Hello k. I'm currently drawing a super death mechI don't know anything about tanks. What kind of tanks scream "imminent death"? I'd like to use them as inspiration.
>>64553805that's not a tank
>>64553806oh, what is that (I'm way too new to this genre)
>>64553810That'S a Soviet ZSU-57-2, a 57mm twin self propelled anti aircraft gun.It was not very good.To answer your question, any Soviet tank scream 'imminent death', but mostly for its own crew. Also, what era of tanks are we talking here?Cold War? WW2?
>>64553810ZSU-57-2 Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun
>>64553816Probably WW2. I like that gritty welded metal look. Is there a tank that has the same personality as picrel
>>64553806>propelled by caterpillars >has a cast hull>has a single full sized turret >37mm>360° turret rotation More of a tank than the Mk. IV
>>64553805M48 with a 30mm GAU-8Only a prototype, but... I doubt anyone would like to receive 3,900 rpm from a solidly grounded platform which, unlike on the airborne A-10, can swivel its beam of munitions.>Captcha: SS240S
>>64553842thanks! will check this one out.
>>64553842You forgot to picture the 10 trucks delivering ammunition
>>64553856Reduces unemployment. Also, think of all the jobs created just for producing ammo for, say, a single battalion of these.A net gain.
>>64553834>Probably WW2
>>64553805>that's not a tank>>>> Anonymous 11/24/25(Mon)10:15:50 No.64553810▶>>64553816 >>64553817>>>64553806For World War 2 tanks, late japanese paper (not produced, plans only) tanks looks cool.Type 5 Heavy Tank here
>>64553938Or Type 4 Chi-To here
>>64553805a tiger (in this case a leopard) stalking you in the forrest that you don't even see until its too late is far scarier than a jacked gorilla.
>>64553805
loved that thing in Mercenaries
>>64553951The Swede: He could be watching you poop RIGHT NOW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SturmtigerIt can do only one thing and it is very obvious what that thing is.
anything t-series that doesn't end in a 4
>>64553806It's a tank chassis
>>64553856There's plenty of ammunition carrier trucks in the supply section. See, logistics aren't problem if you have european ancestry.
>>64553805>What kind of tanks scream "imminent death"? I'd like to use them as inspiration.>>64553834>Probably WW2. I like that gritty welded metal look. Is there a tank that has the same personality as picrelEither Tiger tank, obviouslyAlso the Sherman "Easy 8" with like a dozen machine guns hanging off em, look it up
>>64553834Do you want something that looks scary and angry in an anthropomorphic way?There are always two sides to that coin.
>>64553806Has tracks. Has turret. Has gun. It's a tank.
>>64554483
>>64554508Who the fuck wrote that chartCan't be from /k/
>>64553816>but mostly for its own crewAcross the entire cold war as well as WW2, soviet tanks were capable of hitting first and penetrating. While the crew was fucked if they died they would have been killing as well as dieing.
>>64554517The Mark IV has no turret only sponson.
>>64553805>imminent deathand your best hope, not pointed at you
>>64554522>Across the entire cold war as well as WW2, soviet tanks were capable of hitting first and penetratingLmao, soviet shitboxes were known for their piss poor accuracy, even durign world war 2 their optics were inferior to the Germans. When Yugoslavia was getting a license for the T-72M's they gave the Soviets a computerized fire control system in exchange in the 'spirit of brotherhood'.
>>64553959the tank gets bigger every time this image is reposted
>>64554522>Across the entire cold war as well as WW2, soviet tanks were capable of hitting firstan infantryman? surean enemy tank? lmaoWW2 Soviet tank sights were backward, that is when they were installed at all. There was a huge shortage of sights so most T-34s had none. German tank sights were the best of the era, at least in 1943 that I know of, they definitely had the upper hand.Soviet tanks may have matched Western in the 60s and 70s, I'm not sure as I haven't read up on that era, but definitely by the mid-70s the Chieftain Mk3 and M60A3 had more effective sights
>>64554545>durign world war 2 their optics were inferior to the Germans.Germans REEEE'd about their gearboxes breaking down all the time. Stalin REEEE'd about German gearboxes being incredibly reliable.Reminder that soviet tanks didn't each get a radio until the t64. T55 squads still had a dedicated "command" tank with the lone radio. But that's OK because the crew was fluent in smoke signals and soviet shitboxes are very good at producing smoke.
>>64554573It's the palestinian shrinking lol.
>>64554517Is that Toyota armed with a 105mm gun?
>>64554660no, are you crazythat's not even 20mm size, a KPVT at bestthis is what a Toyota with a 23mm looks like
>>64553805mechs are fucking gay and so are you
>>64554545>When Yugoslavia was getting a license for the T-72M's they gave the Soviets a computerized fire control system in exchange in the 'spirit of brotherhood'.Could you elaborate on that? I did not know that yugoslavia had to exchange FCS for T-72M license.
>>64554705I've read it from some other source but I can not find now. Thankfully the tank encylopedia also mentions it.>Eventually, these armor upgrades, in the form of the T-72M1 license, were offered for sale to the T-72M license holders, including SFR Yugoslavia in the second half of the 1980s, priced at US$7,000,000. This cost was deemed excessive for an optional, simple upgrade of the armor protection, which was already considered satisfactory. Yugoslav engineers asserted they could implement this upgrade without purchasing the license. However, in the spirit of camaraderie, it was proposed to exchange the T-72M1 license rights for the SUV-M-84, one example of which had previously been sent to the Soviet Union along with one M-84 tank. The Soviet side agreed to this arrangement, and the T-72M1 license was transferred to Yugoslavia.SUV-M-84 being the fire control system.Additionaly, from the same source.>Soviet reports highly rated the build quality, the fire-control system, and the night-fighting capabilities of the M-84 during their tests.
>>64554816>>64554705>https://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/09/t-90am-latest-avatar-of-t-90-mbt.htmlNAYRT and jeet source, but hereapparently it was based on a Hughes gunner sight, so I think it can safely be expected to be obsolescent by then Western standards
>>64554667>no, are you crazyYes, also you can fit a 105 on the bed of a Toyota. You only need to try.
>>64554867>so I think it can safely be expected to be obsolescent by then Western standardsWe're talking about the 80's here so I don't think obsolescent is the right word. No doubt more advanced than numerous western tanks still in service at the time. Interesting read though.Regardless, when Yugoslavia is developing superior fire control systems it doesn't exactly bode well for the implication that soviet tanks "were capable of hitting first and penetrating" as the anon I originally replied to was implying.
>>64554274not a tank
>>64554852Didn't these little guys have a 20mm gun, what is that?
>>64554952>more advancedno bet, given the Leopard 1 and Centurion (!) was still in active service in NATO in 1989but the fact that the other SSRs are (allegedly, according to this document) using a Western sight, and the FCS referenced here entered service in 1988, and that by 1979, British Chieftains had fully-integrated digital fire control systems, I think it would not be much better>than numerous western tanks still in service at the timeunless I'm severely overestimating early Leo 2 FCSs
>>645551622x 8mm MG. There was a variant with 20mm anti-tank rifle.
>>64553806Thats a tank destroyer. It has more firepower and less mobility
>>64555270
>>64554816>>64554952>"The SUV-M-84 was an effective fire-control system for its time. Once all the bugs were ironed out, the FCS showed impressive accuracy during domestic tests and trials conducted in foreign countries. In a comprehensive evaluation conducted alongside a T-72M tank, the M-84 was judged to be two to three times more precise than its Soviet counterpart."No wonder. If the SUV-M-84 FCS does indeed have three plane stabilization and it is not a typo then that alone makes it better then all soviet tanks in soviet service. Having a crosswind sensor puts it on the same level as the T-64B, T-80B and T-80U. Not a single T-72 in service had any sensor for measuring crosswind in the soviet union. Depending on what model, a M-84 can see 200-700 meters further in the night then a Soviet tank (1500-1200 vs 1300-800~500).
On the subject of Balkan FCS... anyone know anything about the Slovenian EFCS-3?
>>64555317The company that made them now makes lasers that shoot vaginas>IntimaLase® delivers patented Fotona SMOOTH® laser pulses to the surface of the vagina and vulva. These pulses are specially engineered to produce a mild heating effect, which in turn stimulates the formation of new collagen and strengthens the tissue, giving a firmer and tighter quality.This is what happens when you don't get government contracts anymore. Let it be a warning.
>>64553805Just stand between the two barrels. It can't hit you.
>>64555348You'll get a vibrating barrel beating that will make you wish it did.
>>64555342>The company that made them now makes lasers that shoot vaginasMillions of vaginas must be tighter
>>64555162There’s also a flamethrower variant
>>64555371Oh?
>>64555383lmao
>>64555342Warning? I don't see the issue, now they're solving REAL problems instead of gay ass war shit.
>>64555154its tank enough
>>64553805For me, it's the OI.
>>64553936Well if the KV-2 counts, then the Conway or FV4004 counts.
>>64553842>Only a prototypeThat's a model. It never even got to a prototype stage.
>>64553834>I like that gritty welded metal lookJump forward in time just a little bit to immediately after WW2 and the 1950s.
>>64553806>that's not a gun, it's a select-fire rifleokay ma'am, gender duly noted
>>64554517T-55, Chieftan, Merkava, Mk.IV, PT-76, Strv.103 are all tanks (although the PT-76 is a very bad one and the Mk.IV is a very old one). The BMP-2 is an IFV. The AMX-10RC is a reconnaisance vehicle/assault gun. The Toyota Land Cruiser is a technical.
>>64555342>you may live to see Raytheon AN/SXQT-69 Revirginising Rays
>>64554285but 44, 54, 64, and 84 are great.
>>64554285
>>64554545Its a bit more complicated than thatSoviet optics pre-war were actually very excellent, early T-34s were equipped with shoddy sights due to barbarossa and the need to speed up production But they were back to pre-war quality between 42 and 43The main production T-34 sight was pretty good for its day, the US got a T-34 for testing at aberdeen and found that its telescopic sight was of high qualityIf you compare the TOD-7 to the M55 sight, the US one only has indicators for bullet drop and lead, whereas the soviet one has a stadiametric sight etched into it and has a finer scale for its bullet dropThe main issue was in the number of viewing devices, not the quality of the devicesThe T-34 started with just 1 periscope, before upgrading to 2 later on and finally getting 3 on the 85mm turret, whereas the M4 had 3 periscopes out the gate
>>64554274love this little buffoon
>>64554459did you mean this?>>64555417
>>64554483This
>>64556865
>>64554660If it is, it's a tank.
>>64554660You can put a 105mm recoilles rifle and two MGs on a Hilux, therefore it is a tank.
>>64557264I hate how much I like it
>>64556369To be fair, the BMP-2 and PT-76 share a lot of parts and the BMP-2 doesn't actually function all that well as a troop transport, so I wouldn't fault someone confusing it for a tank.
>>64557173>found that its telescopic sight was of high quality>has a stadiametric sight etched into it and has a finer scale for its bullet dropyes, but was it precise?
>>64557775you could get maybe +/- 100m from it, mostly depending on how well the gunner could mentally compensate for different angles the target is seen through and the inherent differences in length that vehicles will have between thembut just having one at all gives a better range estimate than eyeballing it
>>64554604Have your fucking (you)
>>64555270>Thats a tank destroyer.This better be bait, boy.
>>64556316t.
