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.
>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?
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 butthole in a uniform to give a wrench to and tell him to swap the engine of a fricking 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 fricking wish fuel to the front lines or mechanics that know what they are doing into existence.
>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 butthole in a uniform to give a wrench to and tell him to swap the engine of a fricking 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 fricking 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?
1 year 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 fricking years. Look how long it took Poland to get up and running.
1 year 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 fricking point of the argument against sending them. Your fricking boo hooing over how other MBT use resources too is so fricking 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 fricking 5 star restaurant. Its not a fricking 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 fricking point of the argument against sending them.
Why? You haven't said so. >Your fricking boo hooing over how other MBT use resources too is so fricking 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 fricking 5 star restaurant. Its not a fricking 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?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Dumbfrick has no reading comprehension.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Dumbfrick 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 /k/ instead of pretending to be an expert.
You literally couldn't even give a single reason lmao
1 year ago
Anonymous
shut up and go back, fricking tourist
1 year ago
Anonymous
I accept your surrender.
Your entire fricking 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!" Motherfricker that is EXACTLY why its harder to run you dipshit. Not to mention that bigger logistics numbers go burrr isnt a fricking thing that exists. Logistics is more about coordination than it is about "having more trucks" to send shit and you cant grasp that simple fricking 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 fricking hate how a bunch of morons cant grasp the basic fricking 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 fricking abrams is a bad choice. Because its footpring is fricking MASSIVE compared to similar platforms. As i have already told you multiple fricking times. Which you clearly refuse to understand because you have no fricking clue what you are talking about.
>Motherfricker 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>I accept your surrender.
How did you know i’m French?!
Did you hack my IP?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Your entire fricking 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!" Motherfricker that is EXACTLY why its harder to run you dipshit. Not to mention that bigger logistics numbers go burrr isnt a fricking thing that exists. Logistics is more about coordination than it is about "having more trucks" to send shit and you cant grasp that simple fricking 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 fricking hate how a bunch of morons cant grasp the basic fricking 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 fricking abrams is a bad choice. Because its footpring is fricking MASSIVE compared to similar platforms. As i have already told you multiple fricking times. Which you clearly refuse to understand because you have no fricking clue what you are talking about.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>So why send western MBTs at all if that problem is the same with all of them?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Exactly, don’t send any tanks. It’s stupid.
1 year 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 fricking finicky to keep running its a major fricking 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 fricking alternator in one vs the other.
I accept your surrender.
[...] >Motherfricker 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.
1 year 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Even after the information provided to you, you still insist on being a pedantic moron. There needs to be an IQ test before posting here.
1 year 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.
1 year 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 c**t.
1 year 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
have a nice day before you have kids, you brainless homosexual
1 year ago
Anonymous
What makes it so hard to run is that it has fricking 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>better facilities to maintain
1 year 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 fricking point of the argument against sending them. Your fricking boo hooing over how other MBT use resources too is so fricking 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 fricking 5 star restaurant. Its not a fricking efficient way to do anything.
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
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.
>guys let's give them 50 different weapon systems >not the abrams though, that one is one too many!
1 year 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
1 year 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.
1 year 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
1 year 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.
1 year 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 butthole who does hold it won't fire it until enough countries have given the OK.
1 year 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?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Because the tanks were supplied to countries under export licenses, Germany can veto re-export
1 year ago
Anonymous
Look up what an “End User Certificate” is and what it entails
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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 fricking up the army and the country as a whole.
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.
>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 Black folk waiting for their welfare check?
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 fricking 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.
And it’s still the best.
How did we do it bros?
>best in the world
>not good enough for Ukraine
hm
the USS Gerald R. Ford and F-22 aren't good enough for Ukraine either
I don't think they asked for those.
yeah, Ukraine isn't being given F-22s because they don't want them
Asking for something and wanting it are two very different things.
thank god you're around to explain things to us, anon
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.
>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?
>but never fill it with meaning.
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 butthole in a uniform to give a wrench to and tell him to swap the engine of a fricking 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 fricking wish fuel to the front lines or mechanics that know what they are doing into existence.
>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 butthole in a uniform to give a wrench to and tell him to swap the engine of a fricking 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 fricking 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?
>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 fricking years. Look how long it took Poland to get up and running.
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
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 fricking point of the argument against sending them.
Why? You haven't said so.
>Your fricking boo hooing over how other MBT use resources too is so fricking 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 fricking 5 star restaurant. Its not a fricking 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?
Dumbfrick has no reading comprehension.
Dumbfrick 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 /k/ instead of pretending to be an expert.
You literally couldn't even give a single reason lmao
shut up and go back, fricking tourist
I accept your surrender.
>Motherfricker 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.
>I accept your surrender.
How did you know i’m French?!
Did you hack my IP?
Your entire fricking 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!" Motherfricker that is EXACTLY why its harder to run you dipshit. Not to mention that bigger logistics numbers go burrr isnt a fricking thing that exists. Logistics is more about coordination than it is about "having more trucks" to send shit and you cant grasp that simple fricking 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 fricking hate how a bunch of morons cant grasp the basic fricking 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 fricking abrams is a bad choice. Because its footpring is fricking MASSIVE compared to similar platforms. As i have already told you multiple fricking times. Which you clearly refuse to understand because you have no fricking clue what you are talking about.
>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.
Because some have a smaller problem than others. The abrams eats the most fuel takes the most man hours to maintain and is so fricking finicky to keep running its a major fricking 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 fricking alternator in one vs the other.
>Name particulars.
I did multiple times you cum guzzler.
>I did multiple times you cum guzzler.
You didn't do so once.
PrepHolex has a country ID option.
Even after the information provided to you, you still insist on being a pedantic moron. There needs to be an IQ test before posting here.
>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.
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 c**t.
>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.
have a nice day before you have kids, you brainless homosexual
What makes it so hard to run is that it has fricking 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.
>better facilities to maintain
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 fricking point of the argument against sending them. Your fricking boo hooing over how other MBT use resources too is so fricking 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 fricking 5 star restaurant. Its not a fricking efficient way to do anything.
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
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.
>guys let's give them 50 different weapon systems
>not the abrams though, that one is one too many!
>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
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.
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
>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?
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.
>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 butthole who does hold it won't fire it until enough countries have given the OK.
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?
>Because the tanks were supplied to countries under export licenses, Germany can veto re-export
Look up what an “End User Certificate” is and what it entails
>Okay you say logistics but what does that *meeeaaaaan* really?
The absolute definition of midwittery
Unless you can give actual reasons you're just using it as an empty buzzword.
the absolute definition of midwittery is every moronic homosexual who claims the Yooks can't handle an M1 but THESE FRICKING PEOPLE can
yet even Iraqis can operate them
being low on fuel isnt a trait i'd ascribe to the fricking iraqi's.
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.
>And it’s still the best
K2 is the best. End of.
>asiaticshit
not even close mr asiatic
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.
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.
It didnt have chobham armour on inception
Its mediocre, leo2a6+7 and Challenger 2 are both more advanced.
>Challenger 2 more advanced.
Please explain how.
Newer platform with more upgrade potential, more and better armour, faster turret traverse.
pretty sure the SEPv3 is only 5 or 6 years old, actually
>43 years old
>best in the world
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.
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
>Anglo Germanic magic.
ahem
Wait til you hear about the BUFF.
Russia's current MBT is imaginary.
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.
>shills jerking themselves off
>no APS
lol
>unreleased and non-standard modifications
I cringed
Ching chong ping pong
Is there anything to gain from starting with a new frame
nope
most of em were made in the past 2 decades
Russia's MBT is 50+
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.
Longer than it will take for them to not have 12 anymore
B-52s are older, and?
>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.
Isn't the Type 99 a piece of shit?
Unfortunately it's the best Eastern style designed Tank.
But it's just a T72.
no
no. you’re the piece of shit.
Malnourished. 🙁
flied lice
racists.
"Westernized" T-72. has all the bells and whistles of modern tank but Chinese quality
>arr rook the same so is old
>rook at chinese tanks arr rook different so is new
nice t72 u got thar
Thats literally just a T72 with a turret that doesnt look like it comes from the 50s
implessive
>try to replace tank
>it costs too much
>"upgrade" it instead
>its still the same tank eh
Russia's is 51. What's your point?
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 fricking up the army and the country as a whole.
compare a early war panzer 4 vs a late war panzer 4.
please.
How would you improve it? Bigger gun? More metal? Tanks have hardly evolved since world war 1 pal.
The Leo II, specifically the swedish Strv 122, was declared the best by Discovery channel. So that's what I'm going with.
wait until you hear how old our strategic bombers are
OH NO NO abramas bros?
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.
>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 Black folk waiting for their welfare check?
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 fricking 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.
>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
>the B52 will be in service for nearly 100 years