General AFV Thread

[LoooSeR]

 

From 5:15 you can see shooting and gun loading.

[LoooSeR]

That is Pantsir 

[Tied]

"IVE FALLEN AND I CANT GET UP" 

[Walter_Sobchak]

From a 1983 issue of ARMOR.  This should make everyone chuckle a bit.  

 

[LoooSeR]

You see, they both have turret and tracks!

[Collimatrix]

They do both have goofy opposed-piston two-stroke diesels, a mistake that does not seem to have been repeated often since.

[LoooSeR]

They do both have goofy opposed-piston two-stroke diesels, a mistake that does not seem to have been repeated often since.

Funny how T-64's engine compartment is smaller than Chief's, while having similar engines with ~similar level of power output. Tech dfference between those 2 is like between T-64 and T-62.

[Khand-e]

They do both have goofy opposed-piston two-stroke diesels, a mistake that does not seem to have been repeated often since.

 

Well, the British did make the mistake of continuing to design tanks however.

[Collimatrix]

Chieftain also has a small secondary motor in its engine bay.  They might also store propellant charges behind the turret ring or something, I forget.  So it's not a typical case of British incompetence at AFV design, the stuff is just in different places.  What is living in the long front hull of T-64?

 

I'm of the opinion that Chieftain would have been a fearsome design if it had appeared ten years prior.  It's got the best sloped armor of any of the all-steel tank designs, and the gun has plenty of raw power (it's a bit more powerful than the L1/M58 on conq/M103).

 

Aside from the engine that's too weak and doesn't work, the primitive suspension, the lack of a proper rangefinder, and mediocre mid-life upgrades, it's a pretty good piece of AFV architecture.  If you compare it to Western tanks of similar weight like late-model centurions or M60s, it has slightly better protection and a bigger gun while still managing the decadent Western embellishments of gun depression and crew elbow room.  Also, while the T-64 is clearly a different and superior class of vehicle, most of the Soviet tank pool at the time of Chieftain's introduction were T-55s and T-62s, against which it compared reasonably well (once they got the whole "it doesn't work" thing figured out).

 

Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 are far less impressive, relative to global competitors.  An early Leo 2 vs a Challenger 1 is just sad.  Leo 2 is better in basically every way, and so is the early Abrams save for the gun.

[LoooSeR]

Well, the British did make the mistake of continuing to design tanks however.

Their tanks are not bad, they are just mediocre from engineering advances POV. 

[LoooSeR]

 

 

In several years, Abrams turrets will have more crew stuff on top of them than armor.

[Collimatrix]

You misunderstand, that stuff on the turret sides and rear is armor.

[LoooSeR]

Turkish ZMA-30 (AFAIK) AA system.

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

 

M1A1 driver's station. If letters were russian and picture was posted somewhere like War is Boring, it would be interesting to see reaction of people. 

[LoooSeR]

APFSDS for Korean tank. AFAIK, this is K279

Carbon fiber sabot. Yes. 

[LoooSeR]

Best Korea STRNG

[Tied]

>tropical paint scheme

>t-55

>gaint Cuban flag in the background 

 

Thats Cuba you dingis 

[Priory_of_Sion]

Who says Cuba can't be the best Korea?

[Donward]

Cuba. Better alcoholic drinks. Better smokes. Better repository of pre-1959 era American automobiles.

 

I'm game.

[LoooSeR]

Who says Cuba can't be the best Korea?

Cuba IS American Best Korea.

[LoooSeR]

>tropical paint scheme

>t-55

>gaint Cuban flag in the background 

 

Thats Cuba you dingis

I know that it is not a North Korea.

[LoooSeR]

Yuri Pasholok posted that

"T-99 Abramovich"

[Tied]

Why are we using the 105?

[Walter_Sobchak]

Why are we using the 105?

That's a 120mm.  The 105mm gun has much sharper edges on the fume extractor while the one on 120mm gun has more rounded edges and is a bit larger.  

[LoooSeR]

Egyptian T-55 upgrade ?