>the hind was slow
>the A-10's primary weapon is its gun
>the Patriot's primary mission is ABM
>ISIS is not funded by the USA
>The Sherman was a piece of shit
>The Panther was bad here's the French report
>20mm aircraft guns were overrated in WWII
>The Ju 87 was obsolete
>Slav aircraft were bad
>Germany would have won the war if they had produced more StGs
>The Garand's ping was a major weakness
>creating yet another thread purely for shitposting is making you cool
>Didn't the Hind chop off it's own tail
I don't think I've herd it doing that before
makes sense. i kinda mixed up outdated and obsolete. you're right it was not obsolete, just dated.
some of it's success i believe was due to german air superiority and good training of the crews.
keep the military industrial complex funded and keep fearmongering the us pop to keep them supporting overseas actions
They are allies who are executing israel foreign policy, by extensive, the US's as well.
When Hillary needed that diplomat killed in libya, she got those "moderate rebel" allies to do it.
That is true.
>Muh undeadable Abrahams
>Muh 1000m DU armour (yes, someone actually said that on this very board)
>Muh human loader
>Video of Abrams being removed gets posted
>ARAB CREWS A SHIT
>ONLY A MOBILITY KILL
>THE CREW LIKELY SURVIVED
>IT DIDN'T THROW ITS TURRET
WWII slav aircraft were not bad at all, it's that they had poorly trained pilots, the Slavs not knowing shit about how useful a radio is (they even removed the radios from lend-lease aircraft to make the thing lighter) and horrifying doctrines.
Performance wise they were pretty alright.
>Always an excuse, ALWAYS
And what do you count as a excuse?
Chechnya, every single tank performed poorly because the russians were literally retarded.
>See pic related.
Invasion of dagestan, pretty good performance of T-90s.
Chechyna again, much better performance. No gigantic losses of T-80s.
Georgia, I dunno, both sides were using T-72s and had good ATGM but in the end Russia won the conflict. There is one pic of a destroyed T-90A.
Ukraine, I dont think you know this but T-90s are literally stomping the Ukrop tank force and there is no proof that they have even knocked out even one T-90.
>guies it's not a M1A1M.
>He does not know T-90s have been used in ukraine
I found the vatnik, he is trying to play us like a fidle.
>>He does not know T-90s have been used in ukraine
>thinking that T-90s have been used when every pic has been T-72B3s
Though one can easily make the case that the B3 is superior to a T-90.
Vatniks are the only one that try to say MUH UNDEADABLE. It's hilarious watching them flail about impotently when the MUH MONKEY MODELS excuse is thrown back in their face so easily. My favorite is watching them try to say that the M1A1M or M1A1SA have DU.
T-72B3 is 100% inferior to the T-90A, step up your game sempai.
That was a T-72 that broke through to the peace keepers base then was (apparently) blown up by its crew once it ran out of ammo. Sourse: Tanks of August.
The south didn't get T-90s until after the Ossetian War.
>Like when they invaded Iraq and attacked our people there
"Our people there" ? What are you even talking about? We pulled out of Iraq in 2011, kiddo. ISIS invaded in 2014.
Do you think that iraqis are american citizens or something? Like how can you be this confused?
Should you not post how ukraine got super Su-25's that can shoot down planes such as MH17 vatnik?
Or that the plane was full of dead people? :^)
Now hurry before ukrop nazi jews get you :^)
Apparently there was rumors from what I heard that if the Hind was to bank too hard or fast, it could hack off it's own tail.
>Get rid of Assad, destabilize Europe, remove slav, remove Kebab, sell arms.
That's what other rebel groups are doing
>ISIS are the only rebels.
It's becuase a lot of people seem to think that ISIS sort of spawned out of nowhere one the US pulled out of Iraq. The simple fact of the matter was that ISIS was started by Al-Zarqawi (who were were actively hunting) under a different name as a small-time insurgency in the wake of the 2003 invasion of iraq. from there it grew in size and devoured other smaller insurgent groups into itself. Most of the 'Al Qaeda' fighters in Iraq were what would become ISIS. (Al Qaeda is essentially a franchise. Zarqawi applied, and Al Qaeda let them operate under their brand name). ISIS cam about later following not only our pullout of the region, but also a following out with Al-Qaeda-proper, resulting in a name change (largely catalized by fallout over the attack in which ISIS used two women with down syndrome as unwitting suicide bombers)
They've beheaded US citizens. Also we're starting SF operations against them and pushed them away from Kobani when it was under siege. We go through all this trouble to stop ISIS advances, and people keep saying we're backing them.
We created an environment which inadvertently allowed AQI and later ISIS to flourish in the absence of American troops and a weak Iraqi government. I see no evidence that we are in direct contact with ISIS or are directly arming them. ISIS can/has obtained American weaponry through overrunning Iraqi military bases and units as well as receiving them from defecting FSA. If we're truly backing ISIS, we're doing a shit job of it.
>ISIS is funded by the USA
>According to a poll released Tuesday, nearly 20 percent of U.S. citizens now believe Barack Obama is a cactus, the most Americans to identify the president as a water- retaining desert plant since he took office.
>The poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found a sharp rise in the number of Americans who say they firmly believe Obama was either born a cactus, became a cactus during his youth, or has questionable links to the Cactaceae family.
>He must speak frankly to the American people about his mammalian background," Pelmont added. "If not, it's only a matter of time before people start believing those fringe bloggers who claim the president of the United States is actually an old washing machine."
Which is ironic, considering that Assad gave sanctuary to jihadists groups operating along the border between Iraq and Syria, and he probably gave them arms as well. Supposedly Assad also released hundreds of jihadis from his jails during the protests in Syria. Of course the Russians were also arming Assad, so if anything the Assad/Putin alliance is the most responsible for helping ISIS rise to power. To turn round and accuse the US of creating ISIS is a case vulgar, blatant projection on their part.
>our enemies include the Iraqi government we've been spending billions on to keep functioning?
Do you seriously think that the Iraqi government is our friend?
After nearly a decade of murdering Iraqis or allowing them to be murdered, you think they like us?
They've basically ignored everything we've asked of them and allied with Iran precisely because of the occupation. They know we can't be counted on to do anything except kill them with robots from the sky.
That isn't how the -boo suffix works.
It comes from the term weeaboo, for Westerners obsessed with Japanese culture.
If you're a member of the society you're talking about, it doesn't work.
>Israel is our greatest ally
>USS Liberty was a terrible accident
>Galils and Tavors have literally no faults and anyone who doesn't own one is racist
>It's impossible for someone to be /pol/ and /k/ommando at the same time!
> It's hilarious watching them flail about impotently when the MUH MONKEY MODELS excuse is thrown back in their face so easily.
Actually what is hilarious is that MUH MONKEY MODEL T-72s were not actually downgraded tanks, simply older ones that made up the bulk of the Soviet tank force.
Unless you consider lacking NBC systems a downgrade.
And an electro optical FCS, and climate control, and night vision, and composite armor, and ERA, and and and....
I have personally been inside several Iraqi Republican Guard tanks. One of them literally had a steel folding chair welded to the floor because it was so gutted when they got it they didnt even have seats.
All T-72s didn't have FCS till T-90A.
>source literally written on pic
Are you retard or something?
Tanks fully equipped with ERA was almost impenetrable. Except full retard cases when tank were hit from rooftops.
>the A-10's primary weapon is its gun
I was under the impression that the main armament of the A-10 was the gun initially, and when Soviet armor advanced, guided bombs took that role. Anyone wanna clarify for anon?
No integrated targeting system for missiles on A-10, so it's true in some way.
Iraq had T-72M, which lacked the Sandbar armor used in T-72M1.
The T-72 went through a ton of different armor configurations.
I actually have a counter to this. The whole point of america was freedom, equality, and reaching potential. Because of this, most citizens arent actually americans, just people living in america. Those people include "amerifats", landwhales, anyone who did not at the very least ATTEMPT to become educated, anyone who makes no attempt to better themselves economically or physically even though they are able, and tumblrcunts. This list is by no means definitive.
I think you're referring to Kamov airframes. They have a slight tendency to cause a mid-air collision with itself under exceptional circumstances thanks to the coax rotor design, but no more frequently than something like a Chinook.
This is Russian terminology. According to it T-72 didn't have fire control system it had ballistic windage unit (бaллиcтичecкий пoпpaвoчник). T-64 T-80U had fire control system. Russians define difference between them by automation of process of calculation of aiming corrections for wind and target movement.
>T-72 is bad
>Everything the Russians make is trash
>Bullpups have slower reloads
>5.56 is a good round
>Precision munitions make normal CAS obsolete
>Active sonar is great and always finds subs
>L85A2 is shit
Sorta. Every dive bomber/CAS aircraft can only operate in an air dominance, if not, air superiority environment. The Ju 87 got the job done when they had that environment. When they lost that environment in 1943/44, they were started to get relegated to night bombing operations where they suffered one of the lowest loss and attrition rates of all air units on both sides of the war. Should Germany have replaced it by 1941? Absolutely. But the the point is that it soldiered on throughout the war
We saw it in Afghanistan primarily, why do you think Designated Marksmen became a thing? Or the increase in M240s?
5.56 is good enough for short range work, like in urban environments, but as soon as combat takes place beyond 200-300 meters or so, it's inadequate.
The actual average distance for an engagement is around 500 meters or so.
Why do you think the Army is interested in 6.5-7mm designs?
They want to replace both 5.56 and 7.62.
We had these cartridges in the 50's, the British designed the .280 British which was literally perfect.
But we turned it down because our generals were fudds and kept going "muh .30 cal rifle!"
>it's a great tank
No, it really isn't.
Terrible FCS even on non MUH MONKEY MODEL versions as seen in the Tank Biathalon, didn't even get passive thermals until the 1989 upgrade, terrible gun depression, mediocre armor, poor ammo loadout, etc, etc, etc. There's a reason why Soviet Cat A units that were meant to be breakthrough units were never issued the T-72 and moved from the 64 directly to the 80.
Not really, with ERA they were invulnerable to 120mm APFSDS.
The T-80s were even better protected.
>poor ammo layout
Only by today's standards, by late 60's-70's standards it was good since all the ammo sat very low in the hull.
T-64 and T-80 had it worse since the ammunition was stored vertically in the carousel rather than horizontally.
>poor gun depression
By NATO standards this is bad, by USSR standards it's fine.
They would rather have smaller, harder to hit vehicles than the ability to go hull down.
Soviet tank doctrine was very offensive, so hull down wasn't all that important to them.
This is a meme, nobody knows what it actually means.
By the 90's the Russians were behind since they didn't have a commander's rotating periscope for hunter-killer ability.
But before that, they were more or less on the same level as NATO.
Also, it's important to note that the Soviets had different definitions on what an FCS was. A Soviet FCS had to have high levels of automation to be called as such.
But do keep this in mind, don't analyse the capabilities of Soviet vehicles with US doctrine in mind.
You have to approach it from the Soviets doctrine.
The same thing applies to slavaboos who call the Abrams and Leopard shit.
Russians have this capability in the T-90 and upgraded T-72s & T-80s, they just didn't have the rotating commanders site as they were skeptical that it would survive combat conditions.
This made them less effective than NATO vehicles, but they aren't as bad as /k/ regularly make them out to be.
>dat early shot trap turning harmless ricochets into K-kills
>ammo stored in open racks along the sides and in the middle of the fighting compartment so any penetrating hit cooked it, and this was never changed: meanwhile every US Sherman had by late 1944 either factory-installed or field-modified wet ammo storage which meant that only 10% of them burned when penetrated compared to 80+% without
>interleaved wheels that clogged easily and were a nightmare to replace
>too heavy for the difficult to repair suspension that left no room for escape hatch
>fragile steering mechanism
>transmission breaks down if you look at it badly
>turret rotation speed dependent on engine RPM and laughably slow when idling
>the armour DID get progressively brittle
step it up, naziboo
I have seen 2 videos of Abrams getting wrecked on here.
In 1 of them, the blowout panels function exactly as intended and the entire crew gets out alive.
In the other, the tank explodes spectacularly in a manner suggesting that the crew was improperly storing ammunition and possibly even overloading on ammunition.
Meanwhile, Russian T-72s in Ukraine are continually throwing their turret and killing their entire crews at an alarming rate.
The Panther exceeded the T-34 in reliability all through the war.
T-34's reliability problems just rarely came up because the average distance a T34 covered before being destroyed was even lower
Then explain why the Czechs came to the exact same conclusions and trashed the Panther as fast as possible despite using other German vehicles such as the ME-262 and Sd.Kfz. 251 well into the 1960s.
You are literally retarded
The early Hind-A,-B,-C models had a poorly designed rotor hub that allowed way to much movement in maneuvers.
This led to the occasional strike of a main rotor blade hitting the top of the tail.
It was fixed by the Hind-D and on (which is why you don't see A/B/C models of Hinds anymore, and if you do, they've been retrofitted with the better rotor hub.
>>(which is why you don't see A/B/C models of Hinds anymore
The reason why you don't see them, is because they don't exist. There is no such thing as Mi-24C, Mi-24B was never built and Mi-24A was retired ages ago.
>No -B or -C models.
Experimental series of Hind-A, one of which was used to test the Fenestron tail rotor.
(NATO "Hind-C") Training version of the Hind-A without nose gun and wingtip stations.
Granted they are all based on the original Mi-Mil-24 (Hind-A with shitty rotor) body, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Think 6.5 Grendel but made during the time NATO was looking to standardise ammunition (early 50's)
Beyond 800 meters, it had higher energy than 7.62x51 and retained its velocity better.
It also had low recoil, allowing for very controllable fire.
It threw a 140gr bullet at 2,750ft/s.
Practically every NATO nation was looking to adopt it, but the US Army said "no, we need a full powered .30 cal rifle cartridge", and basically forced the rest of NATO to adopt 7.62x51
Hind is a NATO call, and doesn't match the Mi-24 designation
Eg Hind - E is the Mi-24V
Hind - F is Mi-24P
The Hind - B was the second production version of the Mi-24A
Hind -C was a trainer, Mi-24U
>considering that Assad gave sanctuary to jihadists groups operating along the border between Iraq and Syria, and he probably gave them arms as well. Supposedly Assad also released hundreds of jihadis from his jails during the protests in Syria.
Source on that, so I can cause assrage on /pol/?
Lol no, the A10 had IR-guided weapons since inception, and laser-guided as soon as the technology was available.
The gun was never, in any way, meant to serve as the A10's primary anti-armor a weapon. That is, as OP says, a meme.
>ITT memes that need to die
>Post meme website.
It's really cute. Too bad that tank-net got wasted, otherwise we could have seen how blasted the author got when he posted his meme and asked for others opinion of his meme writing.
we aren't directly funding Isis, we are funding people we know share the same ideology as Isis and will end up joining them sooner or later, they just go by a different name so that's enough to fool the average American.
Hillary was transferring arms out of Libya and she murdered the embassador to Keep him quiet. Guy was probably going to come out and tell the whole world we had used Jihadis to destabilize Libya and were gunning for Assad.
>being this ignorant
It's been flying 24hour CAS missions for years now and has been desired due to it's ability to carry large amount of ordnance while also letting FACs pic the size of the bomb they want delivered from 250lbs to 2000lbs
Yes, really. The indigenous Israeli M111 was more than capable of penetrating T-72s which lead to an immediate refitting of T-72As in production with applique armor which more than likely would not have been sufficient as it only was designed to protect against perceived western ammunition that was equal to the M111, whereas the M774 had superior penetrative performance.
>with ERA they were invulnerable to 120mm APFSDS.
They only ever were issued with K1 as K5 was prioritized to T-80s, and by the time they actually did get them in the 90s, K5 was already defeated.
Not even what I said, go read it again, but if you're going to bring it up, it is fucking atrocious.
>By NATO standards
By anyones standards that doesn't rely on massed overwhelming armor pushes that don't care about casualties which means Modern Russia as well as the rest of the world. Less gun depression means less flexibility on the battlefield.
>This is a meme
No, it isn't. Did you even watch the Tank Biathalon with B3s where they were struggling to hit targets 500m away while at a crawl while the Chinese were hitting bullseyes at full speed? The 2A46 has inherent accuracy problems and when combined with poor ballstic computers this just compounds the issue. They were never on the same plain as NATO tanks were as FCS was never considered that important as general Pact doctrine called for closing with the enemy to the point where you couldn't miss and your inferior AP ammunition was guaranteed to penetrate.
The M774 does not have any superior performance then the M111 which was only able to kill a T-72 at 500 meters or so from the front when hitting the hull upper glacis.
If you got anything better then please share.
Lemme guess, it was just sitting there in the open with no other coalition forces anywhere near it too, right?
Protip: that video was of a captured Iraqi Abrams that they packed literally several tons of explosives into. Of course it exploded.
Ive seen that video too.
Some of their doctrine is just retarded.
There's a reason the US never adopted the "Flying tank" idea: Tanks are not air units. If you damage a heavily armored aircraft's engines, you essentially have a paperweight being held in the air by some flimsy rivets. It's also terribly inefficient.
How many US tank crews with proper training in a disciplined non-church military have been killed under similar circumstances?
Not saying that our tanks are undeadable. That's nationalistic retardation. I am confident in our military's cavalry, though. If it every came down to us versus the ruskies in their matchboxes, we'd see some shit on either side. I still like the Abrams. It's a good tank and a good crew can do some good things with it.
A shitty crew will die, a poorly maintained tank will be less effective in battle. Do you think the Iraqi military has well regulated divisions of mechanics that show up to work every day, all squared away and ready to put in 12 hours of backbreaking, tightly scheduled work? No way in hell.
We haven't seen two ACTUALLY competent militarizes engage each other in years.
>The M774 does not have any superior performance then the M111
>from your own fucking source
>M111: 360mm pen at 2km vs 60 degree sloped plate
>M774: 385mm pen at 2km vs 60 degree sloped plate
Did you even read your own sources?
>was only able to kill a T-72 at 500 meters
The Israelis and Soviets say otherwise or else they wouldn't have been in such a hurry to add armor.
>hitting the hull upper glacis.
The entire glacis was vulnerable.
>Other source states the M111 to have 390mm penetration at 3000 meters
>The Israelis and Soviets say otherwise or else they wouldn't have been in such a hurry to add armor.
Well 500 meters is a big deal since the soviets claimed they got it proofed below and over 1500 meters against nato rounds.
>The entire glacis was vulnerable.
They only boosted the upper glacis since it's the biggest area to hit.
But in the end what does this tell us? It got proofed against 105mm rounds that is close to the M111 at ranges as 500meter. The M774 which has a little bit larger performance (implying) might kill the T-72 at 500meters or more.
But then there is the problem where T-72B's are about to roll out into service soon and 120mm soon.
>nearly 20 percent of U.S. citizens now believe Barack Obama is a cactus
This only proves how much power the American Media has over its citizens. Nothing of intelligence. The average American has either two jobs or 1 that's too long and underpaying to take heed to the truth