Russian junk....

I thought these fag-wagons were supposed to be gamechangers. Wtf Russia? Why are you so drunk and retarded all the time?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The dual 30 mils were a cope for how shit Russian guns are. One shoots HE and the other shoots AP instead of having a single gun that can handle both ammo types. That should tell you all you need to know about that piece of junk.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No you noguns autist, they shoot both at the same time, increasing DPS. That's how you fight larger vehicles with more HP

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        when it comes to guns this size i simply wont take advice from countries that allow their citizens to own peashooters, i will only listen to experienced professionals

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >That should tell you all you need to know
      All it tells me was that they took a concept to an in service capability quickly and cheaply with what they had available.
      What you need to know is that a 30mm autocannon shooting HE is fucking dangerous if you're unprotected infantry. And a 30mm autocannon shooting AP will tear through anything less than an MBT. And that thing has both, and missiles.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If a country can't produce it in a large or meaningful enough quality its a bad design for said country

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's a stupid opinion.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this is literally a war of attrition
            no air supremacy just semi static defensive lines with sides throwing massive amount of artillery at each other
            no single armored vehicle is going to make a difference if you can only bring ~100 of them to the front and the front is 200+ km
            theres is a reason Germany lost despite having the panther and tiger
            If I'm wrong please give me an example past world war 2 of a limited production armored vehicle being a decisive factor

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >a war of attrition
              given that we've been seeing small columns of these things throughout the intervention and that we've been seeing these things showing up in combat semi-regularly, I think it's reasonable to say that they aren't running out of them anytime soon

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I have never seen more than one show in combat this entire conflict let alone in the last 2 months

                >The Russians aren't currently spamming these out and YOLOing them across open fields, therefore they are completely crap and useless in every way
                Like I said, stupid opinion.

                oh okay so they're just sending only the old gear to waste Ukraine's weapons, and ammo 7 months into the protracted intervention and the 900+ lost tanks and 900+ ifvs have been all part of the grand Russian strategy to let the terminators pull back anytime something goes wrong?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >oh okay so they're just sending only the old gear to waste Ukraine's weapons, and ammo 7 months into the protracted intervention and the 900+ lost tanks and 900+ ifvs have been all part of the grand Russian strategy to let the terminators pull back anytime something goes wrong?
                Is that supposed to be a sensible point is it? Terminators were never going to win the war single handedly no matter how many there are. On open ground they are incredibly vulnerable to MBTs. But MBTs are vulnerable in urban environments where Terminators fill a capability gap. It's niche, but useful.

                >If it ain't broke don't fix it.
                >we dont need a modern gun that can swap ammo on the fly

                >>we dont need a modern gun that can swap ammo on the fly
                >modern gun
                Were the Romans using 30mm autocannons were they?

                Let's be clear, that motherfucker will ABSOLUTELY fuck up infantry and light vehicles. A dual feed mechanism wouldn't improve that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A dual feed mechanism wouldn't improve that.
                >lets slap two guns instead of just one because we cant be arsed to do the bare minimum

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>lets slap two guns instead of just one because we cant be arsed to do the bare minimum
                What's wrong with that idea exactly?

                >But MBTs are vulnerable in urban environments where Terminators fill a capability gap.
                So they're essentially useless at this stage of the war, and even when there was heavy urban fighting the terminators never showed up
                cool got it, sounds like a useless vehicle that can't get the job done

                >even when there was heavy urban fighting the terminators never showed up
                How do you know? Where was the heavy urban fighting, what units were involved, and what were they equipped with?
                Maybe they should have used Terminators and just didn't.

                Russia's 30mm APBC is so bad that it can't penetrate the front of an A2 Bradley or Warrior with appliques
                60mm penetration at muzzle velocity

                It has ATGMs you dumb fuck.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >How do you know? Where was the heavy urban fighting, what units were involved, and what were they equipped with?
                Maybe they should have used Terminators and just didn't.
                okay if they should have used them and didn't than Russia is retarded and it makes me trust their vehicle design philosophy even less given your explanation that they are meant to be used in urban combat

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >where was the heavy urban fighting?
                Mariupol you retard
                Terminator is a waste of resources no matter what tou say
                Any MBT can mirror its capabilites by simply having a remote controlled autocannon for the commander which is what unsuprisingly alot of next gen tank prototypes have

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Mariupol you retard
                Were they deployed? If so what happened? If not why not? If you've got some verfiable data that we can use to give a proper assesment of it's combat performance, please share. If not shut the fuck up dickhead.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Were they deployed? If not why not?
                Because Russians are disorganized retards. If they can't understand something as simple as pallets, why would anyone expect them to be capable of deploying an over-engineered piece of Victory Day parade crap?

                >If you've got some verfiable data that we can use to give a proper assesment of it's combat performance, please share.
                We have a verifiable lack of data, since the Terminator wunderwaffe is vaporware. That's perhaps more telling than what we'd see if it was actually deployed.
                You're like a tard screeching that we can't talk about the Nazi Maus tank, because we don't really know it's specs as it was never deployed. As if that wasn't the fucking point, you absolute reltard.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fuck, meant for

                >Mariupol you retard
                Were they deployed? If so what happened? If not why not? If you've got some verfiable data that we can use to give a proper assesment of it's combat performance, please share. If not shut the fuck up dickhead.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >wunderwaffe
                see

                >I'm a fucking idiot that knows nothing about armored doctrine and capabilities. Wtf Russia? Why did you build this completely ordinary piece of kit that does a specific job.
                You were an idiot when you thought they were they were completely amazing and invulnerable.
                You're still an idiot for not recognizing how dangerous that thing is if you have to fight it.

                There's nothing about the Terminator that's overengineered, it's a very simple design. See:

                >>his industrial base isn't good enough to make a cannon that can shoot both kinds of ammo
                Says who? Dual feed mechanisms aren't cutting edge technology, but developing a new gun is expensive. Meanwhile two autocannons is nowhere near straining the suspension of a t-72.

                Cheap, effective, fit-for-purpose. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There's nothing about the Terminator that's overengineered
                >literally has two guns because they couldnt afford to switch ammo
                because apparently that is the sane or rational solution

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the exact same gun is used with dual feed in the BMP-2

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I know that retard, imagine having issued ammo that isn't sufficient when this thing is supposed to fight vehicles and people inside cities

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The terminator's 30mm AP rounds can't crack a bradley
                >Obviously the terminator's ATGMs can crack a bradley you retard.
                My god the dumb ITT.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But MBTs are vulnerable in urban environments where Terminators fill a capability gap.
                So they're essentially useless at this stage of the war, and even when there was heavy urban fighting the terminators never showed up
                cool got it, sounds like a useless vehicle that can't get the job done

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Mbt with a remote controlled autocannon on top can do its job too so even more of a waste of logistical suppert

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                or, you know, just have tanks that can aim up more than 10 degrees to hit targets in buildings
                or have IFVs follow the tanks around, with guns that can be aimed at high angles, so you dont need an autocannon on the tank

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ah yes lets add another tank or Ifv to the Supply chain just so we dont have to use the cheaper and easier Alternative of putting a autocannon on your tankd instead so you dont need an entire new vehicles

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe. That's hardly a proven concept. Though I do think it's a good idea.

                >How do you know? Where was the heavy urban fighting, what units were involved, and what were they equipped with?
                Maybe they should have used Terminators and just didn't.
                okay if they should have used them and didn't than Russia is retarded and it makes me trust their vehicle design philosophy even less given your explanation that they are meant to be used in urban combat

                >The Russians not mass producing the fuck out of these incredibly useful machines means the design is retarded.
                >The Russians not using the machines they already have means the design is retarded.
                We'll know more at the end of the war.

                Twice the maintenance, buddy ...
                And knowing Russian logistics you can bet your ass that at a certain point someone just skimped on keeping one of them going because not enough parts.
                I'm also fairly certain that, at this point in time, if there are any of these fuckers left running around in Ukraine, most of the gear is not working

                >Twice the maintenance, buddy ...
                Dual feed mechanisms required additional mainenance idiot.
                They're also more expensive and more prone to failure.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We'll know more at the end of the war.
                too bad we aren't there, now lets go off what we know now
                Russian lines are collapsing and an overly complicated dual cannon afv, that hasn't been produced in meaningful numbers during a war of attrition, isn't keeping Russian lines from collapsing against a Ukrainian counter attack, or really produced any observable results at all during this entire conflict

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russian lines are collapsing
                CNN is not reality my dude. It's too early to give an assessment on the Yuke offensives. I'll admit I'm surprised at how well they've done in a few places, not surprised at all at how poorly they've done in others, but the war is a long way from over.

                > overly complicated dual cannon afv
                I don't see anything overly complicated about it. In fact what I see is a very simple design cobbled together from old parts.

                >isn't keeping Russian lines from collapsing against a Ukrainian counter attack
                Nor would it if Russia had a couple of thousand of them.

                > or really produced any observable results at all during this entire conflict
                The fog of war is still thick even if Zalensky has a twitter account. We don't know what the Russian thinking is, and we pretty much only hear Yuke successes, which means no news is kind of good news. If the Yukes were smashing these every time they appear we'd definitely hear about that, and we haven't ergo there are two possibilities, either they've been successful every time and have yet to suffer a single loss, or they haven't been used to all and the Russians have some other plan.

                Which means we have no useful data.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ukraine has literally made more territorial gains than than Russia has in the last 3 months
                and once again the subject afv has been useless in repelling these gains or allowing Russia to conquer further territory in any meaningful capacity
                its a bad design for what Russia should have expected its warfare experience to be
                western forces have never faced this problem with their combined arms doctrine and vehicle implementation in their conflict in the last 30 years and Russia is now bogged down against a neighboring state

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Ukraine has literally made more territorial gains than than Russia has in the last 3 months
                moron they've pierced the line in a couple of places. Russia occupies a fifth of the country. The scoreboard is still very much in Russia's favour.

                >and once again the subject afv has been useless in repelling these gains or allowing Russia to conquer further territory in any meaningful capacity
                So is the Russian fleet of attack submarines. So they should probably stop building those too right? Retard opinion.

                >western forces have never faced this problem
                Western forces haven't fought a peer conflict since WW2. And my god did the Americans have vehicle problems in Iraq against disorganized Arab militia.

                You say "bogged down"
                I say "deliberately engineered a war of attrition."
                Judging Russian warplanners as "failed to be as American as possible" is a very stupid way to look at things. The American track record post-WW2 is terrible, "don't do what America does because it clearly doesn't work" is actually a pretty good starting spot.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >moron they've pierced the line in a couple of places. Russia occupies a fifth of the country. The scoreboard is still very much in Russia's favour.
                losing ground and having 20000+ dead against an a country with an African sized economy doesn't sound like its going well for Russia
                NATO has crushed everyone of its opponents in the last 30 years without reaching anywhere near the same level of deaths let alone wounded
                >So is the Russian fleet of attack submarines. So they should probably stop building those too right? Retard opinion.
                whatever happening to hohols being kalibrated, gay
                >Western forces haven't fought a peer conflict since WW2. And my god did the Americans have vehicle problems in Iraq against disorganized Arab militia.
                in 1990 they destroyed the 5th largest military in the world that was funded by oil money halfway across the world
                Russia has currently experienced massive losses against a bordering nation that is poorer than some African countries

                >I say "deliberately engineered a war of attrition."
                I say a thirld world country has lost an unacceptable amount soldiers due to sheer incompetence and its own people and allies should be furious that their shield against the west is self destructing due to internal greed

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >NATO has crushed everyone of its opponents in the last 30 years without reaching anywhere near the same level of deaths let alone wounded
                lolwut?
                Iraq is now an Iranian puppet and Afganistan is firmly in the hands of the Taliban. They haven't crushed shit. The lost to vietnamese farmers, and a Chinese zerg rush in Korea.

                In the meantime Russia is nowhere near as rich and powerful as the united states. And they are, factually, still winning. Ukraine hasn't kicked them out yet, so it's a stalemate in Russia's favour.

                >whatever happening to hohols being kalibrated, gay
                Holy fuck, context gay, do you read it?

                >Desert Storm
                America was accused of War Crimes by Iraqi generals for not giving them a chance to surrender before shelling them.

                >thirld world country
                Both Russia and Ukraine are second world, you dumb fuck. That's why this is a peer conflict, not bombing Arabs who literally can't surrender fast enough.

                Who the fuck said anything about yoloing the things? Having 100 superb vehicles doesn't mean jackshit when they get swacked 2 weeks into a war and needs 10 years to replace. Not understanding the importance of having the capacity to replace and rebuild stocks of your assets regardless of casualty/depletion rates just shows how big a retard you are.

                >Who the fuck said a
                THE POST BEING RESPONDED TO YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKWIT

                >There's nothing about the Terminator that's overengineered
                >literally has two guns because they couldnt afford to switch ammo
                because apparently that is the sane or rational solution

                >I don't know what the term "overengineered" means
                Dumbfuck.

                >Literally every """modern""" russian design barring small arms have been limited
                Except of course their incredible amount of self-propelled artillery and the ammunition for same. You know, the exact tool they are using the most. You're a fucking idiot.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >war of attrition means we have to turn off our brains and mindlessly attack with zero planning

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well you clearly have turned off your brain. Or perhaps you've never turned it on at all.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Said the retard equating wars of attrition to mindless carnage.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A post so retarded it's impossible to respond to it
                Not an argument.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Dumbfuck.
                truly, the russian mind has been broken to accept anything russian as a good design

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Apparently having the ability to change ammo types is overengineering now. Lmao fucking vatniks I swear.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I still don't understand the definition of overengineered
                Look it up you dumb fuck.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If that shit is considered overengineered for you then all tech past the 1990s must be alien space magic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The average Russian hasn't heard of a toilet or plumbing before so yeah you're not wrong.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just fuck off you dumb fuck. You're too stupid for this conversation.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Apparently having the ability to change ammo types is overengineering now
                or making a new variant of T-72 for the sole purpose of hitting targets at high elevation because their existing T-72s had been designed with such a small silhouette that they cant elevate their guns well at all

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine the field day the Strv-103 would've had

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No MBT can elevate it's gun well.

                Imagine the field day the Strv-103 would've had

                The flattank would be perfectly useless in urban combat.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No MBT can elevate it's gun well.
                the T-72 is limited to +14 due to limitations with its small turret
                the M1 can do +20

                Imagine the field day the Strv-103 would've had

                hopefully the cheese wedge would not have been involved in urban fights, right?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >hopefully the cheese wedge would not have been involved in urban fights, right?
                ideally no from a Swedish doctrine perspective
                ie one not focused on invasion

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And +20 is still useless against a target on the third floor of a building within 13 meters or so. +14 forced you back to 20 meters. 7 meters. Big whoop.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Big whoop.
                6 degrees is a pretty big improvement, are you crazy?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Learn trigonometry.
                For those 6 degrees you buy the ability to engage a third floor target a whole 7 meters closer in an Abrams than in a T-72.

                The point being that NEITHER of them is designed for urban combat.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The point being that NEITHER of them is designed for urban combat.
                the point of course, is that such an incredibly niche knockoff of the T-72 was never necessary as the existing tools they had were already sufficient

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The point was
                >or making a new variant of T-72 for the sole purpose of hitting targets at high elevation because their existing T-72s had been designed with such a small silhouette that they cant elevate their guns well at all
                The counterpoint was
                >No MBT can elevate it's gun well.
                Which has now been shown.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The flattank would be perfectly useless in urban combat.
                too bad the t-72s wouldn't get to enter urban combat when the flat tank wipes them out

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Iraq is now an Iranian puppet and Afghanistan is firmly in the hands of the Taliban. They haven't crushed shit. The lost to vietnamese farmers, and a Chinese zerg rush in Korea.
                IM talking about the gulf war dumb ass and even then the initial 2003 invasion resulted in Iraqi government subjugation in 5 weeks with minimal US casualties
                we are 7 months in and Russian soldiers continue to die en masse against the Ukraine
                >America was accused of War Crimes by Iraqi generals for not giving them a chance to surrender before shelling them.
                Must suck that Russia is only accused of war crimes for the mass rape and looting of civilians instead of kicking ass so hard like the Americans did against Iraqi soldiers
                >Both Russia and Ukraine are second world, you dumb fuck. That's why this is a peer conflict
                lmao holy shit Russia is on par with a country poorer than African nations no wonder the AIDS rate is so high there
                I imagine the average Russian soldier is more than happy to die in Ukraine than look across the border and see how much better even the poorest European has over them

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >5 weeks with minimal US casualties
                Yeah after 20 YEARS of airstrikes and trade interdiction. Incidentally, 5 weeks is a long time when you're simply moving your army from Kuwait to Baghdad with no opposition.
                >Haha Russia sucks almost as much as Ukraine
                I have no idea what the point you were trying to make here was, but you failed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah after 20 YEARS of airstrikes
                its almost like air supremacy is a necessary thing for successful military campaigns
                Russia could learn a lot from the United States, NATO, and (lol) Azerbaijan
                >I have no idea what the point you were trying to make here was, but you failed.
                that the Russian military is incompetent and they have lost more than 20000 soldiers against a nation poorer than them and have almost nothing to show for it, and what they do have to show for it is slowly being erased as we speak against a Ukrainian counteroffensive

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >its almost like air supremacy is a necessary thing for successful military campaigns
                It's not necessary, it's just useful. You can win without it.
                Again, this is just judging the Russians by their failure to be America. But they're not America.

                >against a nation poorer than them
                No that's NOT your point you dumb. Your point was Russia is POOR TOO you fucking idiot. Pick a fucking lane you dumb fuck.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's not necessary, it's just useful.
                vatniks are truly 2-dimensional thinkers

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's not necessary, it's just useful. You can win without it.
                let me know when Russia wins then lol
                >Again, this is just judging the Russians by their failure to be America. But they're not America.
                Yeah America actually cares about its people

                >No that's NOT your point you dumb. Your point was Russia is POOR TOO you fucking idiot. Pick a fucking lane you dumb fuck.
                Heres my lane then:
                Russia is poor, Russia has had more than 20000+ of its soldiers die invading a country poorer than Russia, Russia has no meaningful gains to show for this massive loss of life, Russia is currently losing its gains in a counteroffensive against a country poorer than Russia
                all of this would be unacceptable to a first world military
                hows that sound for you?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >let me know when Russia wins then lol
                Will do.

                > Russia has no meaningful gains
                Other than a fifth of Ukraine.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Other than a fifth of Ukraine.
                slowly losing that while thousands of more Russians die

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Other than a fifth of Ukraine.
                that's posession, not gains

                majority of that was gained in 2014

                and the rest is being actively lost

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So?

                >Constituting about 10% of their capital
                >russia totally has 10,000 tanks available
                between thinking a rusted out T-62 is worth counting and not requiring an air superiority

                it has become increasingly clear russians are related to reformers

                >between thinking a rusted out T-62 is worth counting
                You mean the T-62s they've already deployed? Yeah I think they count.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So?
                So you're a cum slupring /chug/ retard high on copium and cannot admit that russia is a rotten and worthless shithole actively losing a war against fucking Ukraine.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So I didn't actually have a point I just wanted a (you)
                Here's another one. Spend it wisely.

                >has to use world war 1 as an example of acceptable tank losses
                lol you can't actually be this delusional right?
                you're comparing Russian success to world war 1?
                you actually have brain damage

                >I can't believe you're referencing history in a conversation about historical wars of attrition
                That's because you're stupid. The only thing you know about war you learned from watching movies. But they were made by people who are just as dumb as you.

                If they have resorted to digging up T-62s, then its pretty obvious they have begun scraping the bottom of the barrel

                And yet they've still got plenty of T-80BVMs sitting in parking lots deep inside Russia.
                It's almost as if you've got no idea what you're talking about, and you only see what you want to see.

                https://i.imgur.com/ajnXKPT.jpg

                Stop dodging questions like a slimy garden gnome russoid, scum. Your shitty cope causes nothing but disgust, just like your cancerous sewage hole of a country.

                >Question: Did I read the post you were replying to, or do I just spout random crap in the middle of conversations I'm not a part of.
                Definitely the latter. Because you're obnoxious AND stupid.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And yet they've still got plenty of T-80BVMs sitting in parking lots deep inside Russia.
                surely, if they were worth using they would have been sent out by now instead of sending out the grandpa battalion

                or, get this, most of those 10,000 tanks arent actually combat ready

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >surely, if they were worth using they would have been sent out by now instead of sending out the grandpa battalion
                Follow the reply chain back until you understand the context of the conversation.

                >That's because you're stupid. The only thing you know about war you learned from watching movies. But they were made by people who are just as dumb as you.
                but the only movie I've seen is 9th company and all it showed me was that Russians suck at everything related to warfare and that you're a massive gay who can't defend his shitty takes

                >I don't know anything about war movies either.

                https://i.imgur.com/VIGyJtR.jpg

                That's it boys, we broke this vatnik retard. Send another one.

                I'm not Russian you dumbarse. You shills need to fuck off back to twitter. I'm here to discuss TANKS. In a thread about TANKS.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Follow the reply chain back until you understand the context of the conversation.
                vatniks under the delusion that they have 10,000 capable tanks?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Keep going.
                War of attrition, maintaining capital supplies, not wasting all the best stuff in the first few months of a long war. It's all there, it doesn't need to be repeated.

                https://i.imgur.com/Bkbs3AZ.jpg

                >I'm not Russian
                Yet you are clearly a braindead vatnik who can only screech about movies and twitter because people deservedly call russia army a joke and you a retard.

                No I am clearly a tank enthusiast on a board for tank entusiasts, that's why I know so much about tanks and the way they're used.
                You are clearly some dumb fucking shill who neither knows nor cares about tanks, nor any weapons at all, and have come here because you can't handle 4chan and /bant/ which is where you actually belong.

                >I'm here to discuss TANKS. In a thread about TANKS.
                >posts wildly obvious bullshit takes
                >screeches when called out
                >whines that he wants a "discussion" of his shit takes he can't defend
                hey armatard

                Armatards belong here, you don't.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >not wasting all the best stuff in the first few months of a long war.
                russians cant be this dumb, can they?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I still haven't understood the context of the conversation
                And you've had more than enough chances.

                Please do not come into threads about tanks.
                Please do not make threads about tanks.
                In fact please leave PrepHole, go to 4chan and be retarded there.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The BMPT "Terminator" (Бoeвaя мaшинa пoддepжки тaнкoв - Tank Support Fighting Vehicle) is an armored fighting vehicle (AFV)
                follow your own advice gay

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not him but you're trying to "subtly" push the same retarded propaganda talking points the kacaps have been pushing since the start of the war, in this case, the idiotic idea that they sent the worst equipment to Ukraine and they're saving the good stuff for an emergency.
                Nevermind the fact that they're now resorting to purchasing North Korean shells.
                We're all done, don't try to get cute in here you silly astroturfer.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >worst equipment to Ukraine and they're saving the good stuff for an emergency.
                And they still have plenty of good stuff in reserve. So you failed to slay your own strawman there.
                >Nevermind the fact that they're now resorting to purchasing North Korean shells.
                So they have shells. That's what that actually means.
                It's the same with "logistical issues" because they used civilian trucks, as if civilian trucks don't solve logistical issues.
                Or "recruiting campain means they have manpower issues", they don't have manpower issues, they just went on a recruiting campaign.

                Stop watching CNN. CNN are fucking idiots. They only tell the truth by accident, and they're so dumb they do it a lot, yet still everyone winds up with dumb ideas in their heads.

                And as for "astroturf", LOOK AT THIS FUCKING THREAD moron. It's supposed to be about the Terminator, yet it's absolutely saturated with yukeshills spouting 4chanshit. It's impossible to have a sensible conversation.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And they still have plenty of good stuff in reserve.
                most of the reserves are barely functional rusted out wrecks, some of which are 60 year old T-62s that should be in a musuem

                > It's supposed to be about the Terminator,
                terminator is an incredibly niche weapon that "solves" a problem that didnt need its own design
                its dumb

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They've sent the T-62s. They haven't used up all their T-80BVMs, but they've sent the T-62s anyway.
                Because why would they send all their new stuff and THEN all their old stuff? Sending a mix of both is actually pretty sensible.

                >terminator is an incredibly niche weapon that "solves" a problem that didnt need its own design
                Nah disagree-ish. It's a niche design to be sure, and it's a hack-job, it's just cobbled together from shit they had laying around. But the theory behind it I think is actually pretty good, given that urban combat is going to be an ever increasing part of war.
                So as an experiment, I think it's pretty interesting.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Because why would they send all their new stuff and THEN all their old stuff?
                Because the embarrassment that is the russian army pulled T-62 out of service and didn't use them for years. Same with T-72As, and so on.

                But your idiotic unsubstantiated cope reasons are all you have to pretend that russia is not a fucking shithole.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >tukeshill shit
                PISS OFF
                I'm trying to talk to the non-retard.

                >They haven't used up all their T-80BVMs
                or, get this, they are too rusted and neglected to bring out and have been forced to use T-62s for lack of anything else to send out
                because no sane man would use T-62s, no sane man would use T-72As either, but both have been spotted in the wild

                T-80BVMs are like 5 years old. Steel doesn't rust that fast.

                Seems pretty simple to me, a T-62 with a basic recondition and modernization, is good enough for MOST of the things a tank does. And everything it can't do, a T-80BVM can, so you put both in mixed units and the T-80BVM handles the hard stuff while the T-62 does it's best to keep up.

                It's the old thing, "any tank is better than no tank" with an extra step. A T-80BVM and a T-62 are better than a T-80BVM alone.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Seems pretty simple to me, a T-62 with a basic recondition and modernization, is good enough for MOST of the things a tank does.
                Reformists really think this

                >It's the old thing, "any tank is better than no tank
                The fact that the supposed second largest army in the world cant find enough T-72B3s to fill out their ranks says that maybe they arent as big as they say

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >pure gayry
                Your thread died because it's boring and stupid, stop bumping it. If you need attention put on a dress and thot on onlyfans.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Any tank is better then no tank

                >Devours a fuckload of fuel
                >Puts even more strain on the pathetic Russian logistical supply train by adding another complicated machine with another different type of gun with different parts that all require constant maintenance
                >Old as shit, rusting, half of the critical components are either stripped or non-functioning
                >Barely makes it out to frontline combat
                >Instantly gets destroyed and gets 4 soldiers killed
                >"Is acceptable loss comrade, bring out another one"

                T-62's armor is hopelessly outdated for a tank, and using a big fatass vehicle that both puts a huge strain on logistics and can get penetrated frontally by literally any handheld AT weapon from the past half century with an interior layout that will get several crew members killed instantly in the best case scenario is embarrassing, especially for a country that has been toting itself as the second army in the world.

                The T-72B should be the "reserve" tank here if anything, but Russia has run so fucking low on their tank stocks they're pulling out T-62's because they are that desperate for *anything* to use.
                It's embarrassing, you are embarrassing yourself by defending it.
                I thought you were just trolling at first, but you've been at it for long enough that I can't even tell anymore

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong. They are not pulling outT-62 because they are running low on T-72. They are pulling out T-62 because old fart volunteers know how to handle it, while the T-72 would require extra training. It's the same reaoson why Ukrainians argue that a sudden influx of western tanks without the corresponding training would do more harm than good.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So with other words they are running out of people to crew the T-72?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >same reaoson why Ukrainians argue that a sudden influx of western tanks without the corresponding training would do more harm than good.
                I though they said they'd do more harm than good in small numbers

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There's more to it. Training to use a tank effectively takes a long time. Crews need to know instinctively were every button on the tank is without think while coordinating complex manoeuvres with other tanks.

                Big cats are also a logistical nightmare, so a complete additional supply and and service chain has to be introduced.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Big cats are also a logistical nightmare, so a complete additional supply and and service chain has to be introduced.
                but if the Ukrainians were offered sufficient number of modern MBTs, they'd be willing to endure the downsides

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They haven't used up all their T-80BVMs
                or, get this, they are too rusted and neglected to bring out and have been forced to use T-62s for lack of anything else to send out
                because no sane man would use T-62s, no sane man would use T-72As either, but both have been spotted in the wild

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                France explored creating a similar vehicle based on the Leclerc chassis.

                The conclusion they came to was that this was a useless vehicle that didn't fulfil a role. If top attack is in play then the extra armor is irrelevant, and the vehicle only has the same amount of armament as an IFV. So use the cheaper, more nimble IFV for urban warfare. Russia built it because it's a really cool concept if you're 12. Whoa! Look at this thing! It's a tank!!! With dual guns... And missiles! And TWO automatic grenade launchers! So epic!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So they have shells. That's what that actually means.
                But wait, I thought:
                >wars are fought with what you have, capacity for replacement only matters for rebuilding stock post-war or for building up supply before

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I haven't seen someone so hilariously retarded since trannies raided the I Am Jazz threads on PrepHole

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The context is that you're a vatnik and only want to gobble russoid cocks. GTFO with that shit, moron.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No I am clearly a tank enthusiast on a board for tank entusiasts, that's why I know so much about tanks and the way they're used.
                >You are clearly some dumb fucking shill who neither knows nor cares about tanks, nor any weapons at all, and have come here because you can't handle 4chan and /bant/ which is where you actually belong.
                too bad the thread is about an afv and not a tank
                you should stop being such a gay and stick to tank threads

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                see

                >I still haven't understood the context of the conversation
                And you've had more than enough chances.

                Please do not come into threads about tanks.
                Please do not make threads about tanks.
                In fact please leave PrepHole, go to 4chan and be retarded there.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                see

                >The BMPT "Terminator" (Бoeвaя мaшинa пoддepжки тaнкoв - Tank Support Fighting Vehicle) is an armored fighting vehicle (AFV)
                follow your own advice gay

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao, go back to shitting up forums and getting banned, you stinky russomutt monkey.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >we're going to report spam you because getting you banned will help Ukraine win the war somehow
                This is racist to people with tank autism.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                see

                >The BMPT "Terminator" (Бoeвaя мaшинa пoддepжки тaнкoв - Tank Support Fighting Vehicle) is an armored fighting vehicle (AFV)
                follow your own advice gay

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >things that nobody said
                try better, rusia monky

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not Russian
                Yet you are clearly a braindead vatnik who can only screech about movies and twitter because people deservedly call russia army a joke and you a retard.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>I don't know anything about war movies either.
                >9th company
                >share the same std ridden whore
                >most die to mujahadeen
                >Russia still loses in Afghanistan to goat herders with aks
                >you're still a massive a gay
                nope I nailed it, especially that last point

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm here to discuss TANKS. In a thread about TANKS.
                >posts wildly obvious bullshit takes
                >screeches when called out
                >whines that he wants a "discussion" of his shit takes he can't defend
                hey armatard

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >That's because you're stupid. The only thing you know about war you learned from watching movies. But they were made by people who are just as dumb as you.
                but the only movie I've seen is 9th company and all it showed me was that Russians suck at everything related to warfare and that you're a massive gay who can't defend his shitty takes

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's it boys, we broke this vatnik retard. Send another one.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If they have resorted to digging up T-62s, then its pretty obvious they have begun scraping the bottom of the barrel

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Pick a fucking lane you dumb fuck.
                It was at this point ITT that I realized this is actually probably a retarded chinkoid lmao. They're so self-conscious over intellect because they know they're literal dumb gays. Makes them super easy to spot.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So is the Russian fleet of attack submarines
                I wasn't aware submarines possessed infantry and ground operations capabilities.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                AMX-30s had a 20mm coax gun, though they ditched it pretty quick. I still think the MBT-70's pop-up 20mm autocannon was an idea with some merit...or going from .50BMG to 15.5x106mm BRG-15 that FN developed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >AMX-30s had a 20mm coax gun, though they ditched it pretty quick.
                I think you're confusing it with the Centurion.
                AMX-30 had the 20mm from start to finish.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Twice the maintenance, buddy ...
                And knowing Russian logistics you can bet your ass that at a certain point someone just skimped on keeping one of them going because not enough parts.
                I'm also fairly certain that, at this point in time, if there are any of these fuckers left running around in Ukraine, most of the gear is not working

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The Russians aren't currently spamming these out and YOLOing them across open fields, therefore they are completely crap and useless in every way
              Like I said, stupid opinion.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Who the fuck said anything about yoloing the things? Having 100 superb vehicles doesn't mean jackshit when they get swacked 2 weeks into a war and needs 10 years to replace. Not understanding the importance of having the capacity to replace and rebuild stocks of your assets regardless of casualty/depletion rates just shows how big a retard you are.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >. Not understanding the importance of having the capacity to replace and rebuild stocks of your assets regardless of casualty/depletion rates just shows how big a retard you are.
                >t. never read patterns of conflicts
                wars are fought with what you have, capacity for replacement only matters for rebuilding stock post-war or for building up supply before

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                By your logic they still fucked up because of their abyssmal stocks of modern shit. Keep proving yourself to be a retard.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >wars are fought with what you have, capacity for replacement only matters for rebuilding stock post-war or for building up supply before
                except we now have both sides asking for foreign produced equipment
                Russia needs foreign produced shells and UAVS, something as a relevant power they would be able to domestically produce but they can't and we are still less than 7 months in
                its obvious capacity for replacement is going to matter when a country's military industrial complex is going to matter when it's leadership and general military quality is retarded

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't know the special military operation was a total war scenario for Russia? Which factories did get nuked again that they can't somehow produce anything anymore and have to rely solely on their existing stocks.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That would be relevant if they didn't need foreign components for literally everything, which they're not getting anymore.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >wars are fought with what you have, capacity for replacement only matters for rebuilding stock post-war or for building up supply before
                That's profoundly untrue. If you just thuink about it, you must realize that it, as a general statement, cannot be true.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The Kherson front is far from static at the minute. The Ukrainians are having some success striking deep behind the frontlines and in many places the Russians are retreating in disarray whilst they are being harried by PGMs and artillery, whilst Russian airpower can't be brought to bear because of the confusion and fear of potent SAMs and Russian artillery cannot help the infantry for the same reasons plus lack of communication. Their guns had pre defined fields of fire which are now useless because Ukraine seems to be doing something of a decent job of fucking up the rear formations and supply lines of the Russians, causing panic and retreat and commanders on the ground don't have the experience, qualified men, comms and firepower to do much about it. They're fighting in a fashion that the Russians don't seem able to respond to, for the minute. What's more, the Ukrainians have a prodigious quantity of weapons available to to them and aren't shy about using them. At least on the Kherson front, I wouldn't call this a battle of attrition, as in the rest of the country

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I agree I just thinks its funny to say Russia is losing a war of attrition given that seems to be what they've shifted their strategy to post April.
                It's going to be really really funny if it turns out Ukraine has reached Kupynask like pro Russian telegram has claimed

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia is losing a war of attrition
                Lol how do you figure?
                inb4 you prove you have no idea what a war of attrition is.

                >Other than a fifth of Ukraine.
                slowly losing that while thousands of more Russians die

                Well see.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                tell me what a war of attrition is then please 🙂
                >Well see.
                I'm already seeing and I'm enjoying every minute of it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well you seem to think Russia is losing one, so how about we start with what the fuck are you even talking about.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no please tell me what a war of attrition is first because whatever you say is going to be really funny
                Almost as funny as
                Tanks (1029, of which destroyed: 637, damaged: 42, abandoned: 51, captured: 299)
                Armoured Fighting Vehicles (527, of which destroyed: 366, damaged: 7, abandoned: 29, captured: 125)
                Infantry Fighting Vehicles (1138, of which destroyed: 740, damaged: 25, abandoned: 73, captured: 300)
                Armoured Personnel Carriers (151, of which destroyed: 79, damaged: 2, abandoned: 9, captured: 61)
                Infantry Mobility Vehicles (115, of which destroyed: 80, damaged: 2, abandoned: 1, captured: 32)
                Self-Propelled Artillery (172, of which destroyed: 99, damaged: 7, abandoned: 13, captured: 53)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Constituting about 10% of their capital. That's actually an INCREDIBLY slow loss rate. The Israelis lost 25% of their capital in 6 days.

                Meanwhile Ukraine has lost about 70% of it's starting capital, and about the same of the old Warsaw pact stuff too. Even with recovered Russian tanks, their armor is basically non-existent. The so-called Javelin plague didn't really change anything in the long run for Russia. They still have the tank advantage in the end which is their thing.

                >And according to some yukeshill fuck ITT that's "overengineering."
                >lets create a useless vehicle that cant even load its shells properly

                >I can't even use google
                https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overengineer

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >losing 1000 tanks is now an incredibly slow rate of loss
                lmao its only visual losses too
                you can't actually be coping hard enough to consider this some kind of success right?
                that's 1000 tanks lost taking, by your metric, 1/5 of a country that borders Russia
                that is incredibly pathetic

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >consider this some kind of success right?
                It is. Historically speaking that's an incredibly slow rate of attrition. The rule of thumb is 2% per DAY. That's what America expects to lose.
                In WW1, the last real war of attrition, it was a third of tanks lost for every day of operation. At Cambrai they started with 400, and by the fourth day they had 10.

                So yeah, it's definitely worth pondering. I couldn't care less whether or not you're impressed, you're an idiot.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >has to use world war 1 as an example of acceptable tank losses
                lol you can't actually be this delusional right?
                you're comparing Russian success to world war 1?
                you actually have brain damage

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Constituting about 10% of their capital
                >russia totally has 10,000 tanks available
                between thinking a rusted out T-62 is worth counting and not requiring an air superiority

                it has become increasingly clear russians are related to reformers

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it has become increasingly clear russians are related to reformers
                This is actually true.

                Not literally, obviously, but philosophically what's the difference between "sheeit, radar? Radar's never located a target, just have an armored bathtub with 30mm cannons, no missiles, its gud nuff," and "nyet, is of no need for precision guidance, mass artillery is fine and strong, like red army"?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what kind of underage retard shit is this?

            Not him but you guys are pretty fucking dumb to not realize he has a point. The strategic planning of how a vehicle will be used and how it fits into the overall doctrine is far, far more important than the tactical capabilities of the individual unit. Building technology demonstrators is good for R&D but means nothing if they don't reach the battlefield. It's highly ironic that russia of all countries isn't playing to it's strength of building cheap "good enough" designs that can be easily churned out with minimal tooling. The V2 was the most advanced weapon system of its time, but it cost the same as three or four strategic bombers, which would have actually influenced the outcome. Which would you rather have, 2 Su-57s or 20 Su-35s?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what kind of underage retard shit is this?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Unless it's some sort of unkillable death machine with 99.99999 reliability then yes having the capacity to build than more than just a handful is part of good design and planning.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's a big difference between "didn't have the capacity" and "chose to focus on other things."

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Chose to focus on what? Embezzling the fuck out of their budgets? Literally every """modern""" russian design barring small arms have been limited to obnoxiously small production runs to the point they might as well not exist. Just looking at Ukraine, the main workhorses are still shit produced back in the soviet era because they can't field their new stuff in a meaningful capacity and still be able to repair/replace them.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >his industrial base isn't good enough to make a cannon that can shoot both kinds of ammo
        >he wastes space and resources make two guns because if he tries to switch from AP to HE on the fly like Americans do, his gun will fucking explode
        lmao

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >>his industrial base isn't good enough to make a cannon that can shoot both kinds of ammo
          Says who? Dual feed mechanisms aren't cutting edge technology, but developing a new gun is expensive. Meanwhile two autocannons is nowhere near straining the suspension of a t-72.

          Cheap, effective, fit-for-purpose. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If it ain't broke don't fix it.
            >we dont need a modern gun that can swap ammo on the fly

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Dual feed mechanisms aren't cutting edge technology
            The are cutting edge to Russia

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russia's 30mm APBC is so bad that it can't penetrate the front of an A2 Bradley or Warrior with appliques
        60mm penetration at muzzle velocity

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The BMPT is retarded because Russians already had dual feed AP/HE in BMP-2 and Ka-50/52

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no idea where you got that from, the 2a42 cannon is dual feed and can shoot both AP and HE.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Congratulations. Everything you just said was wrong, you managed to be even more retarded than the Russians themselves.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think they're pretty neat, honestly.
    I think the only people that hate them this much are people who blanket-hate all slavshit and/or get their opinions from youtube videos

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yep. Considering these were utterly forgotten by the zeitgeist for the last 6 months, and suddenly in the last 24 hours we've had 3 threads shitting on it; I have to assume some warthunder player has made a video about it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're not in war thunder AFAIK. OP is just retarded.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm a fucking idiot that knows nothing about armored doctrine and capabilities. Wtf Russia? Why did you build this completely ordinary piece of kit that does a specific job.
    You were an idiot when you thought they were they were completely amazing and invulnerable.
    You're still an idiot for not recognizing how dangerous that thing is if you have to fight it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You're still an idiot for not recognizing how dangerous that thing is if you have to fight it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You're still an idiot for not recognizing how dangerous that thing is if you have to fight it.
      How dangerous is it? They were shuttled into Ukraine, we got pics for a couple weeks and then the whole thing was memoryholed. Are they too dangerous to use? Is the Terminator just TOO good? Or are they amother potemkin project unfit for use?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They were dreamt up after Russia got buttfucked in Grozny. It was designed to cope with the fact that Russians can't wrap their heads around the concept of combined arms warfare.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I thought these fag-wagons were supposed to be gamechangers.
    They are... in Copesville, the alternate reality where America never developed MANPADs or drones and Putin is a King, a Winner and a Chad.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >MANPADS
      >heavy FSV

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    russian shit always was only good enough to oppress minorities, nothing more. They only had the image they cultivated themselves, but that's all it was - an image.

    Like, just check how many vehicles they lost in Afghanistan vs how many NATO lost there.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Like, just check how many vehicles they lost in Afghanistan vs how many NATO lost there.
      That's a dumb comparison. The soviet union had a land border with Afghanistan, the Americans had to fly everything in.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The soviet union had a land border with Afghanistan, the Americans had to fly everything in.
        What did he mean by this?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajik_Soviet_Socialist_Republic
          here you go fren, educate yourself

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No shit obviously, the question is how do you think the US in any way would find a problem of volume in 20 years of needing to transport the requisite amount of vehicles to a country under consistent occupation? Distance literally was never a problem. The point about proximity somehow accounting for fewer US destroyed vehicles is blatantly asinine and practically a non-sequitur.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Americans had to fly everything in.
        Most of the material came from the sea via Pakistan. Load ship, send ship, 20 days later it arrives in Lahore, use commercial bulk trans up to the Khyber, and take it over from there.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the t-14 is the most powerful tank in use today

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Except it's not in use outside of parades, you retard.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >in use

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Parades sorta count as in use.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They are already taking losses too!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Breaking down during parade rehearsals doesn't count as actual use.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how good stuff can you make when everyone with a brain moves west?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no one knows the effect of modern russian weapons systems. so far, only a few vehicles have been deployed. no formations. the russians do this because they expect nato to invade ukraine. the enemy is kept in the dark.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not a bad theory.
      I have another one which is the Russians expected the war to last for several years and are being stingy with their stuff at the cost of their men.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That only works for so long until morale gets so bad, which is OKish if you have guys sitting around in their trenches, just bored shitless. However, if those guys are told to go on an operation or they are in the way of a fast moving Ukrainian advance, well, self preservation takes over and they either run, surrender or frag their commanders, probably some combo of all 3.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You know what else is really bad for morale? Running out of stuff.

          Think about it from the Russian perspective, assume that a quick victory is impossible, and that a war of attrition is inevitable, and that the west will lendlease Ukraine an ever increasing amount of modern equipment, BUT initially the Yukes will send untrained and poorly equipped militia to the front lines just to hold on.

          Over time the materiel advantage will shift to Ukraine, but the manpower advantage will shift even further towards Russia. Ergo you want to keep as much equipment in reserve as possible.

          It's just my theory, yours is good too.

          Certainly keeping the airforce mostly out of it supports the "just in case NATO joins in" theory.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So when are gloves coming off comreade? Isn't losing 4 last months' worth of gains good reason to take off another pair and call the phantom russian air force? It's not like it'd be useful against NATO either way.
            >but the manpower advantage will shift even further towards Russia
            lmao, the level of delusions is baffling

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Context gay. Read it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stop dodging questions like a slimy garden gnome russoid, scum. Your shitty cope causes nothing but disgust, just like your cancerous sewage hole of a country.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its a pair of autocannons strapped to a T-72
      and not even very good ones

      it doesnt take a genius to realize this is a useless, hilariously niche, weapon solely created because the guns on their tanks lift worse than western ones

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And according to some yukeshill fuck ITT that's "overengineering."
        And again, western tanks do not solve the problem the Terminators solve either.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >And according to some yukeshill fuck ITT that's "overengineering."
          >lets create a useless vehicle that cant even load its shells properly

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Optics are so completely fucked the commander has to ride on top.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >133 posts
    >25 posters
    yep, definitely looks like an armatard thread

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All I know is it sucked in Armored Warfare. The camo rating forced you to play it like an MBT but it didn't have the firepower to play like an MBT and it took up an AFV slot so you were hurting your team by taking away one of their scouts.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your choice of words leads me to believe you're a child.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Terminator looks cool and has a cool name, that's it. It's a piece of propaganda people love to jerk off to. Unfortunately for them even Russian high command is apparently not impressed by them either given how few of them are actually made.
    It won't actually see combat either since the Terminator will be even cooler if it remains undefeated. No better way to ensure that than by never sending it out.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >supposed to be gamechangers
    russians wanted to sell them to india or iran
    that's why they gave it a stupid name

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that it's just an AFV with (gee Billy) two autocannons, instead of one, should be a dead giveaway thats it's just another useless Russian wunderwuffe.

    Also it's name is the "terminator" to make it sound cool. Two guns and a cool name, why would it be any kind of game changer?

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >give that T72 mircopenis guns and call it an IFV
    >HECKIN INFANTRY MUNCHER COMIN THRU! WATCH OUT!

Your email address will not be published.