I like most of them.
In terms of WW-2 tanks the IS-2 is my favorite, with the IS-3 missing out because of its lack of combat. In terms of overall…
>Heavy tank favorite:
- WW2 is the IS-2 with the IS-3 and KV-1S a close follow-up
- non-experimental has to be the T-10M. This behemoth was the peak of heavy tanks.
- Exerimental: Object 279, its gun was massive, its 4 tracks gave it superior terrain traverse and its elliptical shape made it more resistant to horizontal attack as well as nuclear blasts
- WW-2 The T-34, followed by the T-28
- Non-experimental; The T-55
- experimental; NA
- WW-2 is the T-60 and T-70
- Non-experimental is the PT-76
- Experimental is the Sprut SD
- WW-2; NA
- Non-experimental is the T-90, combines the best of the T-80 and T-72 tanks
- Experimental; NA ( I don't particularly like the Armata design and the rest are serviceable but nothing special).
/Hobby/ is a tiny board. If this need more activity, we need to discuss the same theme on a single thread only. Not hundreds of similar threads that would die off in under 10 posts.
Also what do you guys think about the performance of the T-55?
why are you posting photos of an imperialist invasion?
Fuck off.>>1519>a single thread only
Well I mean this thread is already made so…>T-55 performance
It was a good medium tank with focus on adequately covering all the points necessary; CBRN defense, armor resistant to equivalent cannon fire, optimal turret shape, wide tracks for low ground-pressure, diesel multi-fuel engine, 100mm rifled cannon, decent optics etc. The modernized versions are as powerful as the T-62 or early T-72
No I won't. But you should social-imperialist cocksucker.
>>1530>Muh red imperialists
Get back to your armchair you waste of space. What are you even doing in a military thread?
>>1526>>1519>Also what do you guys think about the performance of the T-55
This goes in the communist military tech thread TBH
when will this meme die
foreign policy I don’t like =/= imperialism
Shush!!! We have to continue Mao’s nationalist butthurt over USSR influences forever!>>1525>Imperialist invasion is when you retaliate against genocide, the more you retaliate the more imperialist you are>true communism is when you exploit your entire country to sell rice to Hongkong in exchange for weapons for a genocidal war to make your own Lebensraum of Angkor Krom
I guess the USSR should let themselves be genocided by the Nazis as well right?
From horse’s mouth itself:
<Phnom Penh radio broadcast an appeal to "purify our armed forces, our Party and the masses of people… in defence of Cambodian territory and the Cambodian race…. One of us must kill 30 Vietnamese… two million troops would be more than enough to fight the Vietnamese, because Vietnam has only 50 million inhabitants…. We need only two million troops to crush the 50 million Vietnamese, and we would still have six million people left. We must formulate our combat line in this manner, in order to win victory."
Since a /pol/potist’s already here, it’s as good as any time to ask. What do you think about the incorporation of mines into the KR’s tactics of protracted People’s war? In a serious strategy perspective I think it’s actually really effective at fighting an organized army and was able to push back some Vietnamese attacks. But on the down side it also killed more of your own already brutalized civilian population (who went through the dumbass purged and failed economic policies) than actual targets prompting them the support the Vietnamese and the salvation front.
mines need to be mapped out thoroughly and in jungle conditions, in wars such as the one you describe it is impossible, resulting in thousands of mines being forgotten and hurting generations to come. Since it's not an open battle either, mines are just as likely to hit civvies as they are military forces making them a terrible choice for that. When it was a war like with the USA, where the opponent is coming from 1 side and you can collaborate with locals to keep them safe that's different situation.
lmao speaking about nationalist butthurt!
Can this be a Soviet Milltary general thread?
Already exists, thsi one is frankly better for memes and opinions and other light-hearted stuff while the other thread >>1505
can be the dry informational discussion thread.
whoever wrote the article is fucking mental
Of course they would. The Israeli government and intelligence agency have deep connection with Ukrainian far right nationalists. Most of the articles on that website is heavily biased as all hell.
While usually that's /pol/ bullshit, in this case that is correct. Though Zionists may be more correct.
Not really. Ukraine and Russia have plenty of them stockpiled away. >>1590
Geopolitics man. Besides Israel is untouchable by these neo-nazis, just like capitalists were by the original Nazis.
The Vietnam t-54m3 was developed for quite some time, along with Israel, which placed the 105mm m-68 gun sample to replace the 100mm d-10t2s gun, climate sensors, a modern telescopic sight with channel assemblies for an additional compound and dynamic reserves, "he said in the material. But later, according to the resource, due to its cost, an M-68 tank cannon had to be abandoned, however, the machines were equipped with an additional fence Minimizes cumulative, electronic effects Components and tanks were protected by special modules.
With the recent focus of the Vietnamese arm forces into naval assets and Air Force, the project of upgrading the t-54 is now put in the back burner with only a few dozen done this year.
At least the army can boast about having the chemical warfare division incorporated into the tank already with all that smoke kek.
throw a lot of smoke that tank
That's the smoke-screen all soviet tanks since the T-54 can do, they drip diesel in the exhaust which turns into heavy smoke that acts as a screen
the Chinese copy of type 59 and type 79 has units everywhere
Pakistan: 400 units
China: 200. Mainly used for reserve units, or for the instruction of new units.
Bangladesh: 185 units of the Type 69IIMA variant 'and 65 units of the Type 69IIMA variant
Iran: 200 units
Burma: 260 units, of the Type 59D and Type 69 II variants
Thailand: 5 units
Sri Lanka: 20 units
Zimbabwe: 10 units
Sudan: Manufactured under license (without being officially established by the Chinese government) in Sudan by the MIC as follows:
Type 69 - 100 units,
Type 79 - 100 units.
>>1611>photo I posted a month ago on the Kacynski thread
But why are you replying to my post about smoke anyway how is that relevant?
I had some posts on unique Soviet armor from leftyb, I'll transfer some soon.
>>2304>T42 which never made it off the drawing board and was designed as an answer to the Ratte
No it wasn't. Its design is clearly early interwar since it resembles the T-35. It and the T-35 were useless by the late 1930s (unlike the T-28 which held out as a decent platform into 1942).
The Ratte was a concept that never even reached full design stage and like the Maus was uselessly heavy, the Soviets were not aware of the lump of metal during the war and didn't even bother trying to counter such a tank post-war when captured Maus tanks showed its obvious uselessness.
THe T-42 was like the T-35, too long, too heavy and narrow tracked and too lightly armored. Its massive size made it impossible to upgrade or up-armor and improve armament without the need for even larger engines, and larger suspension, all increasing the weight of the tank and resulting in increased wear of components
TL;DR Shitty tank that thankfully was never committed into metal.
What happened to the Tsar tank during the Russian civil war? Did any of them get used by the Whites?
It got stuck in a trench during its first trial and remained there til the end of the war until it was dismantled for scrap.
Why were the tsar era military so retarded? They had succeeded in making an actual plane capable of flight decades earlier but then leave it to gather dust when its inventor died, the circular fucking battleship, and the shit show of the Russo-Japanese war.
Imperial decadence and disregard for science and the general population.
>>1518>Warthunder thread made again
Why is it people can't do catalog searches?
No its fucking true, Any Russian general from that time can confirm. He halted all artillery research and had a ton of guns melted down. He only stopped this when his rocket fetish didn't pan out fully. It wasn't a complete failure and it got a lot of innovative designs made, but it also forced the Soviet military to quickly re-establish and re-learn artillery production after this craze.
However, Khurschev was inspired in this fanaticism by the USA's raze for "space age" stuff, which also negatively reflected on the US military who made far fewer advancements in most regards.
My favourite is the one that could go underwater and had a game boy accessory
MY FAVOURITE IS THE ONE THAT COULD GO UNDERWATER AND HAD A GAME BOY ACCESSORY FOR IT
Fuck I didn't mean to sage this
It’s like a Bradley but not made of aluminium and trash.
And about a meter lower in height
they making tanks allready?
God I'd love to see them increase their military
>>5717>Sir it’s a troop carrier, it should have a low profile.
<Fuck you! Give it anti-tank missiles and a cannon on top! Also what is air conditioning?
Basically the design phase of that monstrosity.
1) That's an Armored Personell Carrier
2) They're just adding on armor to captured and fixed vehicles they could get their hands on, not actually creating their own armored vehicles of any concrete type>>5750
Ah I too remember Pentagon Wars and BlackTailDefense https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir0FAa8P2MU
Holy shit I haven't watched his videos in years.
"The ASU-57 was originally designed to be air-dropped alongside troops from the cargo bay of the standard Antonov-12, by means of a rocket-assisted parachute (PP-128-500 or P-7). It is armed with a Ch-51 57 mm gun which could fire the standard ZIS-2 57x480R AP rounds, but also the BR-271 and O-271U rounds. 30 were in storage in the hull. To keep the cost as low as possible, the engine was derived from the GAZ-M-20 “Pobeda” civilian car, and most of the parts came from wartime light tanks like the SU-76 and T-40, including the wheeltrain and suspensions. The design was so compact and made of welded and bolted aluminum plates, that the hull ended with 6 mm armor at the front, sufficient for small arms fire (in theory). Outside the crew of three, and despite its small dimensions, it was large enough to accommodate six more men and an improvized APC. An estimated total of 500 vehicles were built until 1962 (exact production figures remains unknown)."
- summarized from: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/soviet_ASU-57.php https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-V5rB5UOgA
Very cute. Man do I love tank models.
Painting them is a bitch though.
Just a really practical way to quickly put a giant gun on treads. Beauty, ergonomics or aesthetic be damned.
And somehow it started the trend of Soviet weapons being so practical that it becomes beautiful on its own. Sad that most Object projects got abandoned though. The laser tank is awesome as hell.
They clearly learned from KV-2, since later assault guns were all casemate designs. The turret over complicates things.
t-80 was a disaater in chechnya
Not really. It wasn't the T-80, it was the generals who sent it out without ERA armor or troops to defend the roof.
from wikipedia:>[The laser beam] was created by focusing light through 30 kg of artificial rubiesCOMMUNISTSITHLASERTANK
>>1526>The modernized versions are as powerful as the T-62 or early T-72
This is false, modernized T-55s don't have composite armor.
Wait really? I though both Belarusian and Ukrainian T-55 modernized variants have both reactive and composite armor?
The T-55 and T-62 don't have their own composite armor, that would fundamentally require rebuilding the tank. They do however have composite armor added on (especially on the turret front) and do have extensive reactive armor bricks.
The reason the self-propelled artillery Bishop tank is trash
>literally a shitty KV-2 ripoff.
Are americans tanks generally better than soviets, or have i been duped by imperialistic propaganda?
You've been duped. Until the M1A1 Abrams American tanks had inferior armor, guns and shells compared to the Soviets and internal electronics also were no better until the Abrams. The T-72B and T-80U both are equivalent to the 1980s M1A1 and are superior to prior Abrams versions in almost all aspects.
The first soviet Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot ammunition was made in early 1960s and put on the T-62. The first US APFSDS is from 1979 nearly 20 years late.
The T-64 sported composite armour as the first non experimental tank in the world in 1963 making it basically immune to HEAT ammo of the time which was the standard AT ammo for NATO tanks until the 1980s. The T-64B was able to fire anti tank missiles through it barrel, an idea originating from the 1960s experiments during the rocket/missile craze. The US fielded the M-551 Sheridan at around the same time, however its missile system was very glitchy and it didn't fire regular rounds all too well.
The M60A2 was another attempt at this, however the results were the same. This also plagued the joint US-German MBT-70 program. The US finally made it when they produced a120mm gun-missiles system for the M1A2 abrams, however they cancelled the program along with their autoloader experiments in 2012. There was renewed interest in 2015, but it is unlikely to go anywhere judging how the past several projects have gone.
The Israeli's in the meanwhile created the LAHAT system… decades later. The Soviets also pioneered Reactive armour, Active Protection Systems, Autoloaders and more. The T-55 from 1961 and every tank made after it in the Soviet Union featured two plane gun stabilization and CBRN defense, in the US the CBRN was first used on the M1A1 in 1985 and two plane gun stabilization on the M60A1 AOS in the 1970s. The Soviets were also the first to create a gas-turbine engine in the T-80. This was also implemented on the M1 Abrams, but far later.
TL;DR: Russian Bias is real
Interesting stuff, you're clearly very knowledgeable on this subject.
I got this impression while browsing r/NonCredibleDefense
, and seeing people talking about how poor the T-72 performed against M1A1's in the Gulf War (though that may have come down to the pilot's performance), and noticing how the Abrams – seemingly – looked more modern and better equipped.
Yeah reddit is anti-soviet by default, the T-72 performance in the Gulf War is a literal propaganda manipulation. Give me a moment I'll post some stuff on that specific matter.
Video Embed related details on the majority of Iraqi "T-72s" that the Abrams faced. Blacktail isn't infallible but this video is pretty fair.
The Majority of capable tanks got taken out by aviation doing bombing strikes on the Highway of Death uncaringly killing military and civilian forces. The USA also dumped Anxiogenic chemicals - essentially psychedelic drugs that permanently fuck you up - all over the Iraqi Republic forces, lacking defense against this chemical attack.
The Iraqi tanks lost so quickly because they employed their tanks in a hull down static position, depriving them of their mobility which is exactly what you don't wanna do with modern MBTs, and just kept pouring more and more of the elite guard into the breach created by Desert Storm, effectively running into the fire instead of cutting them off like any sane post-WW2 general would do.
The idea of buried hull down wouldn't have been bad if they had organized it properly. they positioned them at the bottom of high places and were completely lax in manning their tanks. i remember reading about a m-2 Bradley driving right up to the tanks before they noticed, in DAYLIGHT. Sights or no sights, a lack of discipline makes ANY tactic worthless. Ironically the most effective tanks used by the Iraqis were the chinese knock-off T-62s, the type-69s that caused a lot of problems. Also T-72s were the go-to tank used by coalition forces that weren't the USA or Saudia Arabia and performed just as well.
The contemporary M-60A3s used by the Iranians were shredded by Saddam's T-72s in the previous conflict, which ironically contributed to their failure in The Gulf War, their barrels were worn out because the 2A62 cannon used by the export T-72s lacked both velocity and barrel life, which further reduced their power by the time the USA faced them. The Gulf War was the true debut of the Abrams, while the T-72s of the Iraqis were war-weary and crewed largely by glorified boy-scouts who had succeeded the recently retired veterans of the iran-iraq war. Even then the USA stalled for time until the M1A1s could be sent over, because the original M1 was too vulnerable.
In his book Inside the Great Tanks, military writer Hans Halberstadt quotes Marc Sehring of the Patton Tank Museum, Fort Knox, Kentucky, “If the crews were equally well-trained (and that's really the key ingredient) the T-72 would probably have been the winner.”
Remember, the T-72 was developed in the early 1970s while its main American rival in the Gulf War, the M1, was a whole new generation ahead of it. Add to that, that the Iraqi T 72s were stripped down, lacking some of its basic components such as the modern passive IR sights, an older autoloader and firing steel core penetrators decommissioned from soviet stockpiles in 1969 (the Gulf war was 1991) not to mention the fact that it used the non ATGM compatible 2A26 gun rather than the 2A46. These guns in turn had worn out their barrel life, in the Iraq-Iran war prior to that. In the 1982 Lebanon war, various types of Syrian T 72s faced the Merkava I, M48/M60 (equipped with Blazer ERA) and Centurion tanks, all its contemporaries. T 72 losses were miniscule with the IAF tanks getting destroyed at ranges beyond their own guns and failing to penetrate the Syrian tanks at all until the M111 sabot was put into service, and even then at ranges well within the T 72’s range fire. The only T 72s lost were from hits by TOW missiles at close ranges and 1 by tank fire from the side and that tank was only disabled and then sabotaged by its crew. The only genuine Syrian losses from tank-tank battle was their aging T 62s and T 55s.
Article on the reasons the "T-72" 'failed' in Iraq: https://archive.ph/MsU0H
An excellent article (P1) on every single variant of the T-72 and its abilities: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html
If you like this thread I also suggest >>1505 >>2906 >>1441
Hmm, I haven't really researched them that much but my favourites are
I'm more into german tanks admittedly, the Panzer I's and II's are my favourite tanks
Thanks a ton for the info. I should probably compile these posts into a single image and upload them into the booru (or anyone else can be my guest to do so).
I've also seen the other threads, I even archived the WW2 one. Pretty good stuff.
Yeah I made them a long time ago and people sporadically use them, Screencap if you'd like but my posts are sort of mid-tier effort posts.
>IS-7 In RL: Most OP tank at that time.
<IS-7 in WT and WoT: Ammo rack go BOOM!
Honestly this tank is insane.
>Underwater tank <Recoilless Rifle armament and Jetfighter disposable canopy
Fucking rad as hell.
Mechanix Illustrated, December 1950 https://archive.is/qv8xJ
There's a comment on the video that his 1/2 right the following is correct >Tanks with deep wading kits frequently get stuck in the mud, even 'just' crossing rivers, or stall their engines, or find that they can't climb the bank on the other side. Western tanks have wide snorkel 'towers' so that the commander can stand in the top and guide the driver via intercom, and so that the crew can escape up the tower if the tank gets stuck. The disadvantage of these systems is that they're too big to carry on the tank in normal usage, so tanks wanting to cross a river would have to wait for the snorkels to be brought up on trucks. >In practical terms, any safe, submerged crossing of a river by tanks requires prep time, support equipment and recce of entry/exit points, so it WILL slow down the tank's progress whatever method is used, often to the point where it's just easier, safer and almost as not-quick to wait for some kind of bridging gear to arrive and be setup.
The incorrect part is about the USSR>Soviet tanks use a small diameter snorkel tube which can be carried on the tank all the time.
This is only for engines and rivers that are either not higher than the turret or are only barely deeper so that opening the hatches to escape is not an issue. For deep riviers larger turret mounted tubes ar used that can fit people in the same manner as Western tanks (and got used earlier for that matter)>Russian crews have been known to point-blank refuse to use their snorkels, despite the dire consequences of refusing orders in the Soviet Army.
The dire consequences are the same as any army, getting put in isolation for a couple days or if severe enough a court martial. I found no confirmed examples of Russian/Soviet crews refusing to snorkel and moreover all Soviet tankers from the T-54 onward were taught in actual scenarios how to escapee a tank stalled underwater - put on the standard IP-5 gasmasks (or any other mask there) and unseal the tank to flood it. After sufficient flooding the hatches are opened and you swim to the surface. The IP-5 and 7 are not SCUBA gear (as evident in the Australian Human Depth Charge incident >>12819
) but suffice for such shallow escape operations. >Standard practice therefore became to attach a snorkeling Russian tank to the winches of two armored recovery vehicles, one on each bank, so that if the tank got stuck or stalled it's engine
This is standard practice in most militaries that are not in the middle of actual war. In actual combat this precaution will not occur.
A Soviet documentary about operations if stalled underwater: https://vk.com/video140105318_456239017
Моснаучфильм "Преодоление Водных Преград Танками По Дну Реки" (can only be found on non-google browsers.
As for tubes that fit people, in Russia they are called труба-лаз, meaning 'crawl tube' and tank forces are all taught to use them in facilities before actual attempts: https://archive.ph/vklKa
Most of the Soviet comment on small tubes and lines holding the tank to be retrieved is probably referring to stuff like video related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbYxXFnobI4&ab_channel=GalileoRU
which is a Russian vlogger doing a video on tanks going into the water and standard protocol and operations. This isn't the same as actual training or combat use.
The USSR also had advanced pontoon bridges and pontoons mountable universally on its medium and MBT tanks, that let a single float over deep rivers, but that's a different topic.
Not me, maybe someone on /games/ is tho. Looks cool. >>20084 >KV-2
T-72s looked so dope
Honestly the more I think about this tank the more I like it, it's screams "Space Age"
Yeah, iconic tanks with probably some of the best designs in history.
I don't agree on all his videos but this is hilarious. The Pz.68 is a joke of a tank that looks good on paper.
BlackTail is gonna get a kick outta this.
These guys didn't even TRY to use video material that matched the subject matter as it is being said only doing it accidentally maybe 2 or 3x. Instead of posting BMPs as they're talking about it, they post them a minute later at random, during the description of the Bradley (for example.
1:58 Outright incorrect given that the M113 has and continues to be used (as demonstrated in BlackTailDefence's videos).
2:16 that's literally a Russian vehicle, that's their symbol on the side and it's definitely their armor and track design.
2:44 is literally T-90 /T-72s randomly posted
5:05 is just a random sci-fi tank, no autocannon in sight.
8:21 random T-72 again
8:33-36 - stryker brigades are a joke and the photo of them holding the flag upside down is a fucking hoot
8:45 Only ones involving Russia… LMAO they're not even trying to hide their militaristic antagonism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pupi8qjBgGg&ab_channel=USMilitary
See 6:40 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu_QrZfFGT8&ab_channel=Blacktail
Looking at the Kurganets-25, Bumerang and T-15 I can't stop facepalming. It's just imitating NATO constructions to absolutely no fucking point. They're too goddamn heavy, too goddamn tall, rely on pure engine HP for mobility and have absolutely no point except to be bad money making schemes. The BMP-3M is a better, cheaper and far more useful alternative compard to these hulks of slabsided metal. Fucking hell.
I want war theory to win but I want to learn fast
Should I do alunya riding t-55 into wallstreet and scaring the bourgeoisie
It's a fast video and I can't really explain something that relies on images - simply put they're rather unique designs.
YES As per /draw/ >>21036
T-55AM is pretty dope.
you should draw every dumb idea that crosses your mind,regardless of how bad it end up.
Pretty accurate way of showing how imperialism affect people because if these American soldiers knew that they were killing the innocent people they would stop. because their ideological opinion would be destroyed and the truth would flourish and eventually mutiny Revolution etc.
The only way to stop us imperialism is to decorate military equipment with cute and attractive things then they will realise what they're actually doing and will stop killing people and will instead kill their own generals kill their own commanders and start a revolution maybe even a socialist revolution : )
Could we have a thread for equipment leaks in /k/? :0
You mean /roulette/ K or the current /hobby/ thread?
Post this on AKM because it's military related also there is a military vehicle thread on AKM
This thread has existed since before Bunkerchan became a .net service, let alone before it becoming leftypol.org, /tech/ needs to do some coding shit to transfer the thread.
not really a tank but the Kharkovchanka cruiser is based as fuck
Unique IPs: 21