Should i buy a T55 for the incel rebellion?

the arv version costs less than a high trim camry now

Attached: T-59_MBT_pic-022.jpg (1200x900, 224.5K)

Russian armor hasn’t exactly been covering itself in glory lately. On the plus side, no auto loader on that model so you’ll need to take along and extra fren but it’s worth not dying in fire.

Russian tanks aren't the problem, the crews and commanders are.
Almost every tank in service today won't fair well from a direct Javelin hit. Active Protection Systems don't have a high enough arc to counter the Javelin which flies up to 100 meters and dives directly on the target.
T-55 is probably your best bet, its a workhorse and gets the job done. There is a reason T-55s are still being produced and sold today.

Why do people hate autoloaders so much?
Also that extra fren will get in the way if there's a fire.

its gonna be pic related, the atf castrates the gun when you import it so theres no point in paying more for it

Attached: images (1).jpg (288x175, 11.97K)

Nah, their tanks are shit too and death traps. They’re just cheap, same as Chinese labor and your mom.

Because the crew sits directly on top of the ammo, which detonates directly into them in the event of a cook off.

Because the T-72 go boom when hit.
Of course it isn't that black and white. Hell even some NATO tanks and Western style tanks like the French Leclerc MBT and Japanese Type 10 use autoloaders.
They fail to understand that going forward autoloaders will replace manual loaders on the Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger 2 etc.
This is because not only is autoloader technology rapidly improving, but as the caliber of tank guns increase from 120mm, the rounds get heavier. Hence why the new KF51 from Rheinmetall uses a autoloader with its new 130mm gun.
Americans already experimented with 140mm, and it was autoloaded.
Also, an autoloader can reload at a rapid and constant rate, and will not get tired.
They are cheaper than western counterparts for sure, but in the right hands they get the job done. People often look at destroyed T-72s as the problem. But the reality is, the problem is allowing the tank TO GET HIT in the first place.
Survivability onion exists for a reason. ''Death traps''? You can argue M1 Abrams are death traps with that logic since it would 9/10 times be destroyed from a direct hit Javelin. It's not guaranteed to hit the bustle rack with blow out panels every single time, nor can it be guaranteed the loading door won't be open.

Attached: file.png (1444x694, 688.06K)

thats just because the russian design sucks, not every autoloader is like that

give an example then

Survivability onion for reference. For a T-72 to be destroyed it has already violated the first few layers, which you want to avoid.
Leclerc autoloader, Type 10 autoloader, these are cassette type autoloaders with blow out panels. Sorry to disappoint you but autoloaders will replace manual loaders on every tank going into the future. Its why the 140mm Abrams test bed was autoloaded, and why the 140mm Leopard 2 test bed was autolodad, and why the KF51 130mm is autoloaded. I can keep going retard.

Attached: SurvivabilityOnion.png (680x674, 188.84K)

Any tank with a shell stowage is weak to detonating
Some tanks are better protected than others and some have better placed shell positions
But if your shell stowage is hit hard that's potentially hundreds of KG of explosives all going off at once in your tank

I don't know much about tank design, how is that different from a manual loader? They still have to store the ammo somwehere. I know some tanks have vent ports in the event of a cook off but I imagine it would still fuck up the crew.
Plus, with an extra crew member the tank needs to be bigger, and a separate ammo compartment would make it even bigger. Logic would dictate that manual loaders should be the ones storing ammo under the crew and autoloaders could have a separate compartment, so why is it the opposite?

(fun fact: we built a MBT to compete with the Abrahams and it was nearly adopted by the Saudis, but then Saddam invaded Kuwait they went with the Abrahams)

Attached: Osorio_EE-T2.jpg (500x245, 25.25K)

not that it matters since my tank wont have shells and femoids dont carry javelins in their purses

You are right. It's why I believe the Abrams is the best modern main battle tank currently. Because all ammunition is in stowage protected by blow out panels. No ammo is in the open. Roughly 36 rounds in the bustle rack on the back of the turret, and 6 rounds in a hull compartment behind the commander, both protected by blow out panels. Tanks like the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 still have ammunition unprotected lying around in the hull.
It's why I don't get people who think a Leopard 2 is somehow less prone to ammunition cook off than a T-72, when the Leopard 2 has the majority of its ammunition in the hull unprotected next to the driver.
The Osorio was quite impressive coming from Brazil. Reminds me of the AMX-40.
You can still use it to run plebs over

thats the whole plan retard

Okay good luck nigger

Attached: tl9BD4-M_rA.jpg (1000x683, 134.36K)

Watch mastermilo on yt So you know what it takes to have functioning used tank

that guy is a fucking retard who did everything wrong

You're not buying old Russian tanks to crew them, you're buying them to upgrade to remotely operated as a force multiplier. 1 properly trained platoon can now command a force of 30 tanks. Along with a platoon running close air support, and platoon of remote artillery a tiny company becomes a much more lethal fighting force. This is an incredibly cheap option for such a massive upgrade.

i have my own machine shop so i could absolutely make a missile and launcher to install on it. instead of engaging modern tanks directly just shoot them with an atgm from the bushes. the T55 has a smoothbore barrel for this reason, they make atgms that can be loaded instead of shells that fly out of the barrel. id just do that but the demilitarizing process makes the cannon unbalanced which makes it not just useless but a hazard as well so VT55 killdozer it is