Why are Russian tanks manlets?????

the Slammer is a real tank, it's called the Merkava

Attached: 65776589.png (984x565, 1.1M)

Pic rel

Attached: mshHtL0i.jpg (163x163, 10.28K)

Can't make engines that are worth a shit.

Because their goal was to simply have as many armored 125mm cannons on the field as possible for the fulda gap shitstorm. Since it would be a super brutal offensive action, russian tanks were optimized for the attack. Small size, cheap, low fuel consumption. However, in doing so they sacrifice a lot in crew comfort, gun handling, technology, and safety. Whereas western tanks are the opposite, they are optimized for peacekeeping and defensive actions. Thus they are roomy and well armored and high tech, and the downsides of being expensive and guzzling gas (especially the Abrams) is less because of western cash and logistics.

They are designed to fry the crew. Russia is all about dead bodies and fried soldiers, whether it serves some purpose or not.

Attached: Turret2.jpg (961x540, 130.18K)

wtf is going on in that photo

Attached: 1648333891967.gif (476x452, 3.89M)

This topic HAS to be a setup.

Attached: japan-and-finland.jpg (414x450, 50.35K)

Why is the average Japanese male a manlet?

Russian terrain is fucked. Need light tanks due to all the mud, bogs and whatnot.

The relative sizes need to account for the difference in value of American lives to Orc ones.

same reason russia and china's population is declining

Attached: FSei6xFWUAAc2Mx.jpg (1582x1435, 243.74K)

>Why are Russian tanks manlets?????
i dunno. why do their turrets get blasted to the fucking moon when they are hit by a javalin? seen so many videos of this happening. has to be some kind of design flaw?

for you to afford

so many seething chinx ITT

I use Merks in War Thunder. They're so cool.

the reason Russia uses auto-loaders like this is because it greatly reduced the amount of training required for a tank crew. It turns the tank into a death trap, but Russian lives don't matter so whatever.

see , russian tanks have all their ammo right under the turret. Whereas western tanks have it in an isolated compartment that will blow out of the tank without flash-frying the crew if it gets hit.

Also the 125 if given the chance to hit any western tank will turn the crew into pink mist, but hey maybe the tank can be re-used, just hose the insides and patch the damage.

Somewhat incorrect scale but it made sense in the 60s-90s to make them as low profile as possible because it was assumed tanks would largely go up against other tanks in a front vs front aspect battle. Top attack MANPATS were not a thing yet.

If a shell can penetrate the armor with enough force to ignite the cartridges', then the crew is already pretty much fucked anyway. Idk how this is such a big deal other than the fact that it makes tanks do a big kablooie.

>the 125 if given the chance to hit any western tank will turn the crew into pink mist
Iraqi tanks hit American tanks several times during the Gulf War but the only tanks the US lost were due to friendly fire

Exactly. US logistics can support a turbine. RUS hobo logistics can't.

this, even in a modern tank such as the M1, a direct heavy hit can deliver enough physical force through the tank that can incapacitate or kill the crew

What's more painful, having your head blown up by the ammos, or your butt?

they were lost due to rpgs (rpg29...
iraqi tanks couldn't hit us tanks because of less training hours and less gun range than the abrams

your dick

Badly designed. During the cold war russians wanted their tanks to have a low silhouette, but this just made the inside extremely cramped and forced the ammo rack to be unsealed and right next to the crew, meaning if it was hit and got even slightly penetrated the whole crew would get turned into KFC.

They had nigger variants with steel sabots, try your precious abrams against russian tungsten or DU rounds. Now go read your Tom Clancy drivel and nod off.

It's cheaper

It's not really a flaw, but a feature. You can't just cram the same armor and same firepower into a smaller tank without making sacrifices like that. Furthermore, most tanks are toast if they get hit to the side.

tek it back pleese fren

Attached: 1653064328244.jpg (819x547, 54.75K)

I have a sense of humour. The majority of chinks do not. The OP flag looks like bait and that's all there is to it. The Dutchman will have to speak for himself but those guys think eveybody else are midgets.

Attached: 1374535838331.jpg (450x675, 35.97K)

RPGs can't even come close to penetrating the armor of an Abrahams tank.
> iraqi tanks couldn't hit us tanks because of less training hours and less gun range than the abrams
That and they were literally outranged. American tanks could hit Iraqi tanks from distances they simply could not fire back from.
Ok snownigger, but I'm just staying facts, not hypotheticals like you. Russia has really impressed the world with the quality of its military equipment lately so I'm sure you're right.

>I have a sense of humour.
pic does check out. fucking kek and saved

The Soviets were the first to use turbines, so I don't think gasoline usage was a large consideration in the design. Maybe it is for Russia though, since t90 switched back to a conventional engine.

Gorgeous!!! Love me some bbw

Not true, the japanese Type 10 is similar to russian tanks in both size and weight yet has the ammo in the turret like other western tanks.

PHAT

Attached: 739f94d8f1c4728bdec06168ae90cc63--military-post-battle-tank.jpg (500x335, 57.5K)

sounds like a cope.
>thicker armour
>irrelevant if struck
>power house primary weapons
>power house motor
did i mention the THICC FUCKING ARMOUR???

Russian tanks are built for offense, US tanks are built for defense. US Takes a combined arms centric approach to warfare to solve the battlefield for minimal material, Russians just throw tanks and manpower at the problem.

yeah but they just don't hold up very well. do they? the quality of quantity is overrated by the russians. especially considering that the money meant to maintain said quantity and train the guys that operate it goes missing on the regular. bad generals pad their pockets.

russian military in general is immensely overrated especially in comparison to that of the USA.

this would be an appropriate time for rushills to commence to REE

Attached: 156456.jpg (1600x734, 151.13K)

The main benefit with turbines is that they're much more quiet than diesel engines and they can burn literally anything, including pure grain alcohol or Chanel no. 5. The Abrahams is shockingly quiet for a main battle tank weighing 80 tons.

Uranium being denser than iron isn't some secret lore.

why even bother with skirts if they cover less than half of the tracks? that really rustles my jimmies

Abrams needs a fuckin APU genny to be installed for any sort of loitering ability, otherwise it has to go offline and then start back again its gas guzzling turbine. Oh and that APU? it has caused multiple abrams to burn out when it malfunctions.

the rpg29 can and did penetrate the abrams tank that's why it was considered the RPG-29 a high threat to armor and refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi Army to buy it, fearing that it would fall into the insurgents' hands

The purpose of side skirts is to detonate things like RPGs before they hit the hull, since the penetration of the shaped charge sharply decreases with distance. They don't go all the way down because the hull only goes that far down, if the RPG hits lower it just sails under the tank.

Why are Japanese men manlets?

what are mutt tanks compensating for?

corruption is rampant in your own government and military just as bad. You are never using the best gear for the money, you would recognize that if you actually served, fag.

Type 10 is 8cm taller than t90. It is however impressive that the Japanese managed to make such a small tank with western design. I wonder what corners did they have to cut.