David Steel / LazerPig / Ricewynd / Malquistion - Pathological Liar, Reddit Historian, Femboy Thirster, and Vore Connoisseur

  • Like
Reactions: Vecr, ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛, Flaming Insignias and 2 others
What I want to know is Lazerswine's point with the tweet? Like literally what's the takeaway? That lazerpig is more irrelevant nowadays?
 
Last edited:
DNNS-2 said:
Lazerpig is seething about the recent Abrams kill.

Click to expand...
1708973376626.png
"Erm, the Abrams can't be defeated by those vatnik orcs because it has a blow out ammo r-ACK"
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Elim Garak, There Is Light At The End, Vecr and 11 others
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Adamska, Vecr, Flaming Insignias and 2 others
Amerikaner Teddybär said:
At this point, the Russians will be in Kiev and NAFO fags will still try to spin it as a "victory".
Click to expand...
Something something "It only took years of warfare and two generations of Ukranians to gain what Russia would have gained in a month if not for the entire west throwing everything and the kitchen sink to prop up Ukraine."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, There Is Light At The End, Flaming Insignias and 4 others
The Grognard said:
Something something "It only took years of warfare and two generations of Ukranians to gain what Russia would have gained in a month if not for the entire west throwing everything and the kitchen sink to prop up Ukraine."
Click to expand...
We did it, Reddit! We stopped Putler from resurrecting the USSR and invading NATO with our knowledge of how dictatorships work! We held him to his clearly stated prewar aims and it only cost us thousands of dollars to draw doge on 155 shells, arguing with Vatniks on twitter and we gave the brave heros of Ukraine the ability to die for their country. How sweet and noble they are, from afar!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elim Garak, There Is Light At The End, Flaming Insignias and 6 others
Cold Root Beer said:
"Erm, the Abrams can't be defeated by those vatnik orcs because it has a blow out ammo r-ACK"
Click to expand...
The point of keeping all of the ammunition in protected (turret and hull) storage with the blow out panels is strictly for crew survivability. As long of the crew got out and escape it had done its job. Something that can't be said for any other tank still in use today irrelevant of who make's them.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: FormerTexan, Adamska, Vecr and 4 others
Fatsuit Shinji said:
The point of keeping all of the ammunition in protected (turret and hull) storage with the blow out panels is strictly for crew survivability. As long of the crew got out and escape it had done its job. Something that can't be said for any other tank still in use today irrelevant of who make's them.
Click to expand...
Generally nearly all tanks attempt to keep their crews safe. It's just different design philosophies. Soviets made their tanks as low profile as reasonably possible to allow more of the "weight budget" be allocable to armor and to make it harder to hit. Also covering the autoloader with an sheet metal and anti radiation liner that also acts as a spall liner. Why design ways to mitigate crew fatalities, which itself isn't 100% guaranteed, when the problem of becoming hit can be mitigated in it of itself. Now you can make a solid argument that it's design is outdated due to precision ammunition and the increase of surveillance and I wouldn't disagree. Though the T-90M attempts to reconcile this.

Leopard 2 attempts this through placement of the ammunition in ways that mitigate it being hit and cooking off in an event of a penetration.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Adamska, Vecr, Flaming Insignias and 1 other person
DNNS-2 said:
It can be said for a lot of tank including the T-64/72/80. It's just different design philosophies. Soviets made their tanks as low profile as reasonably possible to allow more of the "weight budget" be allocable to armor and to make it harder to hit. Also covering the autoloader with an sheet metal and anti radiation liner that also acts as a spall liner. Why design ways to mitigate crew fatalities, which itself isn't 100% guaranteed, when the problem of becoming hit can be mitigated in it of itself. Now you can make a solid argument that it's design is outdated due to precision ammunition and the increase of surveillance and I wouldn't disagree. Though the T-90M attempts to reconcile this.

Leopard 2 attempts this through placement of the ammunition in ways that mitigate it being hit and cooking off in an event of a penetration.
Click to expand...
1457974539_fcs-onion-skin.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adamska, Vecr, Flaming Insignias and 6 others
Design philosophy for the Abrams when it was still on the drawing board is it will eventually get hit and the armor will be penetrated. So the best solution is to separate the main gun ammunition from the crew compartment and in case of ammunition stowage being hit is to divert the blast out of the tank. Since the designers had zero illusions of the Abrams not getting hit and the armor not being penetrated.

DNNS-2 said:
Leopard 2 attempts this through placement of the ammunition in ways that mitigate it being hit and cooking off in an event of a penetration.
Click to expand...
Unprotected hull ammunition stowage that is permanently open to the crew compartment ensuring most if not all of the crew killed if it hit.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: FormerTexan, Adamska, Wrangel1926 and 7 others
DNNS-2 said:
Generally nearly all tanks attempt to keep their crews safe. It's just different design philosophies. Soviets made their tanks as low profile as reasonably possible to allow more of the "weight budget" be allocable to armor and to make it harder to hit. Also covering the autoloader with an sheet metal and anti radiation liner that also acts as a spall liner. Why design ways to mitigate crew fatalities, which itself isn't 100% guaranteed, when the problem of becoming hit can be mitigated in it of itself. Now you can make a solid argument that it's design is outdated due to precision ammunition and the increase of surveillance and I wouldn't disagree. Though the T-90M attempts to reconcile this.

Leopard 2 attempts this through placement of the ammunition in ways that mitigate it being hit and cooking off in an event of a penetration.
Click to expand...
The Soviets also made them small and light out of strategic mobility concerns, so they could take any bridge within the warsaw pact that's in reasonable shape and of course, for the reasons of rail transportation. The main cost to the end-user is that it's an uncomfortable tank for manlets and incredibly unpleasant for non-manlets to operate.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, Adamska, Vecr and 4 others
The Grognard said:
The Soviets also made them small and light out of strategic mobility concerns, so they could take any bridge within the warsaw pact that's in reasonable shape and of course, for the reasons of rail transportation. The main cost to the end-user is that it's an uncomfortable tank for manlets and incredibly unpleasant for non-manlets to operate.
Click to expand...
Personally wouldn't want to ride one for that reason. It's built to be good for logistics, not the dudes inside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adamska, Vecr, Flaming Insignias and 1 other person
Maori Kiwifruit Growers said:
Has this retards relevancy gone up or down since his armata spergout?
Click to expand...
Way WAAAYYY down

Piggy has beclowned himself multiple times since then
Fatsuit Shinji said:
Design philosophy for the Abrams when it was still on the drawing board is it will eventually get hit and the armor will be penetrated. So the best solution is to separate the main gun ammunition from the crew compartment and in case of ammunition stowage being hit is to divert the blast out of the tank. Since the designers had zero illusions of the Abrams not getting hit and the armor not being penetrated.


Unprotected hull ammunition stowage that is permanently open to the crew compartment ensuring most if not all of the crew killed if it hit.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Same as the Leclerc, Japanese Type 90 and Type 10, S. Korean K1 and especially the K2 and the Turkish Altay (still hasn't entered service after a decade lol)

The French, Japanese and Koreans use bustle mounted autoloaders.

Altay is basically a S. Korean K2 with a loader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adamska, Vecr and WelperHelper99
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back