 first came out, like blowout panel-protected storage for 100% of the ammo in the tank. The US could also afford all of those said upgrades, fought in conflicts that outlined a need for unanticipated upgrades, and actually installed them on most of its fleet (all of the Abrams in storage are M1A1 or M1A2).

        >That and the General Motors XM1 also entered service and maybe got an upgrade package or two
        Kek. The Soviet design bureau system was a fricking shitshow

        MBTs regardless of nationality are obsolete. IFVs will be the "tanks" of the future. Don't take it personally. We can still drool over MBTs the same way people drool over WWII prop planes, battleships and other obsolete weapons.

        IFVs don't have high-caliber direct fire cannons or protection sufficient to survive heavy ATGMs. Neither of those are capabilities that IFVs have (without becoming tanks themselves) or ones that armies geared for conventional warfare are willing to give up.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >IFVs don't have high-caliber direct fire cannons or protection sufficient to survive heavy ATGMs
          Just a bit of speculation, nothing serious.
          But you can throw a StrikeShield APS package on a Bradley, also add BRAT for good measure, equip it with a CT40 cannon and Akerons and it would be capable of behaving like a tank for as long as Akerons last and the 40mm cannon will deal with any infantry, PC, APC, IFV, AFV or entrenchment it comes across.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cheeky BRAT, needs penetration

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Puma is heavly armoured against atgms and the like

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >US wanted a few good tanks
      >builds like 10,000, literally outnumbering all T-80s and T-90s ever built combined

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t72 and later variants is 34k
        >m1 and all variants after 10k
        3:1 advantage, seems like a reasonable advantage

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          For the M1, yeah.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nah 3 to 1 is pretty significant. But its irrelevant now anyways, tanks are obsolete. It's all about speed and drones now

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              How many M1s was lost to how many Soviet designs in the Desert Storm?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >T-72
          So not T-80 and T-90.

          nah 3 to 1 is pretty significant. But its irrelevant now anyways, tanks are obsolete. It's all about speed and drones now

          T-72s are garbage that could have a 20:1 advantage against M1s and would still get butchered one-sidedly.

          >tanks are obsolete
          Absolute clueless brainlets actually believe this.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its design role doesn't exists since the 70s. Large scale maneuvers against a pair enemy using 10k tanks, 20k BMPs and enough SAMs to avoid CAS.
    The soviet MBT aren't as flexible as 1980s western MBTs and they never fixed the survivability AFTER penetration, the assumption was "enough armor to not think about that".

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No Abrams has been killed by a Russian tank, ever. The Ambrams in Ukraine were mine kills. Then the chink drones came in to drop grenades on them for their propaganda reels for the plebs back in frozen Nigeria.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >put an Abrams and a T-72 in one pic
    >post it on /k/, flooded with pro-russian shills and people alergic to anything russian
    >at a time when people say tanks are obsolete
    >leave

    Perfectly crafted bait. Well timed, low effort just as it should ve done. 10/10

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      MBTs regardless of nationality are obsolete. IFVs will be the "tanks" of the future. Don't take it personally. We can still drool over MBTs the same way people drool over WWII prop planes, battleships and other obsolete weapons.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >IFV becomes new standard
        >suddenly one day someone has a genius idea
        >"what if we put a large cannon on our IFV to facilitate larger rounds with smart fuses and more powerful armor penetrating capabilities?"

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thats a cool idea, but you would be dumping a lot of money and effort into a vehicle with pretty limited protection
          I reckon it would need to be significantly up-armoured to be viable, so up-armoured in fact that it would no longer be capable of carrying troops beyond the crew

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >IFVs become the new standard
        >generals realize a lot of them never carry troops
        >also realize they don't carry enough ammo for direct combat
        >could also use more armor to save them from shrapnel

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this anon is correct, and it's really a good thing. MBT's are a moneysink.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >MBTs regardless of nationality are obsolete
        MBTs are still the primary striking force of the US army

        >IFVs will be the "tanks" of the future.
        IFVs only exist within the context of a combined arms team, the M2 brad does not operate without M1s or vice-versa because they fill functionally separate roles

        >We can still drool over MBTs the same way people drool over WWII prop planes, battleships and other obsolete weapons.
        nobody still flies P-51s, but the US still uses the M1A2 abrams
        so obsolete is not the proper term

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          MBTs are still the primary striking force of EVERY army with access to them.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Turns out tanks without shells are useless even if they have undisputable range superiority over T55

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't have your government commit suicide halfway through a weapon's run if you want it to have meaningful upgrades.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think we should give Ukes some IVORY

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    both are excellent tanks
    effectiveness depends on the user

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Abram is a general purpose MBT in a theater that demands specialized equipment. Maintenance is too fricking high, too heavy, and its battlefield presence is heavily diminished with the high amount of drones & precision rockets.

    Russian tanks (pretty much all of them) are specialized for the region and have good combat capability, but their doctrine was clearly outdated at the start of the war and their command structure is a fricking mess. At least they seem more flexible now, and are willing to be unorthodox in their use to spook the ukrainians. Turtle tanks look moronic but if it works, it works.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Turtle tanks look moronic but if it works, it works
    https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61618393/#q61618760
    https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61618393/#q61618765

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Abrams was a whole lot more expensive while still being unable to crack the lines.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *