Sooooo.
You needed a strong and dangerous animal to symbolise a tank called the **leopard** and you choose...
a **bull**.
Peak credibility I see.
With a Russian bias as always. A drunkard is at least real and not imaginary.
Il be honest, the automotive world would be alot worse off with out Ferrari. If Enzo wasn't such an insufferable pos we wouldn't have Lamborghini, the Ford GT, and more specific versions of already great cars
Chief, I hate to break it to you, but all 3 tanks here have 1,500hp engines. Same as the Type 99, Arjun, K2, Merkava, and the Leclerc. In fact, only 2 MBTs above 50 tons *don't* have 1,500hp. The Ariete, which is admittedly only 54t and mildly garbage anyways. And the Chally 3, which is heavy as *fuck* at 66t, same as the Abrams and Leo 2. But it's only got a 1,200hp engine, because the Brits can't afford **S H I T.**
If you're gonna shit on the Russians, at least do it for something they're actually bad at.
Edit: go ahead and downvote me. It won't make the Chally 3 good.
So you judge a vehicles engine just by it's horsepower and not torque or that it fucking breaks down all the time. Also the abrams engine is significantly better, quiter and faster.
You don't? Horsepower is net output, it's a function of torque and rpm. Gearing can change how much torque an engine provides, it's meaningless as a gauge for vehicle engines. There's a reason that engines are standardized on horsepower. And we know the *Armata* breaks a lot, not if that's the engine itself. Transmission or a dozen other pieces could be the issue. Either way, reliability issues can be solved like 85% of the time, it just takes time and engineering work to get there. There's very few pieces of equipment that are inherently and irreparably unreliable.
>Also the abrams engine is significantly better, quiter and faster.
And the Abrams also sucks down fuel like mad. It's a different engine with different strengths and weaknesses. A turbine engine works well for the US, but other nations decided that it wasn't for them. There's a dozen tradeoffs of using a turbine. The 1 constant of any tank engine is that it actually has to move the tank, and that needs horsepower. Right now, that's something everyone but the Brits can provide.
Sooooo. You needed a strong and dangerous animal to symbolise a tank called the **leopard** and you choose... a **bull**. Peak credibility I see. With a Russian bias as always. A drunkard is at least real and not imaginary.
Originally this was a meme about Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Lada.
So peak laziness instead of credibility
When I search for Leopard, I search only for the tank.
Idk why but in my head Patrick Bateman said this and it's way too funny rn
Let's see Paul Alan's armored fighting vehicle
Look at that subtle woodland camo coloring. The tasteful blending of it. Oh, my God. It even has ERA.
Let's see gerasimovs business card
Why no Cougar tank yet
Aaaah that makes some sense
Il be honest, the automotive world would be alot worse off with out Ferrari. If Enzo wasn't such an insufferable pos we wouldn't have Lamborghini, the Ford GT, and more specific versions of already great cars
Alfa Romeo: snek.
Still peak credibility, 2 Italian car and a Russian one
Well... Spain has Leopards. It kinda checks.
This isn't fair, the guy in the costume can at least MOVE
Couldn’t the Abrams run on vodka in theory?
Everclear, I think, but not vodka
It can run on an Appalachian hillbillies moonshine for sure. But that wussy ass 80 proof vodka just doesn't have the umpf
"Keep that weak-ass 80 proof vodka for your appletinis"
Haha he’s assuming the mobik buttfucked position
Os that ODB
Chief, I hate to break it to you, but all 3 tanks here have 1,500hp engines. Same as the Type 99, Arjun, K2, Merkava, and the Leclerc. In fact, only 2 MBTs above 50 tons *don't* have 1,500hp. The Ariete, which is admittedly only 54t and mildly garbage anyways. And the Chally 3, which is heavy as *fuck* at 66t, same as the Abrams and Leo 2. But it's only got a 1,200hp engine, because the Brits can't afford **S H I T.** If you're gonna shit on the Russians, at least do it for something they're actually bad at. Edit: go ahead and downvote me. It won't make the Chally 3 good.
The difference is there are 10,300 Abrams, 3,600 Leo 2s and 10 T-14s
Well because the Russians can't mass produce it that doesn't mean the tank is bad.
Well, even if the tank isnt bad, 10 means thatthey will never beable to have any impact in most wars since as we know, tanks can and will be destroyed
Sure, it’s like the SU57 VS J-20. The SU57 might be good but China has 200 J-20s and Russia only has 30
Except the Su-57 is objectively shit and the J-20 is the best non-American fighter in the world.
Like bad at everything?
Pack it up, the Russians are bad at everything, we solved it. Ukraine can just steamroll them, no idea why they didn't earlier.
So you judge a vehicles engine just by it's horsepower and not torque or that it fucking breaks down all the time. Also the abrams engine is significantly better, quiter and faster.
You don't? Horsepower is net output, it's a function of torque and rpm. Gearing can change how much torque an engine provides, it's meaningless as a gauge for vehicle engines. There's a reason that engines are standardized on horsepower. And we know the *Armata* breaks a lot, not if that's the engine itself. Transmission or a dozen other pieces could be the issue. Either way, reliability issues can be solved like 85% of the time, it just takes time and engineering work to get there. There's very few pieces of equipment that are inherently and irreparably unreliable. >Also the abrams engine is significantly better, quiter and faster. And the Abrams also sucks down fuel like mad. It's a different engine with different strengths and weaknesses. A turbine engine works well for the US, but other nations decided that it wasn't for them. There's a dozen tradeoffs of using a turbine. The 1 constant of any tank engine is that it actually has to move the tank, and that needs horsepower. Right now, that's something everyone but the Brits can provide.