Main battle tanks

>main battle tanks
>russians more than 15000
>all europoors less than 7000

How euromudslims can protect themselves?The only reason you are not speaking cyka's yet is the U.S

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=foipv7iVP-c
youtube.com/watch?v=2crAx8kibis
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

>meme flag faggot
>muh tanks
You mean those tanks that always get first place in the turret throwing competion.

Quality over quantity. You can bet your bottom dollar that russia does not have 15000+ T-14 Armata MBTs.

There's no point in having an army since NATO won't let us use them to defend ourselves and will just demand that they get sent to Afghanistan so that more of us die instead of the Eternal Anglo.

What a shitty fucking deal. No fucking thank you.

>thinks having a few thousand 1960's tanks in a warehouse makes them relevant

Look what Assad did with 1970s era tanks. Gun is a gun, especially in urban warfare.

You are surely talking about Leo2 which have an ammo rack behind next to the driver, in the front, and who were displayed with their turrets dismounted in Syria?

>russian military doctrine is the same as NATO military doctrine

Dude, by Russian doctrine tanks arent fighting enemy tanks. Tanks should be light and mobile as possible. They don't have to be giant steel bastions, it's not 60s.

Let them be.

They have never heard of mission ammo loadout.

They have never read on MBT idea, differences between offensive Russian tanks optimised for exploitation and hull-down NATO AT-optimised MBTs.

>The only reason you are not speaking cyka's yet is the U.S
English isn't any better. We would've wanted German to be the Lingua Franca. Also the answer to your question. We aren't free now, no one would die to be an American vassal over to be a Russian one.

You are right ameritards.

GTFO of my country. EU + Russia is the only hope for world peace.

UK and France have nukes. They beat Tanks.

>what is AA

outdated 60's tanks prob make up 40%

meh, tanks are noisy, break down, and drink fuel like Ir*sh. Im into Javelins nao

>3 tanks
Those are
>deactivated & demilitarized
and
>not even ours, but Lithuanian

>speaking cyka
Found the youtube-gamer watcher
Also Boris a real cunt behind the scenes, he laughs at you for giving him shekels for nothing.

>russian more than 15.000

And what the number of modern tank ? 20% ? 30% ?

tanks and aircrafts are:
>expenssive as fuck
>offencive gear

on the other hand
>Rockets
>Missils
>Landmines

are cheaps as fuck and defensive

and since eruopean countries arent going to attack anyone in the next 200 years you tell me what is better

In Winter War one western tank against 200 slobo-tanks was sufficient.

Attachment fix'd

most of these are form the soviet era and are shit-tier

you mean losing hundreds and hundreds of them against a few towelheads with aks?
his tanks didnt do shit until russian airforce backed him up

tanks are insignificant in a modern battlefield armored transports and missiles made them obsolete
their only use is when you need to patrol an already occupied area with large number of insurgents and mines in it and you need more protection which is a scenario that doesn't exist in European war but only in the middle east where niggers don't mind throwing their life away without accomplishing anything

Remember when Russia sent 200 tanks to Grozny and lost 2/3 of them to some Chechnyan bydlos?

Meanwhile:
EU military budget $226.73 billion
Russia military budget $69.3 billion

Most of these are soviet garbage. See how many tanks greece has? The reason why this number is so high is because more than half of our tanks are leopard 1 and m48 patton aka horribly outdated vehicles that can't penetrate modern armor. I suspect the situation in russia is similar.

One euro tank = 100 ruski tanks. I’m not even kidding.

>tanks are insignificant in a modern battlefield

>▶
youtube.com/watch?v=foipv7iVP-c

Get fucked slavs.

>UK and France have nukes. They beat Tanks.
Yeah, like 5 of them.

To tanks being useful you need :
- air superiority
- infantry support
- logistic support
- inferior enemy without AT weapons and with low enough IQ to utilize molotovs
Any of these is not present, tanks are just targets.

In Winter War there was Mannerheim Line in the middle of swampy forests. No wonder why commies lost so many people trying to break through only with brute force.

Wrong.

t. tanklet

They are all MBTs, but most of them are not upgraded T-72s who stand in opem terrain rusting. In reallity Russia has around 2-3k active modern upgraded tanks like T-90, T-80 and upgraded T-72

Literally UK and france would stomp russia into the ground

russia is fucker poorer than italy

russia is a fucking joke

>EU does nothing
>LMAO europe? more like eurocuckstan amirite XD
>EU wants a common military for increased efficiency and cooperation on top of an aggressive policy of rearmament
>HURRR MUH SOVEREIGNTY MUH THEY"LL USE IT TO STOP NATIONS LEAVING
fuck off amerilard wankers

Mannerheim line wasn't such big obstacle, terrain, finnish morale, your morale and your incopetent officers with no regard for human lives were reason for massive soviet losses.

Quality over quantity. one Norwegian tank = 10000 russian tanks, no joke.

Every branch needs support. Have fun trying to assault defended enemy positions with infantry.

I wouldn't go that far. We are really useless.

youtube.com/watch?v=2crAx8kibis

We have so good anti tank measures that igor can't even say a cat before they blow up in the air in their tin cans.

I disagree, UK army is one of those at the top

compared to russia at the very least, you brits probably could take them alone

Why would Russians even use tanks, it's 21st century, they are taking over governments not fighting outdated tank wars.

>Using Tanks

Cute.

You can add 225 Serbian ones to the Russia desu

one british armoured brigade could probably take one russian, but in real war, how could brits take enough land and hold it in russia to declare victory. 1 british brigade cannot hold 3 russian ones.

Honestly tanks are kinda weaksauce now.

One tweet can do more economic damage than a thousand tanks firing directly at your corporate HQ simultaneously. Think about that.

nigga what kind of modern conflict is going to be won by tanks of all things

>shoots down your fancy aircraft with 60’s aa manpad.

so in aircrafts we are 1-1 and in lad forces they overtake us, I think that in navy we are better but idk really ... the problem with Russia is that is poor as fuck, I don't know if they could handle a war against Europe, sure they can destroy us with nukes if USA don't help us, and we can't produce that because the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

>Poland and Greece could defeat France and Britain

Most of the Eastern European shit doesn't work, and the Russians lie about their capabilities anyway.

Define defended enemy position,define enemy,define terrain.
Infantry is the most flexible arm theoretically capable of dealing with every situation that doesnt involve air or sea.
Infantry has manpads,rpgs,grenade launchers,mortars etc to deal with defended enemy position.
Lets be honest. A modern, well defended position is going to be causing massive losses regardless of what branch you use to attack it,tanks,infantry,airforce, you can expect big losses.
Then whats cheaper?Humans or tanks?Because in the end it comes down to cost.

They don't need to take land they just need to defeat the russian army, defence is a force multiplier, russia would get fucked

Russia also considers it's older main battle tanks in that number

tanks are very useful and versitile weapons, they will be used in war for many years, especially for country like russia which has ideal terrain for tank warfare. We in the last war used tanks in mountains, they'll not be obsolete in near time

One 20 000€ gun in our forest gun can completely destroy 600 meters away one 3 million dollar t-14 Armata.

It's also important to point out that russia could not fund a real war

What's the fucking point of having 3 tanks in your cunt's army?

Aa missiles are often more expensive than tanks and tanks can survive several. They’re still good in the role they’re designed to do, ie. assault in open terrain.

Shoots your bydlo tincan with nlaw 600 meters away.

alone they can't. They can take down russian navy, they can't take down russian airforce or army. Even if britain made lamding in russia, creates enough big beachead with big port and transport entire army, they just be overwhelmed by brute force. No even need for russian mobilization.

pic related is a sample of russians MBTs

>puts down another bydlo tincan and orders an artillery strike into your position

Single NLAW costs 20 000€ and it penetrates topside of tank like a butter.

Im sorry but i dont buy that tanks can survive AT missile hits.I mean if its RPG-7 well then of course.Modern man portable AT missiles have tandem warheads, i would be very surprised if any tank in the world can survive that.Even if we play for luck 8 out of 10 will still destroy a modern tank.And those missiles are much cheaper than a tank.

Rocket =/= missile

A tank has a range of 4 km and infantry cover. You’re unlikely to get a chance of destroying one.

DESU, Russian army looks good only on paper. Most of their shit is old as fuck soviet shit rusting away.

Are you serious? Russia's airforce and army would get absolutely fucked by a modern army

They wouldn't even be able to literally fund replacements they lose

Russia loses no matter what

They are poorer, more ill equipped, do not fall for the meme that is the russian bear

Cheaper than a tank? Javelins cost atleast 200000 dollars, which is about the same as an older tank. Anyways are we talking about top or front armor?

Contrary to what Sup Forums believes, Russia is unstable and powerless.

Contrary to what Sup Forums believes, the EU cannot be stopped.

Why have tanks when you have militarized autism?

Russians have a name for displaying themselves as shit. Masquerade in Russian or something.

in reality russia has 2-3k modernized and modern tanks, rest ure rust buckets standing in open rusting. But those 2-3k with other russian assets that work are enough to take down any army besides US, and in defending they could probably tie down entire US army just because of size of Russia

As soon as the US and Russian Republic begins we can venture into space and build a biodome around Europe.

>modern
>200k for a tank
Ookie-dookie

NLAW costs 20 000€ and it hits top armor of tank which is the thin part killing the whole crew.

they don't need to replace what they loose, if they lose because they have more than britain has. And Su-30 and Su-35 can take down yurofighter, especially with shity british Land to air cababilities and russian exelent Land to air

>Denmark 5.8 million pop
>57 Tanks

>France 66 million pop
>200 tanks


How does this make sense?

We use NLAW which costs 20 000€ and it hits the top armor killing of entire crew.
4km distance in a fucking forrest are you stupid or what? You should go to army first before your stupid posts here.

Why spend on military when you can just get the UK and US to bail you out.

Are you a russian shill?

There army is a paper tiger

what a fucking joke

>Implying that tanks get deployd in a forest.

I know, infantry is useless because in an open plain they get wrecked by helos.

Finland 5,5 million and 239

>croatia
>4mil pop
>772 tanks

>serbia
>6million
>over 200
no. I agree, russian army is alot stronger on paper than in reality but I was just saying that britain coudn't hope to take on russia 1on1

Okay, I admit my mistake. However still 10 javelins per leopard is not much.

We have 11mil people with 1345 tanks but most of them are upgraded 60s garbage

Only MBTs (Leclerc), however the total number is 406 (half are in storage). The list is somewhat bullshit.

Why spend money on tanks which can be blown up by one guy with a boomtube?

>772
I meant 72

But you know they will use it to stop countries from leaving.

Good.

You think they can just attack with plain infranty here? Are you stupid or what?

But USSR and Finnish Recih used all the same equipment...

>roosian army
>20% muslim

xaxaxaxaxaxa

Russia is poor which means they will have worse logistics

Logistics is what wins wars, and the UK has the money for that win

>Implying that in a state of total war nations wouldn’t suddenly speech out and create shit loads more.

The EU economy is far stronger and would allow for the creation of an insane war arsenal if the need ever truely arose. As of now, money is better spent elsewhere.

>Why spend money on tanks which can be blown up by one guy with a boomtube?

they look cool.

Oh alright, the 57 number is also only MBT, we have the Leopard 2 a5

Sperg * not speech

our country was conquered by inbred mohammedans, one single russian tank can conquer it for russia stfu the rus did nothing wrong