That_Baka

Here's a tank we frequently see on today's battlefields
 

 
Crew: 6 strategists (or 8 skinny ones)
Fuel tank: 24x0.5 liters, 2500 comments on one refill. Installation of additional fuel tanks possible.

More British propaganda about the Challenger 2 having better armor than the Leopard 2A6 or M1A2 SEP. Nationalistic/biased publications do not help much. I wonder what they were thinking writing this stuff.

Since nobody got it, I'll finish this one off.  It's the Martel "Mechanical Coffin".  Page 47, David Fletcher's book "Mechanized Force: British Tanks Between the Wars".  Martel had created some of the early tankettes in the late 1920's, but after a while, he decided those were too big.  So he created this silly thing.  A soldier was supposed to lay down in it and drive forward.  Once he got close to the enemy, it had a lift up panel he would use as armor and fire his rifle through.

Can i jump in? Just so if they actually start to fight they all can blame Russian hackers.
 

 
 

Leoboo vs Clercoo
 
Fight!

It's like Nexter and KMW looked at when General Dynamics slapped an Abrams turret on an M60 hull and said "we can do something even dumber!"

Ob 277.  Note that the fourth road wheel uses a leading swing arm so that the turret basket is not sitting on top of the torsion bar.  It's a similar arrangement to the AMX-30.
 
I have been unable to locate good enough pictures to tell if the example in Kubinka is like this too.  A lot of profile drawings show 277 with normal, all-trailing swing arms.

APS systems and at which range they can be spotted by radar systems according to the ADS manufacturer...

It is not, as was later found it is Azerbaijan. IIRC some of those tanks were than used during events in Azerbaijan in 1988 

I believe the top is the air filtration system the bottom is the engine cooling system.

279 roadwheel

Ukrainian tankers come in top ten in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge


 

You, suitcase, Black Volga, Magadan

 

Yeah but that's mostly because of the timing of the SU-122-54 more than anything. Omsk didn't trail blaze on anything mentioned. The IS-7 has everything you mentioned and more and that came in 1947. 
 
 
They didn't which is why only 77 were made. The problem is that a 122mm spg is fundamentally nonsensical after 1944.
 
Come on, the SU-100P is more relevant to Soviet tank technology development than the SU-122-54.

Baka; here's a quick overview of the technology successfully built into the SU-122-54 - many of the identified issues/problems associated with previous Soviet assault guns and 122mm-armed tanks were solved:
 
First Soviet production tank or assault gun fitted with a main gun bore evacuator (advantage over all previous Soviet assault guns and tanks)  Vertically stabilized main gun (advantage over T-10, same level as T-10A)  Two (human) loaders (advantage over all other Soviet 122mm-armed assault guns and tanks)  Mechanical rigid-chain rammer (advantage over all IS-series of tanks) First and only Soviet production assault gun or tank fitted with a stereoscopic rangefinder (advantage over all previous Soviet assault guns and tanks until the fielding of the T-64) From my perspective, the combination of lessons-learned from WWII and new (at the time) technology, make the SU-122-54 very interesting. We also need to remember that the Soviets thought it was interesting as well...the SU-122-54 was approved both for mass production and upgrading by fitting the M62-T2 122mm main gun (with its 3BM11 APDS ammo)...the upgraded vehicle was designated SU-122L. Also, just to clarify, I said that the D-49 made the D-25 (series) 122mm main gun what it was meant to be...which doesn't include the M62-T2. The T-10M had a more powerful main gun to be sure...but it was less accurate and had a lower rate of fire. Finally, while Kubinka is full of interesting prototypes, the SU-122-54 was produced, deployed, and would have seen combat had things gone differently in Czechoslovakia.         
 
 
      

You could make that work, but that's not a particularly efficient approach.

Both A.G. Karpenko and Baryatinsky say that the Object 268 already had a tray type auto-loader which is why they were able to get away with a four man crew.
 
 
Object 261 is really fucking obscure. What many people don't realize is that it actually three different designs and the wooden model that is everywhere on the internet isn't actually the Object 261:
 
 
Object 263 is even more obscure. The only person who has written at length on the Object 263 is A.G. Karpenko  who says that the Object 263 uses parts from both the IS-8 and IS-7.

E-MBT is just two parts of two MBTs duck taped together to please investors.
The REAL work is within the tank to make it work as one.
Armor is out of the windows as long as there is no confirmed customer.
If there are no customers, this vehicle may become a test bed for futur development for MGCS.

T-80U has also improved layered armor, both in turret and frontal hull. But yeah, USSR in 80s had 3 largely similar tanks that all were different and had not many parts that could fit in all 3. This was a result of political and economic extension of factories and bureaus and slowly degrading USSR politicians.
   Although T-80 managed to be a pretty good vehicle for it's time, and LKZ had potential to create interesting future MBT for USSR in 1990s.

He is not troll, he is just very harsh (including our, Russian armor development). Otvaga forum is not a place where members are selected by someone, so different opinions are presented. 

https://www.rbc.ru/business/09/06/2018/5b1baf419a79476d6dd11200?from=main
Footbal and idiotic functionaries put together are terrible force.

We cannot allow a drum gap!

Box fed LMG I choose you!

Turret down position.

Does this count as a small arm?