Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#7 - killazdeath
Reply -68
(01/21/2014) [-]
Compared to heavy infantry i'd say he's pretty light.
#25 to #7 - douthit
Reply +3
(01/22/2014) [-]
heavy armor
#17 to #7 - oxYKellark
Reply +14
(01/21/2014) [-]
Listen here idiot.
Its called Mechanized Infantry.
Also Mechanized Infantry do not use Tanks like the Abrams or T-90 or whatever that is. They use Bradleys and Strykers.
That picture is Armor not infantry.
#21 to #17 - anon
Reply 0
(01/21/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure thats a t-80
#80 to #21 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply -2
(01/22/2014) [-]
That's an M1 Abrams. The T-80 has a significantly smaller turret, a lower profile, and has a metric ton of ERA around the entire thing, because it's basically just a T-72, with ERA and a new name.
#108 to #80 - propanex
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
you're like the most COD gamer... every plane looks like an AC-130 to you or something?
#130 to #108 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
No, it didn't look like a T-80 or a T-90 because, as I said, it looked like it had too high of a profile for a Soviet doctrine designed tank, the turret also looks too big to be anything based off of the T-72, which is what the T-80 basically is, I should know, I have been on the inside of one. It's also designed to be an Anti-Tank tank, which is pretty much what the M1A1 Abrams is, which is aesthetically similar to the T-80, because they both have similar roles, and thus are designed similarly.

After reevaluating my **** up, and slapping my head against the keyboard, I noticed that it's a T-80, not an Abrams.

I know my weapons of war, guns far more than tanks, and tanks slightly more than planes, so, in all honesty, it was just a simple **** up, spawn from a lack of sleep, and not doing the right thing, and doing a google image reverse search
#134 to #130 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
Sorry, it's bassed off of the T-64, but is pretty much built off of T-72s, as most of Russia's armor is, now a days.
#133 to #130 - useroftheLOLZ
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#120 to #108 - innocentbabies
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
What's that? They look more like Spectres rofl, dude.
It was a joke, mercy please.
#88 to #80 - JonnyFirecrackr ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/22/2014) [-]
that is not an Abrams.... doesn't even look close.
This is an Abrams, note the huge difference in the shape of the turret. The tank op posted is a T-90, it has that ufo shaped turret and the clearly russian looking MG which is a PKM above the hatch
#89 to #88 - JonnyFirecrackr ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/22/2014) [-]
T-80*
#16 to #7 - fuckmymen
Reply +140
(01/21/2014) [-]
>Tank
>Infantry
#45 to #16 - fizzleshake
Reply +3
(01/22/2014) [-]
In civ V it's considered mechanized infantry
#136 to #45 - Elemental
Reply -1
(01/22/2014) [-]
I don't know why you thought that was remotely relevant.
#161 to #136 - fizzleshake
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
Because he was talking about tanks being infantry or not, so I pointed out that in Civ v, they do consider it infantry
#168 to #161 - Elemental
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
And Civ is as accurate as a blindfolded cripple riding a bucking bronco. It's a video game. It doesn't matter for ****.
#169 to #168 - fizzleshake
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
Except for all the other things like accurate leaders, accurate brief history in each civ, accurate emergence and sequence of technologies, etc.
#170 to #169 - Elemental
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
Ya but the actual combat components like units aren't that great.
#46 to #45 - thekeldog
Reply +8
(01/22/2014) [-]
Thats a Modern Armor.
< This is what you're thinking of
#48 to #46 - wimwam
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
Care to explain the difference? To the lay person, they look almost the same
#55 to #48 - trainalf
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
Armor just drives around and blows **** up. That's a IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle). It carries troops to battle, safe from bullets, then continues to escort them with heavy fire power once they dismount.
#140 to #55 - Elemental
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
It is also used for recon, and in armour battalions it is paired with an Abrams to do the heavy lifting while it focuses on anti infantry which is one of the Abrams's weaker points.
#53 to #48 - impaledsandwich
Reply +6
(01/22/2014) [-]
The tank up there is designed to kill other tanks and not get killed by them, hence the thick armor and big-ass gun. The IFV (infantry fighting vehicle) immediately above is designed to kill softer targets, like people and cars. It has armor suited to that purpose, and would get totally rekt 1v1 with a tank.

So really, it's just a small tank, but you can't call it that.
#105 to #53 - thereasonableperso
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
There was one occurrence during the liberation of Kuwait where 2 Bradleys ****** up 4 Iragi T-72s. Of course this isn't very impressive because the Iragi T-72s were crap on tracks.
#138 to #105 - Elemental
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
For the record, the TOW missiles that the Bradleys tote around (square box on right side of turret) ruin pretty much most armour. But only having two loaded and having to be loaded from the outside sucks. (Also there are lots of recorded instances of dud rounds in combat) As for the 25mm cannon, it doesn't seem impressive until you put discarding Sabot rounds in it and it can chew through a T90. Source; Carnivore, book. It's about a Srg who rode around in one of these bad boys during Iraq invasion and has one of the highest kill counts of any US servicemen. Dude even beat cancer twice.
#110 to #105 - impaledsandwich
Reply +2
(01/22/2014) [-]
Sheeit, I didn't know that. Yeah, **** the T-72. It's "Ahh Motherland!" incarnate.
#54 to #53 - thekeldog
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
Thank you knowledgeable person on the internet. I'm not a tank buff so explaining that would have been kinda hard for me!
#94 to #54 - lilnuggetbob ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
Note: A tank is a enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks, with a cannon large than 75mm's. (after WW II)
#58 to #54 - impaledsandwich
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
No problem, random stranger.
#64 to #58 - ennemi
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
I also have an inquiry for you knowledgeable stranger.
can the tank posted by killazdeath withstand a shot fired by another tank of the same model ?
#73 to #64 - impaledsandwich
Reply +1
(01/22/2014) [-]
Like the other guy said, it depends. I'm not exactly sure what the Russians (and their customers) stick in their guns, but it's entirely possible that it could survive a hit depending on where it is. A shot to the rear, for example, is much more likely to go through than on the front, especially with the slopes. However! According to Wikipedia, the T-80 (that monster there) has a minimum of 500mm of armor and a maximum of about 1300mm, which is ******* THICK. They're probably fine.
#141 to #73 - Elemental
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
If it was a SABOT round, it would go straight through. In a modern tank, if you don't have composite armour you don't stand a chance of stopping any modern tank round, especially since most guns are ~120mm.
#155 to #141 - thegrimreaver
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
Even with a sabot round, it all depends on where and how the round hits. If it hits on a glancing angle, or hits one of the angled slopes, it's likely to deflect off. Sabot rounds, while moving fast with a **** ton of kinetic energy and a tiny impact area, don't have a whole lot of mass, so it's relatively easy to deflect.
#156 to #155 - Elemental
Reply 0
(01/22/2014) [-]
True but even if you can't penetrate, you don't always need to. HESH rounds can kill or injure a crew with spall, and even if the tank has spaced plating or a spall liner can sometimes liquefy the crews organs with a shock wave dependent on the size of the round and the size of the tank interior. For the most part they have fallen out of use though.

HEAT rounds are much harder to deflect because the jet of liquid metal they fire is triggered at a distance from the armour by a "standoff" and it cuts right through even composite armour. Mind you RPGs tend to bounce of of angles a lot with out firing because of the design of their nose. So a it comes down to individual model of this concept.
#70 to #64 - trainalf
Reply +1
(01/22/2014) [-]
I'm fairly knowledgeable on this subject as well. It depends what rounds one tank uses and where it hits the other; certain rounds are more effective against armor, and armor offers different protection to different parts of the tank. But modern tanks are generally tough- during the Gulf War, a US tank got hit by 17 RPGs and just kept on trucking.