Why can't other countries make tanks as good as ours?

Why can't other countries make tanks as good as ours?

Other urls found in this thread:

sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_122
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Finnish_Army
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Have they seen combat?

Didn't turky and Yemin already loose a handful to rpg-7s and fagots?
seems only the chally has beat the true test of armour :^)

You and your fucking magic space ceramic bullshit

*cof russia cof cof*

Why is Germany allowed to have an army while Japan isn't?

rheinmetall is making a 130mm for their new tank with france, it looks pretty good

M1 Abrams vs. T.90 vs. Leopard 2
Who wins?

Because Germany is a vital member for NATO, and because of East German they had to have an own army, Japan localization is not dangerous enough to they become allowed to have an army

Leopard 2 for sure

The immediate post war was different. Japan had an unconditional surrender to the USA, while Germany was taken by the Bolsheviks. Germany would then be split and as soon as the Cold War arose, there was a clear need to have both Germanies be a strong military power to serve in either NATO or Warsaw Pact side if war breaks lose. So basically since Japan surrendered completely the US ordered the Japanese military to surrender and wrote article 7 to prevent Japan from becoming a warmonger again, and since Germany was divided in two, it would benefit the USA that West Germany had its on military (same applies to East Germany and the USSR). However, more recently, Japan has been investing more in its military than Germany.
2A7 and more recent versions are superior in many ways to both the M1A2 and T90S.

140mm fun when?

What's the point? You will never use them again

Please sell

I'm not trying to be rude, if it's for exports there are more profitable things

They are used in Afghanistan mate...

PAY DENBTS

>implying

>19 trillion

Polaks make ones

I have some news buddy

>just a bunch of trees
Good bants

We are trying

Because Germany is known for breaking every treaty they sign.

So why make them sign another one if they're going to break it anyway?

fuck you

Why are you posting a pic of an empty spot?

There's no such thing as an invincible tank, especially with the advent of cheap and effective man-portable anti-tank systems.
Mitigating tank losses in low or medium intensity warfare environments is more about not being dumb with them and overestimating their capabilities. man portable systems have limitations, like any other weapon system, particularly in the matter of effective range. So long as one does the obvious and does not approach places where they're in that effective range, one is safe.
I mean, that sounds simple, but folks forget, just ask the russians and their dumb tank columns during the first chechen war.

The Type 10 looks cool

Looks like a copycat but smaller version of the Leopard

...

To be fair all MBTs that aren't Russian British or American look like the Leopard.

I like tanks with big turrets.
Tanks with small turrets in relation to the hull, such as the T-55 and the Merkava I look abhorrant.
Others like the Challenge 2 and Altay are better looking.
I hope one day tank design evolves into turrets as big and squary as the tank's hulls.

why would it tho
do large turrets offer any benefits whatsoever

Somebody didn't think their design the whole way through.
The rear of the turret can't clear the engine deck.

You could theorically install a nuclear reactor in the turret, like the US tried in the Cold War.

K2, Leclerc, and especially Merkava look different enough from the 2A4.

Not quite.

Crew space and comfort, more tech, ammo stowage, more armour

No need, they can't drive over water.

...

This one can drive over water

Big turrets eh?

That's a SPG, pajeet... Not a tank.

What is the red thing for?
I see it a lot too on artillery.

transporting

shit's very heavy and can damage itself

doesn't make much sense but ok

why not just install it in the hull tho
>Crew space and comfort
Hull
>more tech
basically meaningless
>ammo stowage
valid somewhat
>more armour
we've reached about the limits of what "more armour" can provide for a tank. There's diminishing returns.

The one filled with guys who have gone to war in it.

If the barrel is without anything to support it then it will swing and deform during transport, which will negatively affect the accuracy of the gun.
Hold a piece of spaghetti from one end and swing it, now hold it closer to the middle and swing it. Do you notice the difference in how it bends?

That shit isn't even the best tank in Europe, let alone the world.

The Challenger 2 is overall the best tank in Europe.

>vital member
>doesn't even have 2% gdp military spending

I know, but you could also say its a tank with a very big range.

The Merkava IIIis unironically the best 3rd gen tank currently in production
But all things considered, it may also be the worst

Basically every country in Europe has the Leopard as their Main battle tank, though ours is somewhat modified.

sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_122

This was the first and last tank we completely designed and manufactured, the Sentinel tank created in a rush in case nips tried to invade.

Tanks are irrelevant. Any future war between 1st and 2nd world countries will be fought with missles, planes and ships.

Because in the hull goes other things like engine, suspension, etc.
What I don't get about it is why would it swing in the first place... Each of those tanks costs millions of dollars and they're all high tech, and yet the turrets can't just stand still? Do the turrets just flap around in combat too? Like how when you start dancing naked and your dick starts flapping around? If the tank can move the turret/canon around freely, why can't it just stand still? I don't know if I'm expressing myself right, I hope you get what i mean.

Well we had a plane thread yesterday

That's very misinformed. Stop spouting nonsense. GO to /k/. They have discussion like this all the time. Tanks are centuries away from not being useful.

Because it's tons of steel and there's a lot of momentum involved

bait

Explain to me how in a war, say between usa and China how tanks can be used. Also I browse k

How would the US take land in China were it to invade?

We don't need to?

@72819852

Invade that is.

Assuming it's a conventional war with no nukes

>Chinese and American fire tons of rockets/missiles
>China eventually gets blasted away
>We assume this is full blown total war of subjugation
>American troops land on Chinese mainland
>Infantry/artillery/tanks
And there you have it.

>Because in the hull goes other things like engine, suspension, etc.
and crew
>Each of those tanks costs millions of dollars and they're all high tech, and yet the turrets can't just stand still?
money cannot break the laws of physics
>Do the turrets just flap around in combat too?
Most tank crews, if they can help it, do not fire on the move.
>If the tank can move the turret/canon around freely, why can't it just stand still?
tanks generally have to move or be moved to battles.

Going by your logic, might as well completely disband the conventional military and make everything be nukes.

>Design your "MBTs" like a tank destroyer on crack
It's sexy but come on

Why would we risk massive casualties when we can just bomb infrastructure until they capitulate.

You could make the most advanced vehicle on earth and Turks and Arabs would still fuck it all up.

USA can't mass produce for a total war scenario, since almost all of it's consumer based factories are in China. If USA can make the people live without anything for awhile, then they are good to go.

Why would they capitulate if there is no guy with a gun around the corner to force them?

Just use your noggin dude.

The thing with China is we don't need tanks because America's most likely strategy for a war with the Chinese is wipe out enemy Navy and then blockade.

But a war with say, N. Korea would definitely require tanks. A war with Russia would require tanks. A war with the vast majority of this planet requires tanks.

If you want to be realistic, a war with China can't be fought without nukes in any way.
Beijing's police force alone has more men than the entire US Marine Corps.

because they might, y'know, not capitulate.

>USA can't mass produce for a total war scenario
>since almost all of it's consumer based factories are in China
>consumer factories
>in total war

So what, we can afford to wait in this scenario.

Well that one together with this one was considered the "main tanks" before replaced by the Leopard.

>having tanks

but then again, so can they

>Be Pole
>Grab RPG 7 from shed
>Get a motorcycle
>Put on a bulletproof vest
>Become the modern Hussar

Not when their countries in ruins from our massive bombing campaign.

@72820020
Holy fucking shit this bait

It's the best interwar tank in terms of looks.

Nice quads

plenty of other countries have done so

...

The Churchill is obviously superior

>tfw you realize that tanks are just artillery on steroids

when will Finland field test these against Russia?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Finnish_Army

tanks are mobile armored guns

also tank vs tank fights are rare, usually only in large battles

That's not a tank. It's a IFV with a bodykit. Neither did Poland design it.

Who the fuck need tanks lmao

does it fire turds

...

>Poo colored

>Its always german who speak about turd
not surprised

I like how you use jerrycans as sidearmor

swedes you were so cool in the cold war era, what happened to you

nice meme kamerad

No tank is invincible. It is a good tank though.