should russia stop bothering with native tanks and buy korean/chinese instead?
>>65310925Do the newer nork and chinese tanks still follow Russia's shitty tank design philosophy?
Not really, both are moving closer to western designs. China uses Western style ammo stowage and so far the Norks reject autoloaders.
>>65310925Chinese are highly unlikely to sell to them at the moment. They'll sell golf carts and shit because there's some plausible deniability there.Norks probably don't produce enough of them and Russia isn't exactly swimming in cash, either. I could see them buying any old Soviet stocks from the norms, though.
When was the last time the Norks sold tanks to anyone? The '80s?
>>65311114Post cold war their economy couldn't support exports, now that is doing well they are doing mass modernization so it's unlikely they would sell for a while unless it was older stuff.
>>65311094>I could see them buying any old Soviet stocks from the norms, though.From my understanding the T-54/55s that Russia gave the norks were a little over 100 individial units while the T-62s were less than that. Ukraine could easily chew through that within 2-3 months. That all being said, the Norks aren't going to give Russia tanks unless those particular hulls were actively being replaced with newer designs and the T-54s/55s and 62s were slotted for retirement
>>65310933unknown. Nork tanks are an evolution of the T-62Their newer tanks apparently use the 125mm gun but still have 4 crew instead of 3. so I might be a manual loader 125 kept in a separate compartment to prevent turret tossing.
>>65311208>were a little over 100 individual units while the T-62s were less than that.Lol what? They have about 1600 T-54/T-55s and received at least 500 Soviet T-62s and made 1200 local variants.
>>65310925>buyBuy with what, Michael?
>>65311252They can pay with what russians call "hairy gold" or "shaggy gold", i.e. their women.
>>65311114>>65311169Korean proxy wars in Africa when?
>>65310925>buy koreanDubs and K2 in Ukraine in 27
>>65311369>Russian equipments are good.Demonstrably untrue, given that literally all crews I['m aware of prefer western equipment to sovshit.>reliableLol.>S would've ran out of tanks and missiles on year 2.Russia has ran out of tanks and general equipment repeatedly.>Production would not catch up.Russian production has not caught up on many things.>You make fun of Russia refurbishing old t62And I will, because it's hilarious and sad.> No it can'tAmerica doesn't ever need to do this, because America has thousands of Abrams in storage.>50% better but 500% more expensive.A lot more than 50% and not really much more expensive, no, particurally when you actually take the capability into account. And when you buy cheap, you buy twice.> Big expensive patriot missiles but can't keep up with 15000 dollar Shaheeds.Patriots were not designed to destroy drones. They were designed to destroy ballistic missiles and shoot down aircraft.Also, shadeds cost more than 15k, lol. They're like 30-50k or more.It's hilariously amusing that you're retreading what everyone said both times the US invaded Iraq and defeated the Iraqis totally. US equipment is some of and often the best in the world, and sometimes the price is inflated, but in America we consider this the cost to pay for superiority and keeping our crews alive. And we have the money to field them en masse too, so cope.
>>65311369>But they are many, reliable, and there when you need them.>RELIABLE holy shit lol
>>65311405To demonstrate, while the T-90m is like four or five times cheaper than a modern Abrams export cost, the modern abrams is better than the T-90 in literally every single possible metric other than cost, and yes, this does make it worth paying that price, because winners pay money to win wars. War is not a game for cheapos.
>>65310925They are buying chink chips and lenses to put in their Russian tanks so that's good enoughThat's the bottleneck anyway, the rest is more efficiently built at home
>>65311447cool story bro
>>65311447Good morning, saar
>>65311447Let's for a minute agree with your idea of T-90s. If you lose two to one crews in each scrimish, that would either lead logarithmic loss of skilled crews OR you need to have large amount of pre-trained crews at the start (qubic function of your disadvantage - I will let you google (or Yandex in your case) the graph. "Quantity is a quality of it's own" works only if your quality is not that far off the quality of your opponent.
>>65311447>Russia has sacrificed the entire military legacy of the Soviet Union along with any hope of them being militarily relevant for the rest of the 21st century>The US has never suffered losses so profound>Therefore, Russia is better at war
>>65311447Yeah, we lost so many Abrams to T-90s in Iraq.>in b4 monkey model crewed/maintained by arabs.
>>65311486Quantity also only works when your op-for has no functioning brain to figure out that guy over there with a 1000 tanks, well we've got 100's of 1000's of mines, ATGM's, drones, top-attack missiles and some very big lumps of concrete
>>65311447Russian production has not outpaced losses. They are entirely reliant on refurbishing their stockpiles of tanks. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.>4 or 5 T90 would skullfuck 1 abrams even if 2 die in the process it's beaten the value of the abrams.This won't happen, though, because the American military appartus is built in such a way that you are not going to ever fight a singular abrams.Also, we can see in Ukraine what happens when the Russians zerg rush with tanks. They all blow up.
>>65311534>Russian production has not outpaced losses. They are entirely reliant on refurbishing their stockpiles of tanks. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.In fact Russian production has not outpaced American production, either. The US built like ten thousand Abrams tanks. Over all producing nations there's like 25k T-72 hulls produced, and a lot of those aren't in Russian hands. The russians actually literally cannot afford to lose like your math suggests they can. They've built like 4000 T-90s and what, half or more are export.So in fact, in your numbers scenario, the Americans are the ones outnumbering the Russians. And America has a much larger potential to grow their military, as well, whereas the Russians are stuck as they are now.
Do zigzogs actually believe 15 dead and 10 or so destroyed planes (none of them F35 or F22s) is equivalent to the absolute shitload of losses Russia has taken?
>>65311495I don't understand how what you've said has anything to do with the largely theoretical scenario where a single Abrams meets 5 T-90s and that's the fighting doctrine of both sides (which still shows that quantity of extremely lower quality is a setback here, not an advantage).
>>65311447Is production cost going to be the limiting factor here? Does it take five times as long to build an abrams tank? Does it take five times as many men to crew an abrams tank?This isn't a Top Gear challenge where the boys have each been given a few million dollars to form a tank brigade.
>>65311369>>65311373Sorry but where is this large quantity of functional, reliable tanks? Hm?
>>65311447all mbts are pretty much useless on the modern battlefield, survivability right now is only a function of how good the drone cage is which is 100% improvised in all cases.
>>65311555Not him, and obviously it's not equivalent, but it is an extremely poor showing and bears reflection that we don't have the drone situation 'figured out' at all. The best that can be said of it is it seems to mostly be Trump's fault for asking the military to build a castle in the sky for him, on short-to-zero notice.
>>65311447>America only lasted 1 month against IraYou mean that even with a thirdie-minded commander in chief America did something not stupid for once and noped out before wasting even more resources on shit they should not even started to begin with? What does that say about Russia?>4 or 5 T90 would skullfuck 1 abrams even if 2 die in the process it's beaten the value of the abrams Pic related says otherwise. Nice to see ziggers openly admitting that the crews are worthless at least.On purely resource and monetary value, please calculate the cost of having to constantly deliver the fuel, spare parts, ammo and other materiel just to keep a tank running. Turdies/ziggers always seem to forget that simply keeping a tank running is way more expensive than the tank itself.
>>65311560Because that theoretical doesn't existOffensive doctrine is based around tanks being a component and that may come into play as a counter-offensive part of the larger at a strategic level if they're doing justice to it. However, Defensive doctrine revolves around a whole other scenario of wiping out you enemies strike elements either before they can get into play or when they're fielded- all the long-medium range missiles, tanks and strike fighters fall into this bracket along with stealth craft.Anything that falls into a defensive role is there to fuck all the tanks up as much as possible by not playing to the tanks strengths, here we're down in the dirty tricks and nut-shot department
>>65310925Even if they do, what are they gonna fuel them with? If they can't even supply their agri sector with enough fuel to secure a harvest, then what's the point in buying extra military rustbuckets that you can't even get moving (and that will die the moment they get into the droning range anyway)?
>>65311648>America did something not stupid for once and noped out before wasting even more resources on shit they should not even started to begin withYou may wanna check the news anon
>>65311633>Triton costs a quarter of a billion fucking dollarsWtf is that thing made out of to be TWICE as expensive as an F-35?? I thought the point of UAV's was they were cheaper than traditional jets
>>65311633This is just dishonest. Drones are not a factor. Damaged is not a factor.In turn, Iran lost everything. You're still unable to comprehend that a nation state was bent over and fucked for a handful of machines and men. There is no counterpoint to be had.
>>65311910>they can't even supply their agri sector with enough fuel to secure a harvest,thats most likely bullshit, the price for wheat on the global market would explode if that were true.
>>65311405>They're like 30-50k or more.More like $200k. There is a reason pidoria didn't scale production up.
>>65312081What are actually good resources to find how much it costs?
>>65311948>Top ten importer of russian grain are all in africa+iran and chinaWe winning bigly this year TND BROS
>>65312081The import cost from the iranians was about 200-300k each. The estimated (based on analyzed wreckage) cost of russian made ones without accounting for embezzlement is 30-50k. They're still sending a couple hundred a day at Ukraine, but 90-95% of them are getting intercepted and the ones that make it are mostly blowing up civilans.
>>65311939It's gotta be the sensor suite. Still fairly ridiculous.>>65311942>Drones are not a factorObjectively incorrect, drones were responsible for a substantial portion of the destruction, and were clearly not accounted for (despite repeated warnings and evidence that they would be a major issue).>Damaged is not a factorJust dumb, how could you even defend saying this? I'll be sure to remember this gem next time I slam my door in your car.>Iran lost everythingAgain, just blatantly false, even allowing for the unwarranted hyperbole.>You're still unable to comprehend that a nation state was bent over and fucked for a handful of machines and men.I guess that's why Republican senators are calling it "the worst foreign policy blunder in decades"
>>65311942The US devestated Iran but has not achieved it's war goals, Iran has been able to shut down the straight as it pleases.Yes, the US can still throw a lot of power around, and Iran isn't the deathknell of America, but power without a plan doesn't do anything.
>>65311215human autoloader
>>65311405>America doesn't ever need to do this, because America has thousands of Abrams in storage.Abrams is a design from the early 1970s, an emergency quick fix replacement for the failed MBT 1970 program. It can be considered obsolescent for the modern battlefield, where the primary threat is not another tank (like it was designed for) and the primary target is not another tank (like it was designed for).
>>65311560>has anything to do with the largely theoretical scenario where a single Abrams meets 5 T-90sThat is a very exotic scenario that is just not going to happen on the modern battle field. Next gen tanks will be designed for a completely different mission than shooting at other tanks and they will have correspondingly different armour layouts and optimizations. Western MICs are still pumping out 1970s tanks but somewhat better, these will be just as maladapted to modern warfare as the present day best of class Leo2 and Abrams.
>>65310925buy tanks? by now everyone figured out they're sitting ducks and drone feed. if you don't defend your tanks, what's the point of buying them? and you don't expect the chinks to have top notch drone countermeasures preinstalled, do you?
The new standard Nork design might be the best option. After a decade of trying out all sorts of designs including more or less western ones they went with a western style turret and a modernized T-62 hull layout. The reason is that assuming it has a modern ammo stowage scheme it leaves enough space next to the driver to fit an additional fifth (or fourth if they have a western style autoloader) crewman. This would give them a dedicated drone operator, a task most tanks cannot effectively accomplish while moving as it would occupy the commander or gunners attention full time. This crewman would no doubt also operate any NLOS missiles it carried while the commander and gunner can maintain situational awareness. The Nork's experience with modifying T-62 based designs would also be very useful as that is probably the tank Russia possesses in the largest numbers, specifically in how to replace the 115mm gun with a 125mm. The Norks are also using a bootleg MTU engine which would go a long way towards fixing Russia's stupidity in that area.
tanks are a meme in a drone saturated world
>>65312607The answer of course is to give the tank drones and multi tier indirect fire ability. >>65312594Also assuming an onboard drone operator the Chonma-20 has a unique indirect fire ability in the remote twin 30mm AGLs; they can correct fire from them which allows it to effectively become a highly accurate automatic mortar system. The AGLs have the additional effect of reducing the need for the use of HE from the main gun. Combining NLOS missiles, drones and the AGLs gives the Chonma-20 three layers of indirect fire, four if you can correct indirect main gun fire. The additional crewman drastically reduced the time needed for maintenance tasks and field camouflage, that alone is a huge survivability bonus.
allegedly, according to DPRK.
>>65310925And drain their dwindling treasury even faster in order to get mediocre tanks? Sure, they should absolutely do that.
>>65312658There seems to be a trend of their weapons actually functioning. Could you list the North Korean production weapon systems that haven't?
>>65312607they aren't.
>>65312914they are, case closed
>>65310933t72 no retreat no surrender 4kph reverse speed will never not be funny
>>65312999They actually had a better gearbox, Ukraine put it into their upgraded tanks.The Soviets and Russians just didn't give a fuck.
>>65312999>>65313152>not a tread link back!
