The rule of thumb is Russian gear is always worse than western gear. It’s just a fact. So a newer Russian tank is still worse than an older Russian tank. Don’t get mad at me but that’s just how it is
>Yet she is in the SMO zone... Truth is T-14 have drone integration, thermobaric shells, biggest cannon, hypersonic ammo, everything and everything.
But especially invisibility cloak, huh?
I can give you the reason, however, armatas are basically the Tigers of the Russian Federation, even if they manage a large killcount they are too expensive and complicated to produce and maintain to make for a real impact, what is more, the moment one is spotted ukies will do everything in their power up to swarm them just for the propaganda value of taking one down.
>Turret hit by anything bigger than a 30mm autocannon >All weapons, optics, and other systems are instantly destroyed by ammo detonation >Entire tank has to be shipped back to factory for repair or completely replaced
Genius engineering.
>If it was real >And it was able to function anywhere even vaguely near Russian propaganda claims >THEN it would be kind of cool
but still unreliable and fragile for a tank.
This is a thinly veiled seethe about British thread. It’s widely known that the challenger 2 is the best western MBT. Warriortard is on an absolute tear today
IIRC, Australia found the Abrams cheaper to operate in reality than it's projections claimed. The turbine is lower maintenance than predicted and in active use is more efficient. It's just more wasteful at idle.
Any M1 built this millenium has a similar fuel consumption over roads and terrain compared to both the Leo 2 and Chally. During idle however the M1 still burns a lot, but that is not really an issue since APUs has been installed since the 90's.
The early turbines from the 80's/early 90s consumed a lot more tho, and thats where data such as that found in the swedish trials of 1992 comes from.
Dude, I love the Chally too, but that's going a little bit too far. That being said the Challenger 2 was specifically designed to wreck hordes of T72's and T54/55's as that looked like the most likely war Britain would be fighting after the Soviet Union collapsed, so it'll be in its element.
>I don't know much about specifics but ariete sucks design wise.
That's why I didn't say it was the best >ugly metal bawx
That's where you're wrong, it is a beautiful metal box
challenger or abrams? i would assume leo2 if it was 2a7 but we'll see how 2a4 werks. at the same time abrams is the export version without DU?
so challenger seems to be the only actually full packed western tank. but the amazing thing about ukraine war (at the cost of ukies unfortunately) is that we'll finally see how they all perform against russians
Reminder this poster is false flagging trying to make the British look like morons. If someone uses the word warriortard unprovoked it’s best to just ignore
2a6>Cr2>2a4>Slavshit
I hope 2a6 gets some kills because the whole leopard series has been a huge fricking let down so far despite being the best on paper
If we're taking about blowing up garbage can Russian tanks, the Challenger 2s. They're specifically designed to shit on the ones places like Iraq had, and it duly did so without losses.
If we're taking faster paced mobile assaults, probably the leopard 2. Challenger 2 is fatter and slower.
Its a mix of cost (RWS systems are fricking expensive) and need. Most operators of Leo 2s are euros who has had cucked budgets for 20+ years and are just now recovering, and while a RWS system is a nice benefit for your tank, when looking at the budget for an entire armored force there is usually somthing else to spend the money on that gives more bang for the buck.
If anything mounting RWS systems on vehicles that does not alredy have great thermals, rangefinders and firepower offers a lot more. Correct me if Im wrong but isnt the US the only ones to field RWS systems on a large portion of their tanks?
>US the only ones to field RWS systems on a large portion of their tanks?
The British put the RWS on every tank in theatre, obviously that doesn't take alot given we only have 227 in service tanks. It acts as a 360 gen 3 thermal for the commander too.
I think a good reason for the US and UK having them in a good number is they saw the operational need for one in close quarters. Leopards haven't had the same amount of combat experience to warrant them.
Yep, that makes sense to me. Perhaps it will change with euros realizing that a lot of the fighting in Ukraine is happening in urban areas, and in the open fields as was belived during the cold war.
The real reason is they both saw value in them thanks to the gulf war.
Lots of masses of infantry to kill during those massed tanks assaults and being in the open vs small arms is dangerous as frick for a crew.
I remember using King Charles of Spain as a reaction image so many years ago, I'm 100% sure I was the first person on PrepHole to do it. Glad to see he's still going strong.
That's probably right.
T-14 Armata was spotted not too long back. Leopard is old, T-90 is slightly ahead in might but nothing can beat T-14 Armata (currently).
Can't beat something that doesn't exist
The rule of thumb is Russian gear is always worse than western gear. It’s just a fact. So a newer Russian tank is still worse than an older Russian tank. Don’t get mad at me but that’s just how it is
Yet she is in the SMO zone... Truth is T-14 have drone integration, thermobaric shells, biggest cannon, hypersonic ammo, everything and everything.
>Truth is T-14 have drone integration, thermobaric shells, biggest cannon, hypersonic ammo, everything and everything.
What it doesnt have is a working production line or competent crew tho.
>Yet she is in the SMO zone... Truth is T-14 have drone integration, thermobaric shells, biggest cannon, hypersonic ammo, everything and everything.
But especially invisibility cloak, huh?
but does it have T-I-G-E-R-S?
Fairly certain there aren’t any Armatas in Ukraine, and if there are they’re not on the frontlines
It wasn't seen yet, but it was heard all the way from Kazan.
I can give you the reason, however, armatas are basically the Tigers of the Russian Federation, even if they manage a large killcount they are too expensive and complicated to produce and maintain to make for a real impact, what is more, the moment one is spotted ukies will do everything in their power up to swarm them just for the propaganda value of taking one down.
> T-14 Armata was spotted not too long back.
If by not too long back you mean, breaking down during the annual parade in Moscow years ago, you are correct.
>Turret hit by anything bigger than a 30mm autocannon
>All weapons, optics, and other systems are instantly destroyed by ammo detonation
>Entire tank has to be shipped back to factory for repair or completely replaced
Genius engineering.
>nothing can beat T-14 Armata (currently).
nobody can beat me in a boxing match either
mostly because I probably won't enter a ring in my entire life
Filthy dumb Russian scum
Wect is finished
If it was real the T-14 would be awesome.
>If it was real
>And it was able to function anywhere even vaguely near Russian propaganda claims
>THEN it would be kind of cool
but still unreliable and fragile for a tank.
This is a thinly veiled seethe about British thread. It’s widely known that the challenger 2 is the best western MBT. Warriortard is on an absolute tear today
>It’s widely known that the challenger 2 is the best western MBT.
is this based on anything other than the performance of two of them in Al Basrah?
It has the best armor by far, and can shoot the best rounds that other nato tanks can’t shoot.
False flagging moron
Obvious b8 but even the British themselves recognized that the M1A2 was the tank Britain should have adopted.
No we didn’t. The m1 is a garbage pit of a tank. Challenger mogs it in every metric
Not really. Perhaps back in the early 90s but these days the M1 got a load of upgrades while bong tanks hasnt changed much since the 90s.
Not with that gas turbine.
It's great if you have shitloads of fuel and money to burn like the US but we could never justify it
IIRC, Australia found the Abrams cheaper to operate in reality than it's projections claimed. The turbine is lower maintenance than predicted and in active use is more efficient. It's just more wasteful at idle.
New abrams have small sustainment motors for idling. It runs the turret without the turbine having to be on
Any M1 built this millenium has a similar fuel consumption over roads and terrain compared to both the Leo 2 and Chally. During idle however the M1 still burns a lot, but that is not really an issue since APUs has been installed since the 90's.
The early turbines from the 80's/early 90s consumed a lot more tho, and thats where data such as that found in the swedish trials of 1992 comes from.
Dude, I love the Chally too, but that's going a little bit too far. That being said the Challenger 2 was specifically designed to wreck hordes of T72's and T54/55's as that looked like the most likely war Britain would be fighting after the Soviet Union collapsed, so it'll be in its element.
If you're cold, they're cold. Get them a blanket.
preferably one that looks like a scrotum
That camo covering looks like a bad AI image generator trying to figure out what a tank should look like
Dunno which one is the best, but I know which one would be the sexiest
I don't know much about specifics but ariete sucks design wise. It's an ugly metal bawx.
t. Italian
>ariete sucks design wise
No wonder last Italian cars sucks. When did you guys got taste this shit?
>last italian cars
such as?
It's ugly anon and you have no sense for aesthetics whatsoever.
Don't you ever talk shit about my sense for aesthetics, Tony. I can't comment on its performance, but it sure looks great.
My first thought when I saw that picture
>I don't know much about specifics but ariete sucks design wise.
That's why I didn't say it was the best
>ugly metal bawx
That's where you're wrong, it is a beautiful metal box
T-54-OBr-2023 reigns supreme! HATO overcomplicate tank cannot compete!
challenger or abrams? i would assume leo2 if it was 2a7 but we'll see how 2a4 werks. at the same time abrams is the export version without DU?
so challenger seems to be the only actually full packed western tank. but the amazing thing about ukraine war (at the cost of ukies unfortunately) is that we'll finally see how they all perform against russians
The Bradley is the best IFV in Ukraine at the moment
That’s a no brainer. The slav IFVs are universally garbage, marder isn’t that good, and the CV-90s in country are the cucked Swedish variant
The modern Swedish CV9040C and D is pretty gud. That said Ukraine got the old garbage 9040As that hasnt been upgraded since the mid 1990s.
Warriortard cope when CR2 tears a swathe through ancient vatnik armor will be great
Reminder this poster is false flagging trying to make the British look like morons. If someone uses the word warriortard unprovoked it’s best to just ignore
L2A6 yes. L2A4 not really.
2a6>Cr2>2a4>Slavshit
I hope 2a6 gets some kills because the whole leopard series has been a huge fricking let down so far despite being the best on paper
Depends on the circumstances.
If we're taking about blowing up garbage can Russian tanks, the Challenger 2s. They're specifically designed to shit on the ones places like Iraq had, and it duly did so without losses.
If we're taking faster paced mobile assaults, probably the leopard 2. Challenger 2 is fatter and slower.
Begrudgingly the Leo 2A6. It's honestly a crime Abrams aren't there yet.
What's the deal with the Leopards and not having an RWS? I see the Abrams and Challengers with them all the time what gives?
Its a mix of cost (RWS systems are fricking expensive) and need. Most operators of Leo 2s are euros who has had cucked budgets for 20+ years and are just now recovering, and while a RWS system is a nice benefit for your tank, when looking at the budget for an entire armored force there is usually somthing else to spend the money on that gives more bang for the buck.
If anything mounting RWS systems on vehicles that does not alredy have great thermals, rangefinders and firepower offers a lot more. Correct me if Im wrong but isnt the US the only ones to field RWS systems on a large portion of their tanks?
>US the only ones to field RWS systems on a large portion of their tanks?
The British put the RWS on every tank in theatre, obviously that doesn't take alot given we only have 227 in service tanks. It acts as a 360 gen 3 thermal for the commander too.
I think a good reason for the US and UK having them in a good number is they saw the operational need for one in close quarters. Leopards haven't had the same amount of combat experience to warrant them.
Yep, that makes sense to me. Perhaps it will change with euros realizing that a lot of the fighting in Ukraine is happening in urban areas, and in the open fields as was belived during the cold war.
The real reason is they both saw value in them thanks to the gulf war.
Lots of masses of infantry to kill during those massed tanks assaults and being in the open vs small arms is dangerous as frick for a crew.
Don't be stupid. It was post Iraq 2003 when they were both used in cities as part of the Sepv2 package in 2007.
Why can't deuchistan into tanks? They fall apart
>They fall apart
What?
The lion of Europe can't into tanks they explode
Why are non whites on /k/ always weird schizos?
but im white
Aight, not him, but take your meds, explain what you mean in a non-moronic way or frick off.
I remember using King Charles of Spain as a reaction image so many years ago, I'm 100% sure I was the first person on PrepHole to do it. Glad to see he's still going strong.
You're welcome.
Um actually that's king Mike shultzheimerbergstein of Prussistan
Why does the lion of Europe make the best tanks?