>The US' current MBT is 43 years old

>The US' current MBT is 43 years old

  1. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    And it’s still the best.
    How did we do it bros?

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >43 years old
      >best in the world

      >best in the world
      >not good enough for Ukraine
      hm

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        the USS Gerald R. Ford and F-22 aren't good enough for Ukraine either

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think they asked for those.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            yeah, Ukraine isn't being given F-22s because they don't want them

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              Asking for something and wanting it are two very different things.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                thank god you're around to explain things to us, anon

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        Its not about being good enough its about being able to actually field them. The abrams are a pain in the ass to keep running on the field and if you dont have obscene logistics capability like the US does they will just suck resources at a rate that isnt sustainable.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          >Its not about being good enough its about being able to actually field them. The abrams are a pain in the ass to keep running on the field and if you dont have obscene logistics capability like the US does they will just suck resources at a rate that isnt sustainable.
          People always say that but never fill it with meaning.
          What do Abrams need?
          Fuel? Just send the Ukranians more.
          A new engine every 200km? Just send them some extra, I'm sure there are enough lying around.
          What IS this "logistical impossibility" people keep citing?

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >but never fill it with meaning.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            Look guy its not just about them having fuel sitting in a depo somewhere or a dozen spare engines in a warehouse. You need the supply chain to DELIVER the shit to the front lines and personnel trained to do maintenance. You cant just grab a random asshole in a uniform to give a wrench to and tell him to swap the engine of a fucking tank. What ukraine needs is weapon platforms they are already familiar with that dont require as much training or systems that are efficient and reliable enough to not break down or require intensive maintenance.

            There is more to the supply chain than having the resources on hand. You cant fucking wish fuel to the front lines or mechanics that know what they are doing into existence.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              >Look guy its not just about them having fuel sitting in a depo somewhere or a dozen spare engines in a warehouse. You need the supply chain to DELIVER the shit to the front lines and personnel trained to do maintenance.
              So send trucks and teach them or build depots at the border to repair them like every European nation does?
              >ou cant just grab a random asshole in a uniform to give a wrench to and tell him to swap the engine of a fucking tank.
              That's true for every other MBT too.
              > What ukraine needs is weapon platforms they are already familiar with that dont require as much training or systems that are efficient and reliable enough to not break down or require intensive maintenance.
              That's true for none of the western MBTs
              >There is more to the supply chain than having the resources on hand. You cant fucking wish fuel to the front lines or mechanics that know what they are doing into existence.
              So what you're saying is that there's no reason not to send Abrams instead of Challengers because everything you said applies to both?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >So send trucks and teach them or build depots at the border to repair them
                They absolutely will once this conflict is resolved and Ukraine joins the EU and NATO, but that takes fucking years. Look how long it took Poland to get up and running.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                So why send western MBTs at all if that problem is the same with all of them?

                You are clearly too stupid to understand that the abrams as a platform is notorious for its upkeep cost and are just spouting a bunch of bullshit. The simple fact is that for every one abrams they would get they could field double or even triple of other platforms with the same logistics footprint and thats the entire fucking point of the argument against sending them. Your fucking boo hooing over how other MBT use resources too is so fucking mind numbingly stupid its not even funny. Its like saying that if you wanted to fix world hunger just send everyone thats hungry to a fucking 5 star restaurant. Its not a fucking efficient way to do anything.

                >You are clearly too stupid to understand that the abrams as a platform is notorious for its upkeep cost
                You clearly aren't informed since you've failed to put it in words.
                >are just spouting a bunch of bullshit
                I asked questions you failed to answer, anon.
                I'm not even categorically doubting what you say is true, you just completely failed to prove it even if I believe every argument you made absolutely.
                >The simple fact is that for every one abrams they would get they could field double or even triple of other platforms with the same logistics footprint and thats the entire fucking point of the argument against sending them.
                Why? You haven't said so.
                >Your fucking boo hooing over how other MBT use resources too is so fucking mind numbingly stupid its not even funny.
                Okay, so what's special about the abrams?
                You're saying it takes more resources because it takes more resources.
                Surely you can do better.
                >Its like saying that if you wanted to fix world hunger just send everyone thats hungry to a fucking 5 star restaurant. Its not a fucking efficient way to do anything.
                Anon, no analogies, just facts.
                What makes the abrams so much harder to run? If it's just fuel you can send more and the trucks to transport it, so what is it really?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Dumbfuck has no reading comprehension.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Dumbfuck doesn't know what he's talking about but tries to pretend he does.
                Just admit next time that you're mindlessly parroting what others told you on PrepHole instead of pretending to be an expert.
                You literally couldn't even give a single reason lmao

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                shut up and go back, fucking tourist

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                I accept your surrender.

                Your entire fucking post is asking for reasons why something doesnt work that were ALREADY explained. "Huur durr why is it harder to keep running just throw more stuff at it!" Motherfucker that is EXACTLY why its harder to run you dipshit. Not to mention that bigger logistics numbers go burrr isnt a fucking thing that exists. Logistics is more about coordination than it is about "having more trucks" to send shit and you cant grasp that simple fucking fact. You think that its some kind of math equation where 1 tank = 2 fuel trucks and thats not how shit works in reality. Pull your head out of your ass.

                I fucking hate how a bunch of morons cant grasp the basic fucking concept of logistics and think its as simple as having people on trucks to send stuff. For every vehicle on the field there are DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of people in the back keeping them going and if you have a platform with an abnormally large footprint you will need an abnormally large logisitic effort to keep it going. Which is why the fucking abrams is a bad choice. Because its footpring is fucking MASSIVE compared to similar platforms. As i have already told you multiple fucking times. Which you clearly refuse to understand because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

                >Motherfucker that is EXACTLY why its harder to run you dipshit.
                Name particulars.
                Your entire post doesn't. You just say it's harder because it's harder and then seethe.

                https://i.imgur.com/edImpfx.png

                >So why send western MBTs at all if that problem is the same with all of them?

                Exactly, don’t send any tanks. It’s stupid.

                No, just send abrams and stop hiding behind imaginary supply problems when fighting russians deep in Europe was literally what it's designed for.
                Set up supply depots at the border, send them trucks and done.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >I accept your surrender.
                How did you know i’m French?!
                Did you hack my IP?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Your entire fucking post is asking for reasons why something doesnt work that were ALREADY explained. "Huur durr why is it harder to keep running just throw more stuff at it!" Motherfucker that is EXACTLY why its harder to run you dipshit. Not to mention that bigger logistics numbers go burrr isnt a fucking thing that exists. Logistics is more about coordination than it is about "having more trucks" to send shit and you cant grasp that simple fucking fact. You think that its some kind of math equation where 1 tank = 2 fuel trucks and thats not how shit works in reality. Pull your head out of your ass.

                I fucking hate how a bunch of morons cant grasp the basic fucking concept of logistics and think its as simple as having people on trucks to send stuff. For every vehicle on the field there are DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of people in the back keeping them going and if you have a platform with an abnormally large footprint you will need an abnormally large logisitic effort to keep it going. Which is why the fucking abrams is a bad choice. Because its footpring is fucking MASSIVE compared to similar platforms. As i have already told you multiple fucking times. Which you clearly refuse to understand because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >So why send western MBTs at all if that problem is the same with all of them?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly, don’t send any tanks. It’s stupid.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Because some have a smaller problem than others. The abrams eats the most fuel takes the most man hours to maintain and is so fucking finicky to keep running its a major fucking headache even for the US. The only reason they can keep them going is they have an obscene amount of logistics to keep it all going. Basically sending the abrams to ukraine is like sending a Jaguar when you could send a Mustang. They will both do about the same thing in about the same way but you wont have to pay ten grand to replace a fucking alternator in one vs the other.

                I accept your surrender.
                [...]
                >Motherfucker that is EXACTLY why its harder to run you dipshit.
                Name particulars.
                Your entire post doesn't. You just say it's harder because it's harder and then seethe.
                [...]
                [...]
                No, just send abrams and stop hiding behind imaginary supply problems when fighting russians deep in Europe was literally what it's designed for.
                Set up supply depots at the border, send them trucks and done.

                >Name particulars.

                I did multiple times you cum guzzler.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >I did multiple times you cum guzzler.
                You didn't do so once.

                >I accept your surrender.
                How did you know i’m French?!
                Did you hack my IP?

                PrepHolex has a country ID option.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Even after the information provided to you, you still insist on being a pedantic retard. There needs to be an IQ test before posting here.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Even after the information provided to you,
                Quote it.
                >it's just more expensive bro!
                Isn't any kind of valuable info and not specific and not an issue considering the American MIC and budget.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                No one is going to spoonfeed you technical documents, because your question has already been answered in layman's terms and you've been acting like an annoying cunt.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >it's more difficult
                >why?
                >because it's more expensive and difficult
                >why?
                >I won't tell you
                I accept your surrender.
                Next time just admit you don't know any specifics and are just repeating what you were told.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                have a nice day before you have kids, you brainless gay

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                What makes it so hard to run is that it has fucking jet engines instead of a diesel like basically every other tank in the world. It's not that big of a deal to retrain a tech who's used to working on one diesel vehicle to work on another, but turbines are a completely different ballgame and require much more specialized equipment and better facilities to maintain than a diesel does.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >better facilities to maintain

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                You are clearly too stupid to understand that the abrams as a platform is notorious for its upkeep cost and are just spouting a bunch of bullshit. The simple fact is that for every one abrams they would get they could field double or even triple of other platforms with the same logistics footprint and thats the entire fucking point of the argument against sending them. Your fucking boo hooing over how other MBT use resources too is so fucking mind numbingly stupid its not even funny. Its like saying that if you wanted to fix world hunger just send everyone thats hungry to a fucking 5 star restaurant. Its not a fucking efficient way to do anything.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              Hence why they need Leo 2, lecleric and challengers easyer to maintain and not as logistics hungry as the abrams ofc not as powerfull as abrams but way better then t64 and t72 and occasionally t90 ir may face

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            You have soviet T-64/T-80 and Ukrainian derivatives.
            You have M1.
            You have Leopards 2.
            You have AMX-10RC.
            You have Bradleys.
            I don't think they use the same parts.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              >guys let's give them 50 different weapon systems
              >not the abrams though, that one is one too many!

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >The cost to maintain one Abrams tank for the year is about $300,000. There is a schedule for maintenance and repair, and about 10% of our tanks are in for depot maintenance at any time. The repairs can be of almost every kind. So, if you have 168 hours in a week, about 16 of those hours would be in maintenance/repair.
                google told me, in a peace time, probably you can double this in a war time
                maybe abrams is just too much

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                The Ukranians aren't paying for it, America is.
                And if America can't pay for it, it shouldn't use the Abrams in the first place.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                but ukrs don't have established maintenance and logistic base to handle all the tanks
                shit, they're already repairing lots of their stuff in poland

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >shit, they're already repairing lots of their stuff in poland
                And slovakia and others.
                But they don't have any established maintenance and logistics for any western tanks, so why not Abrams?

                Can any Anon explain the story behind why NATO countries with Leopard tanks want to send them to Ukraine but can't do so without Germany's approval? Don't these countries already own their Leopards or are they just leasing them from the Germans and can't give them out per the terms of said lease?

                Same reason any other country can't just trade away weapons it got nowadays. Iraq and Egypt both use Abrams, did you think there wouldn't be a clause for them not to sell them to others without permission?
                That's perfectly normal and in every arms contract, anon.
                Also
                >Can any Anon explain the story behind why NATO countries with Leopard tanks want to send them to Ukraine
                No country wants to send them to Ukraine alone, even Poland. They're all kinda waiting for enough countries to get off their ass. Germany is just the easiest target to talk shit about.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >No country wants to send them to Ukraine alone, even Poland. They're all kinda waiting for enough countries to get off their ass. Germany is just the easiest target to talk shit about.
                It's easy to say
                >we totally want to send tanks
                When you're not the one with the starting gun in his hand and know the poor asshole who does hold it won't fire it until enough countries have given the OK.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Can any Anon explain the story behind why NATO countries with Leopard tanks want to send them to Ukraine but can't do so without Germany's approval? Don't these countries already own their Leopards or are they just leasing them from the Germans and can't give them out per the terms of said lease?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Because the tanks were supplied to countries under export licenses, Germany can veto re-export

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Look up what an “End User Certificate” is and what it entails

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay you say logistics but what does that *meeeaaaaan* really?
            The absolute definition of midwittery

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              Unless you can give actual reasons you're just using it as an empty buzzword.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              the absolute definition of midwittery is every retarded gay who claims the Yooks can't handle an M1 but THESE FUCKING PEOPLE can

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          yet even Iraqis can operate them

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            being low on fuel isnt a trait i'd ascribe to the fucking iraqi's.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            If you weren’t a disingenuous ESL troll you’d get an answer to that but you don’t want that. When ultimately Germany cucks out one time too many and the Abrams does end up in Ukraine and starts gifting Russian tank crews tungsten hats like a high-velocity milliner I’m going to enjoy it for the burning Russians, but also a little bit for your inevitable piss fit.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >43 years old
      >best in the world

      >And it’s still the best
      K2 is the best. End of.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >moronshit

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        not even close mr moron

  2. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    The optics and the shells it fires aren't that old. FYI, 14 inches of DU armor does its job just as well after 43 years as it does after 1 year.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      This right here has the right of it. They grossly over engineered it when they developed it specifically for the purpose of it being a workhorse for decades. It was made to be retrofitted for an obscenely long time to keep it relatively modern. Also US doctrine is more about keeping things from getting hit and less about taking hits so an armor package that is older is less of a problem.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      It didnt have chobham armour on inception

      And it’s still the best.
      How did we do it bros?

      Its mediocre, leo2a6+7 and Challenger 2 are both more advanced.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >Challenger 2 more advanced.
        Please explain how.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Newer platform with more upgrade potential, more and better armour, faster turret traverse.

  3. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    pretty sure the SEPv3 is only 5 or 6 years old, actually

  4. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >43 years old
    >best in the world

  5. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    M1A2 SEPv3 is the current state of the art US MBT.
    >Prototypes began testing in 2015,[137] and the first were delivered in October 2017.[138] The first unit received them in July 2020.

  6. 5 days ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    The M1A2D is absolute testimony to modularity,over building and Anglo Germanic magic.

    peep the weight plates they simulate the increased weight of the new armor upgrade package to the front of the tank

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Anglo Germanic magic.
      ahem

  7. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Wait til you hear about the BUFF.

  8. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Russia's current MBT is imaginary.

  9. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    The M1 family sure is, but I doubt there are many parts in common between the first version and the current. The armor was totally replaced with DU composite, the gun was replaced, all the copper wiring was stripped for fiber optics which saved several tones, all the weapon stations have been iterated on, the pintel MGs have been switched for crows systems. Its all iterative and different.

  10. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >shills jerking themselves off
    >no APS
    lol

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous
      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/9StWNQf.jpg

        [...]

        https://i.imgur.com/PGh1wD3.jpg

        >unreleased and non-standard modifications
        I cringed

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Ching chong ping pong

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/V4bLCjN.jpg

  11. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Is there anything to gain from starting with a new frame

  12. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    nope
    most of em were made in the past 2 decades

  13. 5 days ago
    Anonymous
  14. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Russia's MBT is 50+

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      I wonder how long it will be before we get some screeching about how thats not true because they have 12 of their new tanks.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        Longer than it will take for them to not have 12 anymore

  15. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    B-52s are older, and?

  16. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >43 yo
    KEK imagine the US going into WW2 with 1900 horse cavalry.
    The absolute state of America.
    Once a great nation, now a dieing empire. Time to go to bed and leave the world for more energic and inovative nations.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't the Type 99 a piece of shit?

      • 5 days ago
        Indian Shill

        Unfortunately it's the best Eastern style designed Tank.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          But it's just a T72.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            no

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        no. you’re the piece of shit.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Malnourished. 🙁

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          flied lice

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >arr rook the same so is old
            >rook at chinese tanks arr rook different so is new

            racists.

      • 5 days ago
        RC-135 Rivet Joint

        "Westernized" T-72. has all the bells and whistles of modern tank but Chinese quality

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >arr rook the same so is old
      >rook at chinese tanks arr rook different so is new

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      nice t72 u got thar

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Thats literally just a T72 with a turret that doesnt look like it comes from the 50s

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      implessive

  17. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >try to replace tank
    >it costs too much
    >"upgrade" it instead
    >its still the same tank eh

  18. 5 days ago
    Anonymous
  19. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Russia's is 51. What's your point?

  20. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Blame Congress.
    Everything in the army except a few artillery systems is at least 20 years out of date and multiple essential programs were not just delayed but terminated.
    And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Congress malfeasance.
    >inb4 it's still 10-30 years ahead of what Russia can offer
    Nobody cares. Just because the results are not as disastrous as they could have been doesn't change the fact that Congress has a decades-long history of fucking up the army and the country as a whole.

  21. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    compare a early war panzer 4 vs a late war panzer 4.

    please.

  22. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    How would you improve it? Bigger gun? More metal? Tanks have hardly evolved since world war 1 pal.

  23. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    The Leo II, specifically the swedish Strv 122, was declared the best by Discovery channel. So that's what I'm going with.

  24. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    wait until you hear how old our strategic bombers are

  25. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    OH NO NO abramas bros?

  26. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Goddammit we need Cold War 2.0
    So we can start getting new tanks here decade or so.
    Russians wet the bed, chinks refuse to play ball. We've got no competition.
    Btw here's a new Chinese tank being tested.

  27. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >ukraine: gib abrooms
    >US: no
    >rest of world: lol abrams sucks amerifats should do more for ukraine
    am I the only guy here who thinks America has done their fair share and ukraine doesnt need to act like entitled morons waiting for their welfare check?

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      No you aren't, the rest of the world could step it up, but considering that the majority of NATO members still can't meet spending requirements, I have no hope.

      Europe is made up of a bunch of fucking children, who will go crying to the US next time they're threatened. But in the meanwhile they'll cry out "USA BAD"

      Figure your shit out Europe, this is why a lot of us are increasingly ready to pull out of NATO.

      Note that Greece, Croatia, UK, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, Romania, and France are all cool, they at least are spending appropriately.

  28. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >The US' current MBT is 43 years old
    And Putin's spring offensive will consist of 300k pikemen and 100k men with bolt-action mosin nagants

  29. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >the B52 will be in service for nearly 100 years

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