/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

I feel like officers were unprared for static warfare like in Ukraine. All those hours wasted larping mobile warfare in exercises thinking you can apply Afghanistan experiences in a real war between developed nations.

THOSE AMERICAN TANKS ARE SO FLAT THEY LOOK MORE LIKE SURFBOARDS…
HAVE FUN WITH YOUR BEST USA SOLDIERS ALL BEING MARRIED TO I.E.D.'S IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAK, WHILE VIETNAMESE CARRIED OUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS…

An anon recently stated that Russian tanks get stuck in mud just as easily as Western tanks and that it's barely any different. This comes after the PR disaster of the Challenger 2 in Ukraine getting stuck in mud during training.

The ORIGINAL T-72 had 18.8 hp/tonne compared to the original Chally 2's 18.7
The current Chally 2 modification has 16 HP/tonne.
The T-72Bs newer engine in 1985 gave it 19 Hp/ton outright and later 21 HP/ton as the engine was continually upgraded.
Moreover Ground Pressure matters. The T-72 and T-72B have 0,83—0,87 kg/cm2 while the Chally has a ground pressure of 0.98-1.12 kg/cm2.
The T-90 and T-80 are even funnier, going by the T-90MS (as the stats for the original T-90 in terms of mobility are roughly the same as the T-72B3M) the hp per ton is 24, and ground pressure 0.97 kg/cm2. Still less than the original Chally 2 and far less than the current one in use. The T-80BVM has a HP/ton currently of 27 hp/ton and with the new 1500HP Turbine currently being developed, it's going to go into the 30s. Its ground pressure is 0.84 kg/cm2. The older T-80s had a 1000HP turbine but they were also lighter than the BVM modification so their hp/ton and ground pressure was roughly the same.

Oh and of course weight matters. All of the Soviet tanks weigh 1/2 to 2/3 as much as the Challenger II and can quite easily ride through the mud. The heaviest is the T-90M and it's still far below any Western MBT in terms of weight

When this was brought up the following was part of the response
>they're heavily relying on fast IFV and even chinese desertcross buggies because tanks are too slow in mud and get targeted by suicide drones more often, even if they don't get stuck.
This is blatantly untrue, video 2 and 3 related demonstrate that Tank/IFV charges and maneuvers are actively used when it is tactically appropriate, even in open areas. Losses will obviously happen, but that's how war goes, and the overall results speak for themselves

I wrote a long effort-post on autoloaders a long while back, I've kept it updated but an aspect that I haven't considered is the limitations on length of fired rounds for the tank, given the carousel's dimensional limitations. This is especially important for APFSDS ammunition. There is nuance to this question and possible solutions that come to mind, especially in my research of one of the T-90 prototypes, the Object 187, as well as the work on the T-95 and T-100 'Black Eagle' project, the latter of which may be revived in the future.

https://www.quora.com/In-a-modern-tank-is-the-auto-loader-better-than-having-a-human-loader-and-a-crew-of-four-rather-than-three-What-advantages-does-an-auto-loader-tank-offer-to-an-army/answer/Chuck-Garen

>>4783
Good overall, but you oversold as you said the autoloader was hard to hit from any angle. It is rather easy to hit from the side, angled from above and through the turret roof, as countless times demonstrated in Ukraine and Syria before. The autoloader carousel covers a large area additional to the other ammo storages from a side view and sitting lower in the hull is relevant for direct fire, but not as much for loitering munitions and suicide drones.

>>4794
It's not easy to hit and all your examples are not of the autoloader being directly impacted, because that's an instant detonation, of which I've seen one example in Ukraine, when a T-90M was hit directly by a mine from beneath.
Everything else is an example of other, hull ammunition being hit (mostly earlier in the war when hull ammo was being carried) and in general demonstrated fires spreading to the ammunition compartment after penetration and detonation of the attacking warheads, which is equivalent to a house set on fire, detonating the natural gas lines after the fire reaches them, as compared to literally setting fire to the gas-line from the start.

So, again not easy to hit. Furthermore even accepting your statement its easy to hit; the point was that a manual loader is even EASIER to hit. And as the Leopard II, Abrams and Challenger have proven in this war, their method of ammunition storage is in no better, even the Abrams bustle failed to protect properly.

>>4517
Found an interview of the crew that killed the first Abrams.
>"Два года ехал, 20 минут воевал"
<(the abrams) Was coming for 2 years, and fought for 20 minutes
Roasted

The channel is Комсомольская Правда a communist group
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dVeQxivtlc

Cute Russian girl talks about the BMP-3
>Эх, тебе бы детей рожать да борщи варить… Куда полезла на броню, рыжая?! #izmetro #изметро #бмп

ИЗ МЕТРО
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxX8vQwrDSY

Recently a video appeared of a BMP-2M belonging to the Pskov Paratroopers crossing a field and taking a ton of hits; 2 FPV drone strikes, a hit from an RPG and a barrage of cluster munitions. More than likely some small-arms fire too. The only injuries was the commander getting concussed.

The BMP 1 and 2, despite obviously having units destroyed in combat due to the heavy combat environment and already old vehicles, have demonstrated themselves as survivable and good vehicles for their purpose despite armchair mockery. Another BMP-2M earlier in the war was hit by multiple RPGs of different types (AT-4, RPG-7, etc.) after being immobilized by an ATGM. This situation is seen from both Russian drone footage and from body-cam footage from an early Civ Div video, (the one where he and his unit commit war-crimes by killing a surrendering enemy after offering surrender).
https://topwar.ru/209965-pojavilos-arhivnoe-video-poslednego-boja-jekipazha-i-desanta-rossijskoj-bmp-2m-pri-othode-s-harkovskogo-napravlenija.html

Another BMP took a hit from a Javelin missile while evacuating the crew of another BMP. Despite the smoke, it continued to fired back and successfully evacuated, completing its mission. (vid 2)

One of the Leopard 2s destroyed by Russia and captured has been seen taken from the front lines. It's a 1999 model Leo-2A6 that had been immobilized by a mine and taken out at Avdeevka. The Russian MoD decided to place it on display after repairing it. It will take its place next to its Tiger ancestor. Abrams, Stryker and Challenger II are next.

>>4506
>>4517
Honestly I think I've undersold the importance of the M1150 being taken out and now captured. Russia's Soviet mine-clearing vehicles are certainly effective, but the M1150 is actually a pretty damn good mine-clearer, with line-charges on top of having regular mine-rollers, dozers and EM-detonators installed. Very few were made relative to the USA's tank forces, and very few were used, so Ukraine's version were likely not too far from the current US standards. Russia not only took one out but captured it, which means they can actively study the vehicle and improve their own mine-clearing vehicles, which is important given just how impactful mine-fields have been in this war.
https://southfront.press/russian-army-captures-u-s-made-assault-breacher-vehicle-near-avdeevka-video-photos/

https://www.militarytoday.com/engineering/abv.htm

Russia also captured an older mine clearer based on the M-60 Patton; the M88A1
https://southfront.press/russian-army-captures-another-american-engineering-vehicle-from-kiev-forces-photos/

>>4517
>>4506
Just realized I never posted the actual video of the Abrams' taken out. Apparently one of them was hit by at T-72 and taken the fuck out.

Spain is planning on sending its retired M60A3 TTS tanks to Ukraine. Even the Spanish media think the tanks are too old to be useful for Ukraine.

https://topwar.ru/240848-vsu-mogut-byt-peredany-ispanskie-tanki-m-60.html

For some context the M-60 is the contemporary of the T-62 and fulfilled the same stop-gap role that the T-62 did for the Soviet Army, in providing a more modern tank to replace the M-48 (and T-55 in the T-62's case) until the next generation of tanks could be fully developed. While the T-62 was replaced by the T-72 and T-64 a few years later, the MBT-70 program was a resounding failure, and the M-60 remained the USA's primary tank into the 80s, with the Abrams only replacing it by the mid-late 80s.

The M-60 was upgraded several times (not always successfully, as seen in the M-60A2) but generally managed to improve itself. However the base tank remains mostly unchanged and it's honestly weak as fuck. Despite efforts, the M-60 lacks ANY composite armor, it's pure RHA steel and fairly thin and mediocrely angled, the Soviets, who actually captured a M60A1 found the mantlet (the thickest armor on the entire fucking tank) to be badly armored. In the same time-period, despite the T-72 completely replacing theM-60 very early, the USSR still upgraded the tanks as a reserve force into the T-62M and T-62AM variants and other upgrades. besides side-skirts, a large layer of composite armor was placed on the frontal glacis, creating an effective thickness of over 400mm for the T-62, over double the effective thickness prior and immune to the M60's 105mm ammunition, the same applied to the Turret, and on top of that Kontakt-1 ERA which made the T-62 upgrades have the effective protection level comparable to the T-72A.
The T-62s 115mm canon could penetrate almost every part of the M-60 from a larger distance than the M-60 could penetrate the T-62, in part due to the effective APFSDS and later the cannon-fired ATGMs which had no problem penetrating the M-60s RHA, and the T-55s later 100mm anti-tank ammunition managed to equalize damage output with the M-60, despite being older. The HESH ammo of the M68 gun was useless against any composite armor tanks and barely useful even against the T-55 since the thick internal CBRN lining of Soviet tanks acted as a spall liner too.
The only real upgrade to the M-60s armor was the mounting of ERA in later M-60A3s but that only came in the 80s and Blazer ERA wasn't effective against any 125mm round from the start. By the time it became widely used, the 115mm guns of the T-62 had received anti-tank rounds of much higher penetration than they had before, essentially negating progress made. In essence the tank, while a reliable work-horse and useful in a fire-support role against lightly-armed forces, it's weak in tank to tank battles, and even weaker against ATGMs, strike-aircraft and most certainly will be weak to drones.

So yeah the M-60 will be a death-trap in Ukraine.

>>4179
>People have been 'burying' the concept of tanks since the days of the RPG-7
To continue this relative to drones:
>it's no exaggeration to say MBT doctrine was killed by drones
This untrue: Drones aren't very much different from CAS and artillery; raining explosives from above and tanks were still relevant even with them around since the beginning. This idea the MBT doctrine is killed comes from some strange concept that tanks only work when unbeatable or something, when a tank is essentially a jack of all trades AFV meant for several roles, at least Soviet MBTs, American ones today lack the ammunition types for it.
- Self-Propelled Artillery: 125mm HE-F flies up to 12km and new optics make it extremely accurate, a T-80BVM hit an AFV with indirect fire using guidance from a drone. >>4540
- Anti-armor: 125mm HEAT, APFSDS and TGM's will take out any armor up to an equivalent tank opponent.
- Infantry Fire Support: Close range, mobile artillery, such as firing at enemy forces in a bunker or building.
And so on. It's not invincible but it can take more hits than anything else and has some of the hardest hitting weapons at the moment. We see a lot of footage of tanks getting blown up, but the fact is, most unsuccessful hits aren't published, it takes more than one hit to take out most tanks unless you get lucky or the tank is shit. The Leopard-II has garbage roof armor, which is how a non-HEAT drone fucking demolished one by caving in the turret's top. A T-72's turret getting the same impact would survive without significant damage.

Western MBTs are much less suited for this, they're too large and unmodular. More importantly they lack proper HE-Frag. HESH is only good against light armor and bunkers and as a much slower shell, is not the best for accurate hits at range, on the move, against a moving target like an APC. The canister rounds like the M1028 is a deadly anti-infantry round, but only at close ranges and is useless against targets hiding behind even a decently thick wall, or in a trench. The M-PT which is derived from HEAT warheads are not meant for HE-Frag use. The M908 and its equivalents are similarly ill-suited for the role.

>Drones are several orders of magnitude more accurate
They're not more accurate than a helicopter launched ATGM or a guided air-strike, or a GPS-guided artillery-shell, and they don't have nearly the explosive power of any of those, not without growing in size to the point where they are miniature air-craft that are much easier to target.
>This is without even mentioning their ancillary benefits like how they improve battlefield situational awareness [Note: this is speaking relative to anti-tank operations].
Which includes the awareness of tanks too, as has already been done in Ukraine. Furthermore an automated roof-machine-gun with optic guidance to target drones isn't a large stretch either, the CROWS system is an attempt and the T-90M's 12.7mm Kord roof machine gun is projected to have this capability made automatic in the future.

M-18 Hellcat manual
https://m18hellcat.com/TM_9_755_M18_Hellcat.pdf

>>4875
One of these tanks has been recovered from the frontlines after Russia shifted the front-line forward. The damaged American M1A1 Abrams tank is a unit from "Magura" the 47th Mechanized Infantry Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (47-й ОМБр ВСУ) near Berdychi.

https://southfront.press/russian-army-captures-first-american-made-abrams-tank-videos/

The T-55 gets slept on a lot because its so old by now and obviously not up to modern MBT standards. I think people forget just how groundbreakingly scary this tank was when it was introduced. Even in the T-54 variant that lacked CBRN protection and stabilizers, it was a formidable weapon capable of penetrating almost every Western tank at ranges far exceeding their own and having frontal armor specifically designed to be basically immune to 88mm Pak-43 guns even at close range, which meant that the 90mm tank guns of the Patton tanks and any caliber below it was useless. It's why the 105mm gun was introduced. That's just the T-54. The T-55 CBRN defended, had gun stabilizers and so on, and this is in spite of the fact that the T-55 is a Medium tank, not an Main Battle Tank. So it punched above its weight.

Even if it is no longer capable as a front-line tank, it still retains the roles of a tank, capable of smoking any other armored vehicle frontally and even being able to penetrate a more modern tank from the side with an ambush, as Iraqi export models did to American tanks. The 100mm gun has decent HE-Frag ammunition and it's high velocity means it has good range with it. The sturdy platform also makes it excellent for being a platform for just about anything else such as autocannon mounts.

The T-55M modifications in the 70s also boosted the protection and sight-systems of these tanks, resulting in a fairly well protected artillery vehicle. They're used as secondary attack forces by both sides, such as recently at Rabotyno

To this end, despite mockery in the media, even the Ukrainians are well aware of how useful it really is. It's why they accepted the M-55S and were trying to make modernizations of the T-55 prior to the war like the T-55ABM

https://topwar.ru/241286-jeto-kruto-ukrainskij-oficer-vysoko-ocenil-primenenie-vs-rf-sovetskih-tankov-t-55.html
https://topcor.ru/33720-ukrainskie-analitiki-schitajut-chto-ne-stoit-nedoocenivat-tanki-t-55.html

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the USA has developed a new autonomous tank called the RHP as part of its RACER program. This tank can travel at speeds up to 50 km/h through challenging terrains without human assistance. DARPA aims for it to support a fleet of smaller autonomous robots in military operations. The tank features intimidating green lights, but their main function is to indicate its self-driving mode. While the RHP is impressive, the final product is still in development.

>>4935
The research into disabling autonomous vehicles like this has been done years ago, probably by the same companies that create them. Things like hyper-sticky wire or chain nets would jam the tracks.

Lazerfag recently made a video where he regurgitates Western propaganda to defend the Challenger II. Laughable.
In the words of one comment
>A random guy on YouTube hides behind a pig persona, saying baseless things while extensively using anime memes, and these things turn out to be not true? How could this be possible?! Next you will say that TikTok is not the best source of military analysis!

>>4949
>4949
Damn I got neat dubs.
Anyway for anyone that doesn't want to watch the retarded video and waste 50 minutes of their time:
https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?v=40G8hGIcEoQ

The very fact that Lazerpig STILL claims that "russha iz running out of shells" and "muh aircraft losses" is indicative of his deep-set NAFO-ass-sniffing. Most of the video is basically going over the history of the Challenger II and basically says that "we don't know what Chobham is made of so we can't know the real protection, ignoring the massive gap in armor at the driver's hatch and the fact that this same argument can be used to also say that the real protection of the tank is LOWER than commonly claimed as well.
The comedic thesis Lazerpig brings up in the video is that the Challenger 2 act's as mobile artillery (it's shells and indirect fire range is shit) and the claim that its presence (fucking where lol?) reduces the capability for Russia to target it (Ukraine) with drones or missile systems has increased its importance in the current conflict. Nevermind that we've seen and heard NOTHING about the Challenger II's impact on the battlefield, but we sure as hell have seen them get taken out with drones, ATGMs and artillery, while getting stuck in mud during on-camera training.
>The Russians are reportedly hesitant to come out and fight Western designs, preferring to stay at a distance and only engage if the defending forces are using Soviet-built models. This reluctance may be due to a fear of having combat footage leaked online, as well as a tactical advantage in not engaging with tanks designed to counter their own.
This section was genuinely funny considering that T-72s have taken out both Abrams and Leopard II tanks because at least those ones are actually BEING USED on the front instead of driving around and getting stuck in the mud behind the lines for attempted propaganda.

I think that Lazerpig released this video because of the scandalous demonstration of Abrams and Leopard II tanks in Moscow this May and how viral it is on the internet. So TL;DR: /k/ope about the Challenger II is a roundabout bigger seethe over Russia dunking on Western AFVs.

>>4884
>M908
Forgot to link a page for this rather interesting 120mm round. (Phone posting RN).
https://www.bulletpicker.com/cartridge_-120mm-he-or-t_-m908.html

A Chieftain tank and prepared static shaped charges are used to try and defeat a solid steel armour plate followed by a plate of the new Chobham armour.
Attacks include an APDS (charge adjusted) round simulating combat range engagements and a shaped-charge placed on the armour plates.
The steel plate is defeated, the Chobham armour is not.

>>4975
"Standard combat range of 1200M".

Except for the NATO surveys showing the average LOS in West Germany was half that.

>>4987
>average LOS in West Germany
Do you mean Line of Sight? What's your source on that?

Russian troops have captured a Samaritan Recon vehicle, completely intact as far as I can tell.
https://topwar.ru/242655-derevjannye-zaglushki-trjapochki-i-verevochki-v-rembate-vs-rf-rasskazali-ob-jekspluatacii-vsu-britanskoj-bronemashiny.html

It's probably one of the remaining batch from: https://gagadget.com/en/war/221453-serhiy-prytula-has-bought-101-fv103-spartan-fv104-samaritan-fv105-sultan-stormer-shielder-fv432-bulldog-fv434-and-fv1/

>>4989
Video footage
>The FV104 armored personnel carrier was developed in 1976 in Britain and is considered rare, with only 100 units produced. The transporter is developed on the basis of the British FV101 Scorpion tank and has a crew of 2 people. The FV104 has no weapons; it is equipped with four smoke grenade launchers. The vehicle can transport 4 wounded on stretchers and two medics. The armored vehicle was modernized for evacuation purposes, including receiving mine protection, which increases the protection of the crew. The 190 horsepower engine is installed in the front right side of the armored personnel carrier. Maximum speed on the highway is 72 km/h, range is 480 km.

Tanks of the east German "Kinderpanzerkorps" of the Ernst Thälmann Pioneer Organization pic 2 is in front of the Army museum of the DDR

>>4988
Old NATO studies I read decades ago. Pretty sure it has been repeated in Ospreys etc in regards to the idea that NATO tanks had an edge with longer effective cannon ranges than Soviet tanks (which later Soviet tanks covered with barrel launched ATGMs).

>>5002
>the idea that NATO tanks had an edge with longer effective cannon ranges than Soviet tanks
That's bullshit. Until after the Cold War, Soviet tank guns were either equivalent or could outright knock out a NATO tank at longer ranges, especially since they had APFSDS ammunition first. By the late 80s penetrative range was equivalent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmoGKofib8U
>Object 787 "Gadyuka" (“Viper” in Russian) heavy fire support vehicle - Edit
>Katami

>>3657
On the topic of self propelled guns, one even more rare than the Pat-S is the Object-14
https://topwar.ru/233663-v-harkove-otkopali-redkij-istrebitel-tankov-obekt-14.html
https://archive.is/p7VUo
https://alternathistory.ru/125-mm-sau-obekt-14-sssr/
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2571099.html

>The Blockade Has Failed
The block on Venezuela getting equipment repairs and so on from the countries like France which is the country of origin for the AMX series of vehicles has failed, as Venezuela's military has managed to create its own self-sufficient repair facilities, demonstrated with the AMX-13.

https://topwar.ru/243158-blokada-rodiny-ne-srabotala-venesujela-vosstanavlivaet-francuzskie-btr-amx-13m56-sobstvennymi-silami.html

Kinda a reversal, but here's a video of a demounted BMP-1 gun used as light artillery.

https://topwar.ru/243366-rossijskoe-masterstvo-i-izobretatelnost-pushku-ot-bmp-1-peredelali-v-buksiruemoe-orudie.html

>>4891 >>4168 >>4176 >>4193 >>3975 >>4875 >>4877 (77 checked)
So recently the Ukrainian Abrams was withdrawn from the frontlines after it incurred several losses in quick succession. Well now these tanks are returning to the frontlines with upgraded armor (pics rel… and getting knocked out just as quickly as they were before.

https://southfront.press/in-video-no-ukrainian-defense-saves-american-abrams-tanks-from-destruction/

The slat armor is only good against light FPV drones and is actually MORE vulnerable to HEAT warheads due to how it is placed and the distance from the actual armor. Russian tank slats over the roof have Kontakt-1 or even Kontakt-5 ERA so it disrupts the molten stream, negating the difference made by the spacing. The Kontakt-1 placement is also pretty stupid. The frontal armor of the lower hull is fine, but the upper hull is only good for top-attacks which would break through the thin armor anyway. The upper glacis of the Abrams is roughly 35mm of RHA steel angled at roughly 83 degrees*. This means that at a direct horizontal angle HEAT warheads will have trouble detonating, as it usually won't hit the fuse and instead bounce with the side. It will, however, deflect them into the turret shot traps. The Kontakt-1 needs to be angled enough that an incoming projectile hits the face directly, which triggers the subsequent detonation of the ERA and the breaking of the cumulative stream (it is not very effective against Kinetic Penetrators). At the almost flat angle of the Kontakt-1, the defense granted will be minimal as stated.

Additionally this up-armoring is a massive addition of weight, reducing cross-country capability and gas-mileage. The M1A1SA weighs 61.3 tons in normal configuration. TUSK is about 2 tons I think, and the Kontakt-1 and cage armor is another ton, bringing the weight up to about 64 tons (66 short tons). Even base M1 Abrams tanks had a tough time with some of Western Europe's bridges, this is just a tragi-comedy.

*The USSR thought that the armor was double the actual thickness which meant the estimated armor thickness they had was far higher than the actual armor thickness, but I'll go into that in another post

https://topwar.ru/243162-ukrainskij-abrams-v-kletochku-zavodskie-jekrany-s-somnitelnoj-jeffektivnostju.html

As a side note recently Ukrainian tank commanders interviewed by CNN complained the Abrams had weak side and roof armor (part of the reason for the slatted armor seen above).
https://web.archive.org/web/20240529192605/https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/europe/ukraine-war-us-tanks-intl/index.html

https://vod-media-aka.warnermediacdn.com/cnn/v2/clips/2024-05/1550714-39f2a5515ade4782b3ca4d94b85e3649/mp4/abrams-tanks-ukraine-russia-nick-paton-walsh-digvid-1550714-1920x1080_8000k.mp4 ( https://files.catbox.moe/wlo0ds.mp4 )

>>5055
thanks for the effort post

>>5054
I can't decide if this is good or bad. DIY does relieve some pressure on logistics. On the other hand, are they actually short on BMP's?

>>5059
No they're not short on BMPs. It's more than likely that a BMP was damaged beyond all repair, but the gun was still there, so they field modified it as makeshift light artillery, similar to all the MT-LB mounted stuff like >>2799 , >>2803 and >>3862

The Kurds did something similar, mounting a BMP-1 turret on an up-armored tractor. The Serbs also did stuff like that, dismounting rocket launchers and in-built autocannons from damaged aircraft and mounting them on trucks or using them as towed artillery. Pic rel is the Kurd modification I mentioned.

Reposting from >>>/edu/7482 India's military development is a strange one. They primarily orient themselves towards Russian technology, but in recent times have been trying to develop their own armaments with limited success. The Arjun tank being a clear example of this problem, with poor performance despite excessive spending on it.

Recently India has been courting the idea of production of Stryker 8x8 APCs with licensing and collaboration from the USA but why is unclear. The Stryker's performance is abysmal and its price-tag is staggering, and the USA's position towards India is not at its friendliest so this move is confusing. India has, in the past decades, done dealings with the US military, but this particular instance is strange. The stupidest part is that the Indian government announced its reasoning as a need to replace their BMP-2s… never mind that the BMP-2 is an IFV and significantly superior to the Stryker in every capacity by default. The decision is not finalized yet, especially as the more successful indigenous APC production in India is pushing back on this.

https://topwar.ru/244536-indija-vedet-peregovory-s-ssha-o-zakupke-i-sovmestnom-proizvodstve-bronetransporterov-stryker-8x8.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20240617104119/https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/how-american-stryker-tanks-that-india-is-evaluating-could-be-a-game-changer-for-the-army-13783203.html
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/11/11/indian-afv-production-could-be-derailed-by-the-us-indian-stryker/

France has demonstrated some of its newest mechanized systems. They seem to be alright, but expensive as hell, at least in regards to the truck mounted turret system.
https://topwar.ru/244507-na-vystavke-eurosatory-2024-francija-predstavila-novuju-voennuju-tehniku-razrabotannuju-v-ramkah-programmy-scorpion.html

>>5148
France tends to make a big deal out of the CAESAR guns sent to Ukraine, but to me they're not really impressive, especially when you know that for every CAESAR France produces (lmao), Russia can build a fuckton of their SPG of choice (not exactly tank related, I know, but I felt like pointing that out)

>>5149
>not exactly tank related, I know
It's fine, I've posted non-tank stuff here too, tangents are fine in threads so long as they don't derail too much IMO.
>France tends to make a big deal out of the CAESAR guns sent to Ukraine, but to me they're not really impressive, especially when you know that for every CAESAR France produces, Russia can build a fuckton of their SPG of choice
The CAESAR is basically just a howitzer on a truck. At least the Archer SPG has some cool capabilities (even if there are problems in terms of its mount being vulnerable to soft ground), the French gun is just an exposed mess. The Malka and other Russian artillery trucks recently made are easily just as capable if not more so and frankly its a matter of doctrine. The French doctrine, as demonstrated in the presented vehicles in >>5148 and its various current or recent AFVs (such as the AMX-10 and prior AMX vehicles, Leclerc tank and so on, are all made for conventional conflict against an opponent of less than equal capability. As demonstrated in Ukraine the CAESAR is just another mobile artillery platform and the AMX-10RC is just another heavy IFV. There's nothing special about them or anything distinctly advantageous in their capabilities, but this whole idea of West is Best creates a strange narrative in people's heads.

The F-16 is a good plane even if it has problems, but in a conflict like Ukraine it's just another jet and one at severe disadvantage without AWACs/SEAD and F-15s backing it up, especially since the Sukhoi jets outperform it. The same shit applies to the Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and Abrams tanks; just another tank with nothing really special about them. In the late 90s there was SOMETHING to it, because the fall of the USSR resulted in a decline in modern thermals and optics, but it's a gap that Russia has overcome at this point.

>>4949
>>4950
Wasn't he recently outed as a literal pederast?

>>5154
Really now? Post proofs please, I'd love to have them on hand. Also it kinda backs the "British reactionaries are all pedos" idea, it's been pretty consistent.

>>5157
That's just something I heard on the chans. Perhaps one of the gossip forums would have more details.

To keep this on topic, do you guys think drone tanks will become en vouge this decade? Perhaps a hybrid solution with just a driver to drive the drone back if the coms are cut might work.

>>5158
Tanks are kind of obsolete anyway. But I guess I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to automate them eventually.

>>5159
I disagree for the reasons I listed in >>4884

>>5158
>To keep this on topic, do you guys think drone tanks will become en vouge this decade? Perhaps a hybrid solution with just a driver to drive the drone back if the coms are cut might work.
They've already tried both anon. For the latter The T-14 is basically an isolated crew capsule with an automated turret and so on, as is the KF-51 Panther.
The other option of a remote-control tank has been around since the Soviet Tele-tanks and German mine-laying/detonating tanks. In more recent regards, both Russia and the West have developed various designs (such as the Uran systems), but none are truly combat ready. The real problem is the inability to mount heavy enough weaponry.

>erhaps one of the gossip forums would have more details.
Definitely not most /k/s they love to wank this guy. Got any suggestion where to start?

>>5160
I don't think there has ever been a one man tank with the rest of the crew being remote. Also, what do you mean by inability to mount heavy weaponry? Surely you could just have a cannon with an auto-loader.

Also kiwifarms is usually the best place to find embarassing facts about ecelebs.

>>5161
I stay away from kiwi-farms because it's like /pol/ but with quadrupled autism. That being said, please link me that good shit

>I don't think there has ever been a one man tank with the rest of the crew being remote
It's been tried, hell recently Russia jury-rigged a T-55 with full remote control, so it drives, aims and fires while remote controlled.
>what do you mean by inability to mount heavy weaponry
There's a reason why the Uran series don't mount 125mm guns. You need very heavy calibers and heavy caliber weapons need a chassis that has a good amount of weight. The T-72's 45+ tons is already pushing the limit. It's gun is so powerful that firing the gun rocks the whole tank with recoil. Building an unmanned vehicle in that weight range is arguable in terms of viability and design, although I suppose the argument for it could be made. .

>>5162
That T55 was fully automated though. What I propose is leave the driver in so that he can drive back if the signal to the remote control breaks.