What tank would Veeky Forums own?

Fun fact: You could actually remove the tracks from these and steer using a traditional wheel for greater speeds.

Probably a Cadillac Gage Stingray or a M8.
youtube.com/watch?v=zrw20j0ga6Q

But I'd actually rather have a V-150 since they're street legal, paint it white with UN markings to freak out paranoids for the lols.
youtube.com/watch?v=vtEzeJmzSow

TOG II
I've seen this in real life and its scary how big it is.

>tank
>not wanting something that's armored as well as amphibious and has the potential for road registration with legal dimensions and wheels

Hi-tec Nippon steel.

Centurion.
> Modern enough to be fun to drive.
> Sounds like a tank should; rumbly engine, clanking tracks, exhaust everywhere
> More reliable than Chieftains
> Still available in the wild in large numbers
> Still in service in some countries, so you can get parts

>posts the meme tank
Real monster coming through.

you want tank go into water? BT go into water.

>potential for road registration with legal dimensions and wheels

I'm british; you can register whatever the fuck you want to drive on the road, so long as you have a license for the weight and the tracks.
And you'll get fined if you chew the road up, so fit rubber pads.

But does it come out again?

We just build more BTs comrade.

Yeah, but it'll be far easier with wheels in most places. Also it's exceedingly hard to find tracked amphibious vehicles with legal dimensions. Only a few tracked vehicles are amphibious and most tracked vehicles are tanks and too wide for road legality.

t-34-85

You sound like someone is going to stop you from drive tank on the road?

I'd rather it not be the last thing I do in life.

Again, you can register whatever the fuck you want on the roads in britain.
If I wanted practicaly, I'd just drive my DD around. But if I want a tank, I want a goddamn tank, not a 'wheeled reconnaissance vehicle' that'll founder going across a muddy field.

Leopard A2 plz

I'll have you know that 99.12% of the global population don't like in the UK, and some of them post on Veeky Forums.

Then they're fucking cucked by tank control. aren't they?
Apparently the only issues with tank ownership in britain is applying for licenses for the guns. The machineguns are heavily rstricted. The main gun is a single-shot weapon, however, and is legislated like an air rifle.

The turbine made the Abrams basically the fastest MBT currently on the market (45ish MPH). In a conventional war I'd imagine some thrifty engineers would remove the limiter to get the full speed out of it (rumored to be about 65MPH but it overloads the suspension on bumps and eventually grenades the transmission)

the thing can run on almost any combustible fuel, meaning it can operate well in a full scale conventional war with minimal supply lines

the intake filter design means it can operate safely in sandstorms.
>the turbine rotates a shaped drum that spins the air before entering the turbine
>air passes through holes in the drum and the debris gets separated and ejected from the intake

for US Armed forces, they also have depleted uranium in the composite armor. Supposedly the overseas sold versions lack this.

the M1A3 diesel upgrade is only because
>easy access to thermally guided weapons, making the turbine an easy target
>diesel exhaust won't cook the infantry

in the rural areas, the M1A2 is the best choice, with the future M1A3 w/ TUSK being the urban variant

M1A1 units will remain in service until a targeted 2021+
M1A2, 2050
M1A3, likely the same as the A2

I assume you mean Leopard 2A6, the A2 is a 1980's relic

for legal road size, the largest tracked vehicle you'd find would be an IFV

The Abrams might be a fast piece of shit but that's the only thing going for it. To put things in perspective, let's compare the T-72 to Abrams:

>mobility

This can be further broken down into two metrics, tactical and strategic mobility. Tactical mobility is how well a tank can maneuver in combat. It's determined by things like fast a tank can drive off-road, how powerful the engine is, and so on. Strategic mobility is things like operational range, ease of transport and airlifting, etc.

The Abrams has a small advantage in power to weight ratio, but it's strategic mobility pales compared to the T-72. The T-72 is easier to transport due to being smaller and lighter, it uses much less fuel, and requires less frequent maintenance than the Abrams' turbine engine.

A tank is no use when it can't get to the fight. Any slight advantages in the Abrams' tactical mobility is completely out weighted by it's crippling shortcomings in strategic mobility.

Verdict: T-72 wins in mobility

>firepower

In modern times, this is a tricky comparison to make, since advances in ammunition and fire control are being continually developed and fielded. However, there are some key differences inherent to the design of these two tanks.

1. The T-72 has an autoloader, the Abrams does not. Unlike human loaders, autoloaders will never fatigue, can load while rapidly driving over rough terrain, and allows the tank to be made smaller and better protected. This gives the T-72 a decisive advantage over the Abrams.

2. The T-72 has a larger caliber gun, allowing more potential for developing stronker ammunition.

3. T-72's ability to fire missiles from it's gun barrel gives it greater flexibility than the Abrams

4. Any American superiority in fire control and electronics are nullified by the new T-72 variants now entering service.

Verdict: T-72 wins hands down in firepower

youtube.com/watch?v=ro4yhp9L6Ok

It was revolutionary at the time, but then NATO meant everyone had to keep up with it.
And the T-80 is faster, when it works.
Multi-fuel engines have been standard since the wehrmacht.
Chobham armour has layers of all sorts of shit, mostly to defeat specific projectiles. Density changes to stop KE penetrators, ceramics to defeat shaped charges, etc.

Strategic mobility is eased by foreign policy. Stage tanks and ammo where you expect trouble, fly crews out there.

> Autoloaders
They jam. Human loaders don't tend to. Autoloaders can't fix tracks, cook, operate a machinegun, or load quickly. Or take a hit.

IIRC, the next variant isn't the A3. It's just incremental fixes to the A2.

>protection

Once again, this is a difficult comparison to make, since new types of ERA, composite armor, and active protection systems are being continually developed and fielded. However, there are still persistent inherent differences between these tanks, so let's compare them.

1. The shape of the T-72 is much smaller and lower than the Abrams, making it harder to hit in the first place and therefore more survivable.

2. The T-72's autoloader gives it a substantial advantage in ammunition safety. The turret can be made smaller and better sloped, and the ammunition is safely stored in the autoloader carousel close to the hull floor, whereas the entire back half of the Abrams turret is it's enormous exposed ammunition storage.

3. The Abrams uses depleted uranium for it's armor. DU fragments and dust are fatal to humans. The Abrams' armor will quite literally kill it's own crew if penetrated.

Verdict: T-72 wins in protection

tl;dr T-72 is a better tank than the Abrams in just about every relevant metric.

Too bad they're too expensive, even a fighter jet to display in your backyard is cheaper. I'll probably just build myself a small scale replica instead, they look really fun

youtube.com/watch?v=fkFMeQCqMxo

seconding this

Fairytales Putin reads his teddy bear before bedtime.

I dont know much about tanks, so I'll assume you're thinking of the one I have in my mind.

I was in the goddamned communications-battalion, not armor!

the T-72 is an odd beast. A Russian operated model that is well maintained and upgraded is basically a cheaper tank that can go toe to toe with an M1A1. But exported T-72s are often outdated and/or poorly operated.

in terms of "strategic mobility", the 120mm smoothbore was chosen for that reason. If you send an Abrams to any location NATO occupied (or where a NATO tank was sold), you don't have ship ammo unless you want DU rounds. the 120mm ammo design is basically cloned across all NATO tanks (except the Challenger 2 with Sabot rounds)

in limited war (ie most of what we see today) the T-72 thrives with a smaller supply line. in total war, the Abrams levels it with fuel flexibility.

as far as the missile system on the T-72 goes, it's only available on units produced from 1985 onwards, so most Non-Russian nations lack the capability.

conclusion: in an export fight, the average Abrams is superior to the average T-72. US updated and operated model vs latest Russian model, the T-72 is more cost effective.

neither model is well suited to urban environments though, given the T-72 core was designed for the fields of Europe and the M1 was designed to specifically combat the T-72 at the time.

my personal opinion is that tank development has stagnated since the berlin wall fell, we need a good war to convince the bean counters that tanks deserve a budget

>T-72 is a better tank than the Abrams in just about every relevant metric.
Every conflict that the T-72 has been in disagrees with this.

>3. The Abrams uses depleted uranium for it's armor. DU fragments and dust are fatal to humans. The Abrams' armor will quite literally kill it's own crew if penetrated.
if a modern tank round penetrates the crew cabin of any modern tank, almost everyone is dead anyway. Even kinetic rounds turn the pierced armor into shrapnel.
to his credit, most of the T-72s that have seen combat are mostly piloted by shitty crews and are 20 years out of date.

forgot to add that your posts are (mostly)False.
M1A1
Entered service 1986
Crew 4 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 57.15 t
Length (gun forward) 9.83 m
Hull length 7.92 m
Width 3.66 m
Height 2.44 m
Armament
Main gun 120-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 2 x 7.62-mm, 1 x 12.7-mm
Elevation range - 9 to + 20 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 40 rounds
Machine guns 12 400 x 7.62, 1 000 x 12.7
Mobility
Engine Avco Lycoming AGT1500 gas turbine
Engine power 1 500 hp
Maximum road speed 67 km/h
Range 465 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 40%
Vertical step 1 m
Trench 2.7 m
Fording 1.2 m
Fording (with preparation) 2 m
Armor via.HEAT=1480mm
T-72
Entered service 1973
Crew 3 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 41 t
Length (gun forward) 9.53 m
Hull length 6.86 m
Width 3.46 m
Height 2.19 m
Armament
Main gun 125-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 1 x 7.62-mm, 1 x 12.7-mm
Elevation range - 5 to + 14 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 39 rounds
Machine guns 2 000 x 7.62, 300 x 12.7
Mobility
Engine V-46 diesel
Engine power 780 hp
Maximum road speed 60 km/h
Range 500 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 40%
Vertical step 0.85 m
Trench 2.8 m
Fording 1.2 m
Fording (with preparation) 5 m
Armor via.HEAT=430mm

Russian tankery is shit. Iraqis were even worse, before they got perforated en masse.

Ethiopia has had a pretty good record with Soviet tanks, but they were invading Somalia with T-55s to take out islamists with technicals and RPGs.

nothing is more dangerous than an angry Veeky Forumstist who knows how to weld
youtube.com/watch?v=5zRsmcIaB1Q

Leopard 2-140 prototype, was meant to be fitted with an autoloader, too.

I fucking loved destroyed in seconds when i was younger.

they're working on a Leopard 3 I think, so the 140 might come back if NATO wants to move to that caliber. The Germans usually dictate what MBT cannon size is used in NATO

Could be mounted on the M1A3 too.

a 140 autoloader would be a monster

>his tank cant do a burn out.

youtube.com/watch?v=9-9uzLBtMtY

>13mm of armor

I know it's not a tank, but it seems like it'd be great fun even if it can't crush the cars in front of you.

This or the M1128 famalam

oh and as for tracked probably the M270 MLRS because muh rockitz

>Wanting the shittiest, most unreliable tanks possible

Can't beat the Germans when it comes to tanks.

I'd get something that I actually have a chance of maintaining, i.e. pic related

also a good choice

monkey models and shitty crews are to blame tbqh

A few of the Russian Smerches are going to be discontinued from service so you might be able to drive those.
4 MPG here I come!

M2 is kawaii desu

BT-7 so I can drive it on the road and go fast.

Def King Tiger like you posted OP

>no armor
>no armament

the cutest

the armored version is an Army technical demonstrator and not in production yet. the unarmored version is available for purchase

>Not a Tempest

M551 Sheridan anything bigger and you are compensating

this guy gets it

Like I care about reliability and armor, a PZIV would be dope

...

Magach 6B Gal Batash.

I was just about to post this, fastest thing on tracks for over 40 years, the BT can suck a dick. Also 5:1 kill ratio against "superior" German armor.

It's not a tank though

didn't firing the main gun often knock out the missile system

T-80

muh gas turbine
muh two weeks to the atlantic
muh reactive armor

Every tank made from the last few decades could do that

muh failed tank

I don't think chechnya is a fair trial of the tank, the Russians were bankrupt then and had untrained crews. They drove them into cities with no infantry support.

>tfw no more fulda gap

Chechnya was Russia's chance to prove themself, look at how that turned out

>muh untrained crews
>muh no money

Yeah whatever man

at times yes its also aluminum and cant take more than a 50cal hit

so it's pretty much a Bradley Fighting Vehicle

muh

KV2 brah! Most troll tank ever built.

Mobility
T-64 and T-84 are the fastest soviet/post soviet tanks.
Firepower
120mm fires the projectile at higher velocity allowing more penetration. While HEAT does less damage.
Ukraine developed the KOMBAT missile being able to be fitted for 120mm guns.
Also Israelis did the same thing with their LAHAT missile.

'Fastest' does not mean 'most mobile'. Can you fire while moving, or maintain high speeds across rough terrain?

If you want mobility and striking power, then two ATGM teams in a Lynx win every time.
The two teams of men take up positions ahead of the advance and knock out some tanks, stall the advance, then the helicopter goes to town with it's own missiles, calls in artillery, and fucks off.

>The two teams of men take up positions ahead of the advance and knock out some tanks, stall the advance, then the helicopter goes to town with it's own missiles, calls in artillery, and fucks off.
>I don't understand Soviet doctrine
nigga that heli would be Swiss cheese before it got the chance to do jack shit

Bless this thread, may many jews, arabs and niggers get squished by their wide tracks come the day of the uprising.

>Veeky Forums discussing tanks
Civic, i-i mean civil.
>Veeky Forums discussing cars
pic related

Haven't you seen what they do? They hide behind terrain. Can't shoot what you can't see. ATGM teams can hide under camoflage until the advance, fire off a few missiles, and leg it while hell falls upon their former home.
If Battlefield 2 taught me anything, it's that tankers fucking hate anti-tank missiles and they will stop at nothing to hunt you the fuck down.

>tfw no qt roadster tankette
Imagine one of these with modern engine tech

b/c bigger gun = bigger fuck u

>FWD

A Hellcat with a Hellcat engine swap.

>inb4 not a tank

What's the civic of the tonk world

What's the miata of the tonk world

>1. The T-72 has an autoloader, the Abrams does not. Unlike human loaders, autoloaders will never fatigue, can load while rapidly driving over rough terrain, and allows the tank to be made smaller and better protected.
Autoloaders can only autoload. The loader can load, fix equipment, and do many other task. In rough terrain, the gunner is the bottleneck in firing speed, not the loader. Fatigue doesn't matter in Cold War and modern macro doctrine, since most tanks aren't expected to survive long enough for it to become a problem. Ammunition switches are way easier with a human loader, and jams aren't as prevalent, and they're more easy to fix. The last thing is the nail in the coffin for the autoloader: the US Army will insist on a loader untill autoloaders can unfuck themselves. They never will. Next iteration of Abrams might feature an autoloader, with the loader functioning as backup and drone controller.
>2. The T-72 has a larger caliber gun, allowing more potential for developing stronker ammunition.
First off, 5mm isn't significant. Second, you could probably fit a 140-150mm gun in both, given the Leo2 140mm project. Third, it doesn't matter. The US has always had better kinetic penetrators, and Russia will always be playing catchup.
>3. T-72's ability to fire missiles from it's gun barrel gives it greater flexibility than the Abrams
The US tried gun-fired missiles in the past, and figured out that it doesn't work as good as a good serving of proper M829. The Russians are mostly abandoning it as well.
>4. Any American superiority in fire control and electronics are nullified by the new T-72 variants now entering service.
The T-72B3 packages consists mostly of a new gun, upgraded engine, and MORE ERA COMRADE. ERA is great against shaped charged and sandniggers with RPG's, not so much against the aforementioned serving of M829 APFSDS.

Verdict:
>T-72
>Relevant
Pick one, and only one.

>Once again, this is a difficult comparison to make
No it isn't.

>ERA
Irrilevant against modern kinetic penetrators.
>Composite armor + active protection
Not included in T-72 upgrades.
>Shape matters!
Not if your armor is worse - which it is.
>Autoloaders are safer!
They're a liability when they jam, that's what they are.
>Depleted uranium is bad for you health
Yup. So is depleted uranium when it comes flying through your T-72, because the ERA didn't stop it. At least the hull armor in the Abrams will only kill you after 20-30 years. The T-72 is immediately fatal in it's lack of protection.

To scuttle an M1A1, US troops couldn't even damage it with their own ammunition - which has been shown time and time again to be perfectly effective against T-72's.

M24 Chaffe obviously, the cutest.

>the T-72 thrives with a smaller supply line.
[citation needed]

>Missile system
>Being relevant
Pick one.

>T-72 is more cost effective
How would they be cost effective if they can't penetrate the Abrams? Their newest Svinets (KEP) can only go through ~650mm @ 2000m, not nearly enough to reliably penetrate the M1A1 frontally, nevermind a newer model. I can't think of a singel 125mm HEAT round that'll go beyond 1000mm of penetration.

Meanwhile, M829A4 will reliably penetrate 850mm @ 2000m.

>my personal opinion is that tank development has stagnated since the berlin wall fell
You've been living under a rock then. You could line up one of every single tank that served in WW2, pit them against an Abrams (with plenty of ammo, of course), and the Abrams would still come out on top. Doctrine has changed massively, from Cold War with it's 2-minute survival rate, to asymmetric warfare right now. You also severely underestimate the greatness that is the current lineup of NATO tanks.

>muh monkey models
>muh shitty crews
Ruskiboos everyone.

>if a modern tank round penetrates the crew cabin of any modern tank,
Actually, I know of two former crew members who got lung cancer. Tanks themselves never got penetrated, but the dust created by the impacts was apparently enough to create massive health problems down the line.

user, the main gun WAS the missile system.

>tfw no M18 Hellcat to compliment your Army-themed Challenger Hellcat
Why live?

Magach 7C

> Civic
T-72. Cheap. It's a decent-ish tank, but not superb. It does everything about average ish. It's cheap, and there's a huge used market and a wealth of aftermarket mods available.

> MX-5
CVR(T) series. Light, fast, and cheap. Aluminium unibody for strength and lightness, vast variety of mods, and is still maintained to current standards with new models.

No, the tanks are shit and cheap as well. It's just that the crews are awful as well, and the monkey models sold to the middle east are fucking terrible.
The Iraqi T-72 variant, the Lion of Babylon, was made worse so it could be locally produced. Fucking deathtrap.