Kilometers Per Hour, right?
I’m just going it ignore the implied insults etc. implied in this statement.
Russia in WW2 learned that once the weight of tanks exceeds ~50 tons they have a tendency to simply do this…
And yes, crappy quality and poorly maintained Eastern European and Soviet infrastructure is a also a factor, but actual real-world factors limit the practical weight of Russian tanks.
For the ERA part it adds ARAT ERA to the side-skirts (also turret sides, I dunno if its the same stuff though):
I’ll just let the Chieftain field that one
lets chill out with the chally slander
Because they do not have them in real life nor prototypes. So it would be unrealistic.
Well the Abrams was equipped with ERA blocks but thats from Ukraine, not US.
I’m not criticizing the Challenger, just showing why Russians don’t build 70 ton tanks.
A lot of Russia is full of deep, thick mud, especially when the snow and ice melt in spring, if you plan on operating tanks in that environment keeping their ground pressure in mind is rather important.
Yes, sorry, lol. That would be very close to impossible for a cat-tracked vehicle due to physics. I believe the ‘worlds fastest’ “tank” actually goes to the BT-5/7 or their grandpa, the Christie tank at close to 95mph, but that’s on wheels ofc. Tanks though I still believe it does go to either the Type 10 or T-80
so abrams having no autoloader is stupid
no it isnt? more crew = easier maintenance + manual loading is just as fast and autoloaders have a lot of mechanical issues
2 Likes
oh
but no autoloader mechanical issues ingame right?
no
I don’t understand why this point keeps being made for US tanks. Do you guys not understand the entire point of “motorpool” in the Army and Marines?
Sure, on the fly field repairs are easier with more people, but that’s a rarity of yesteryear from WWII and Korea. Modern days a LMTV with parts is a short 10 minute drive away while you have 3 other tanks doing covering fire.
Due to difference of doctrine, you gotta know those tank is not design for game but for their own nation defences. Like the Type 90 due to the terrain of Japan and political situation they really won’t worry about the logistics and reliable issue when operation during overseas, so they can just stuff a bunch of technologies inside the tank.
1 Like
They really didn’t learn a single thing. They never do.
No insults implied though. Chill.
True kinda, the reason they went small was for more or less for tactical size and transportation advantage. Lighter is easier to transport, smaller is harder to hit.
So the abrams is a clean up support tank, not a frontline main battle tank?
No tank should really be in the frontline without support per-se. That’s not the purpose of a tank.
only because we haven’t fought a peer or near peer threat with tanks in a long time, reducing the amount of damage taken and making it far easier to have supporting units nearby
I don’t think reliability has been a major issue for autoloaders in a long time, they typically cycle thousands of times between any issues developing. Maintenance would be an issue though, lots of extra parts to oil and grease.
But you are right that it is a matter of doctrine and what each nation thinks is best. I believe the French actually keep the 4th crew man for each tank, 3 operate the tank and the rest crew APCs as scouts, then all 4 do the maintenance etc and they rotate around.
Abrams is designed to operate as part of a US combined arms doctrine, not a standalone unit, not that any tank really is, but Abrams is a lot more focused on integration with other forces
It said clean up tank here so…
1 Like