Post some epic destroyed tank rares
Destroyed tanks thread
Lincoln Walker
Asher Thompson
Brandon Brooks
William Ward
Prepare for some actual rare pictures
Bentley Morris
Owen Kelly
muh flood
Ryder Price
hurrrrrr muh flood
Jack Ward
Not tank related but god damn, pajeets can't compete
Lucas Jackson
Justin Gray
Flood detected; Post discarded.
Ian Phillips
Brandon Watson
Asher Anderson
Wyatt Wood
David Allen
That's all for now
Andrew Wright
William Russell
Joseph Ortiz
Jordan Roberts
Will you retarded gorilla niggers contribute?
Matthew Rivera
I got a few
Alexander Bailey
That it
Levi Sanders
www.hartziel.de
German website dedicated to tank turned plinking target.
List of images sorted by vehicle type:
www.hartziel.de/typen.htm
If you ever wondered what we did to those 2x120mm Hetzer Prototypes: DO NOT CLICK IF YOU HAVE EATEN RECENTLY
www.hartziel.de/_typen/vt_kasematt.htm
Jace Scott
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Benjamin Brooks
This upsets me greatly. Why must tanks like these be used in such a way?
Liam Rodriguez
What else would you do with a failed prototype? Put it in a museum so it can collect dust and little children can say how lame it looks?
Put it on a pedestal on townsquare so the next protest can hang flags and banners from it?
Place it in a storage room and have it take up space?
Sell it to some rich fuck after neutering demilitarizing it, who keeps it in his private collection?
I would rather see these tanks in a simulation of their natural habitat.
Landon Flores
just
GIVE IT TO ME
Jaxson Wright
No. Fuck off. We will keep shooting at rare prototypes.
Hunter Sanders
Alexander, you can buy old soviet surplus direct from Boland or Czech if you really want some old tech to play with.
Josiah Nelson
You're the sort of person I beat senseless and leave for the injuns.
Justin Fisher
Is that a dead gommie of just a Wehrmacht pretending to be one?
Good god what the fuck happened to that M4? Was it shot by light flak or some shit?
Xavier Turner
Probably shredded by a Wirbelwind.
Ryder Myers
I thought they made a very small number of them, that was my first thought but real life doesn’t work life War Thunder (if it were the third Reich would have collaspsed in a year as T-34s bounce 80% of shots and a Sherman can bounce 3 point blank shots from about flat on to about 10% to its side from a tiger fuck you I’m still so mad about that fucking bullshit)
Elijah Hill
John Kelly
How dare you say we shouldn't be able to profit off of all our hard work. If it wasn't for archivists like us, you wouldn't be able to see this footage at all. You should be grateful. :^)
Thomas Clark
I'm pretty sure that vehicle was a live fire range target. Much like that picture of a similarly swiss cheesed M3 Lee that actually ran after being used as an A10 training aid.
Tyler Reyes
Correct, which is exactly why 4x 20mm flak can ultimately make a Sherman tank look like Swiss cheese
pic related. If a flak started unloading at the sides of a lightly-armored tank, it would quickly shred the armor
David Moore
Did WT really doubt that? I thought that flaks being used primarily as anti-tank weapons, even though they were designed as AA, was wiki-tier factoid
Aiden Bell
Are you dumb?
Jason Evans
Its pretty clear that the culprit was not a 20mm AA gun. There was even a time where a 20mm flacktrack unloaded into an accidentally deployed training cromwell made out of mystery potmetal much thinner than the real deal's armor thickness (which is much less well protected as an M4) and the shells stuck out of the soft steel like a porcupine instead of shattering like if it had hit proper RHA. The crew then protested to keep their training tank because it was lucky. (and because it was faster due to it not being made to spec)
Sebastian Hughes
If I'm recalling the same story, it was softer armour as it was supposed to be a training version of the tank.
Christopher Johnson
Wut?
Chase Martin
Stop fightan, post ded tonks.
Ryan Gray
FlaK is a German designation for any AAA. It's am abbreviation of Flugabwehrkanone (literally "Flight (or aircraft) Defense Cannon" but there are other sources stating that flak stands for other things; that's neither here nor there). The 8.8cm FlaK cannon is a FlaK, so is the 2cm FlaK cannon, and so is the 12.8cm flakzvilling cannon.
by the way I bags double 12.8cm as my waifu, shot-fucking-gun
Jonathan Kelly
Bumping with some photos of Type 95s destroyed in the Battle of Muar. Obligatory War Crimes are overrated post
Grayson Sullivan
How did flak intercept aircraft with relative accuracy when Germany did not have proximity fuses?
Jacob James
It didn't. Flak was almost entirely inefficient, but it was the best they had. They used the wingspan of the bombers and Pythagoras to estimate altitude and set the fuses accordingly.
John Collins
No, not really. We don't know if the rounds actually went through. Most of the hits are in the sides. 4x 20mm guns will do that to you in 2 bursts.
But like said, this is a canadian sherman used as a training target.
see embed related
Jordan Richardson
I'm not studied on the issue of effectiveness so I'd hear and out.
The video the greek op posted goes through much of the essential elements of German air defence.
polite sage for off-topic
Joseph Barnes
2:16-2:21
That sounds like a terrible idea.
Carter Robinson
Forgotten Tanks
Alexander Ross
Christopher Smith
Warning: contains extreme gore and mutilation
Thomas Ortiz
Those are so cute
Owen Brooks
Yeah, warthunder is extremely biased against German tanks. It's a Russian product, what do you expect?
Easton Sanders
Sebastian Kelly
Caleb Russell
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES
Jason Ortiz
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES
Landon Ross
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES
Lucas Jackson
Why did T-72s perform so badly?
Nolan Edwards
They only performed badly when they were operated by shitskins and when used in cities
Josiah Jenkins
because they were made by commies
Hudson White
T-72 platform has more kills than Abrams.
Because it kills its own crew.
Easton Powell
Panzer 38(t) best waifu
Benjamin Rodriguez
Michael Thompson
Brayden Wright
Crusader would like a word
Zachary Brown
If only they made instructional videos like this nowadays
Logan Perez
I dislike tanks with short guns
Benjamin Cooper
Same reason Abrams do.
Hudson Cox
Dead Abrams thread?
Dead Abrams Thread.
Aiden Cook
BEST
Blake Morris
TONK
Aaron Cruz
EVAR
Gabriel Garcia
Angel Cooper
Dropping my cent here.
Ryder Morris
that first webm is just blowout panels doing their job retard.
Jeremiah Rivera
Just let the slavaboo pretend the Iraqis actually fought inside their tanks instead of abandoning them to get blown up in PR videos.
Jonathan Howard
Daniel Cooper
Lack of training and the T-72 models were older imports
James Jackson
I've got an absolute treasure trove of shit from some user that posted an entire library of WW2 stills back on 4/k/ 10 million years ago. How we on bodies?
Brayden Foster
I love how retards pretend blow up panels means the tank is still working.
Even when the second pic shows almost 100 of them in various state of destruction (with some being repaired/refurbished, sure, but so what?), and literal dozen of pics of completely wrecked ones (protip: Iraq bought less than 150 of them).
It's amazing you retards think that having a tank take a hit that immediately puts it out of combat but it's not destroyed is A GOOD THING. It's just testament how maneuver warfare is misunderstood.
Tanks takes hit. Ammo blows up "safely". Crew bail the fuck out (exposing themselves to enemy fire due to the BEST TANK DESIGN EVAR) because the fuel it runs on and of which most of the Abrams is made of, due to it's retarded gas turbine consumption, is also on fire and metal being metal (and before you start knows that DU is pyrophoric, so US ones are actually gonna burn worse), nobody want to die cooked alive slightly slower than being exploded alive.
Let's be mad and assume the crew followed procedure and managed to hit the extinguisher on the way out and it works well enough.
Well you have a slightly used tank that is 100% out of combat, since it's out of ammo, out of fuel and it's crew is running for their life.
What happens next is whoever shot the tank… gets a new slightly used tank that it just has clean a bit and to feed fuel and captured ammo.
I'm giving it to the first rifleman team that figures out forward, backwards and fire. I'm sure it's gonna take them half a good half an hour to get trained…
I don't care I've got plenty of riflemen teams, that one just has tracks and a 120mm gun.
Let's assume you started a 100 VS 100 fight.
Let's assume you give as good as you got.
Let's assume the enemy has "slav' shit".
The enemy has 50 of his own tanks. And 50 of yours.
You have 50 of yours left.
Congratulation you started the fight with even odds you fought equally… and you're now 1 VS 2.
Maybe. If they were lucky. If they weren't they were killed or captured along with their fixable tank. Who cares? Well trained crew do perform better than poorly trained crew but not 50% better, and it's extremely dubious a crew that narrowly escaped death will perform as well in their next tank (when and if they get it, because by the time a new ones comes the fight might be thousands of kilometers away).
Getting a new tank and a new crew is just easier logistic.
Maneuver warfare is all about movement if on an engagement you lose you are leaving behind "fixable" gear… you're gifting it to the enemy, which will, very quickly, cause a snowballing effect because in modern warfare you don't actually fight battles to a stalemate, you either win and occupy terrain or you lose and cede ground.
And every time you lose gear, it's not only lost from your inventory, but if it's not destroyed it's added to the enemy inventory, DOUBLING your loss.
Which is why so much emphasis is put on DENIAL tactics and why even against sandpeople that can't possibly find a way to move then fix a damaged Abrams the US commanders systematically orders airstrikes on unsecured assets. Because lost gear is NOT SUPPOSED TO SURVIVE THE BATTLE. Else it comes back biting you in the ass.
Abrams are designed assuming the US forces will be doing the recovery (so that they will always win) and limit losses of human lives.
Russian tanks are designed to limit actual strategical losses.
It's also why soviet caliber where always designed in a way it's easy to adapt captured NATO assets to use them and not vice versa. You're never gonna fire a 105mm shell trough a 100mm barrel, a 120mm through a 115mm, a 155mm through a 152mm barrel, a 5.56 rounds through a 5.45 barrel, etc…
The opposite? It's gonna take some adaptation but it's definitely definitely not impossible.
Michael Roberts
This has to be an elaborate bait… right?…
Dylan Williams
It's just the average french slavaboo who thinks Russia is best forever.
Brayden Price
I'm sure some, somewhere did. I'm just telling you that from a military PoV you're better off shipping a new tank with a new crew than bothering keeping crews alive beyond reasonable. Because NO, training a half-decent tank crew isn't anywhere as hard as training a plane pilot. But for all intent and purpose a tank crew without a tank is just as useful as tits on a gun. And shipping tanks without crews to a battlefield is… borderline retarded.
Yes they are. They didn't got hundreds of them because the Iraqi didn't have hundreds of them to start, but they got at least 40 of them (which is a third).
The Hezbollah dozen the MSM has been crying about are ones they took back from them.
They didn't changed hands once… but twice.
And all three sides figured out a way to use them in combat, because no, no one is dumb enough to let a usable tank laying around in wartime, even arabs and even if you don't have the parts/know how and can only use it as a pillbox. It's common sense.
And somehow this is a counter-argument to my point that leaving repairable shit on the battlefield is a bad idea? Burger.
My whole point is that a tank that loose all it's ammo and most of it's fuel after a SLIGHT HIT to the rear/side of the turret is just as useful as one that blows up completely after a slight hit to the rear/side of the turret (and is far less of a headache to manage).
Liam Nguyen
What?
Grayson Hall
tankies
Dylan Reed
Reasonable safety features for crews are having a floor hatch that allows you to not have to do what's on the video, aka leave a tank in trouble without getting instantly MG sprayed by the people that put it in trouble or even more simply so that your crew isn't trapped (or worse drown because they drove too close from the water/fell down a storm drain) if the driver fucks up and flip the tank (which is something far more common that people think), protection against the most common anti-vehicle threats (100+mm heat round), fire extinguishers that aren't toxic to humans, a reasonable ratio of fuel/space, an armor that isn't made of a metal that burns easily.
Guess which one of the features I listed the BEST TANK EVAR, lacks, yet is standard on every other tank.
All of them.
T-72 design isn't great, no argument about it but the idea that M1 are better because they have the exact same problem (a well placed RPG round at the back of the turret put the tanks out of the fight), but "people don't die from it" is retarded "muh fee-fee" logic, in the context of warfare.
Ethan Clark
Its better to have equipment go sky high than your enemy use it. The English learned that lesson the hard way, the bolsheviks learned it the hard way and so on.
Brandon White
Frenchie is right and his points flew right over these retards' >>683600 heads like a horny mosquito
Jack Sanchez
You just wait! Gookanon will call you a slavaboo and then it's over for you, Boris!
Eli Long
Are you really saying the Abrams doesn't have this?
Other tanks like the Leopard 2 use halon too, it's more effective than CO2. The danger of Halon is also overstated.
Worse than western tanks, but certainly better than any Soviet tank.
Uranium only burns in a powder form.
Floor hatches are obviously good, but there is no reason for you to just make shit up.
Levi Bell
I will hack you
Carson Howard
Almost all tanks without active or passive protection against HEAT are vulnerable to this.
Almost Abrams that were lost are to an AT-3 or modern RPG round (and not kornet. Arabs say "kornet" for "ATGM" as they discovered the term with the success of Hezbollah against Tsahal. But most of what is used are Iranian/chink/Nork bootleg AT-3, you can tell that almost all videos are wire-guided missiles. Kornet are laser-guided. And have no problem going through the front of all MBTs they have encountered. Including M1A2S and Leclercs. But then it's a 150+mm round so… even a pure HE direct hit of 152mm would do something very bad to any tank. Putting tank sideways to disable it, is always an option) hitting the rear side where the armor is considerably thinner… right around the ammo.
Now granted if you have a highly trained crew, with a highly train cordon of soldier around, it's less of risk but it's 100% following the "german" school of tank design (which the russians, amusingly, were the main offenders. Until the T-80 disaster of the first chechen war).
Put all armor on the front and let's duel like it's a medieval joust, when reality is made of curves and obstacles that means you will rarely be perfectly in front of whoever is firing at you (especially in a surprise attack) and ATGM and other heavy HEAT round are the primary threat to tanks (which we know since israel arab war of 1967… so long before the M1 was a even on a drawing board).
Absolutely not. It burns when it reach a certain heat threshold and when it has reach ignition it will continue burning on it's own.
In powder form it's susceptible to combustion… As in just by it's lonesome.
Depending static electricity in the air and especially in a closed environment, causing dust "explosion", like coal or aluminum (aluminum is also a bad idea, but the weight/cost issue can be justifiable for APCs).
Note that the M1 isn't the worst offender among the western tanks.
The worst offender for this is… the Leo2 as demonstrated in Syira, against an enemy that was already used to blow up M1 and T-72 every Tuesday and wiped out a whole team like it was nothing (and the Turks called them back, after not even 2 weeks of fighting and losing half a dozen, and are using M60 with load of ERA instead…)
Leo Stewart
Not half a dozen… TWO dozens. Sorry.
Benjamin Davis
...
Levi Baker
Then why did you say that the Abrams is the only tank without protection against 100mm+ HEAT?
Abrams is no more vulnerable than any other contemporary tank.
Then post an Abrams with burning armor.
Logan Bell
Only US ones have DU, here's one from desert storm with only molten steel left and a second one that was put out during the Iraq Invasion, you can clearly see the fire pattern from the bottom of the plates and the green uranium oxide deposit.
You do realize that you're arguing about basic known chemical property of a material right?
The fucking wiki page of DU will tell you that.
Aaron Wright
Also the guys that put out the second are probably dead from lung cancer now (as DU is pretty safe… until it starts burning).
Now repeat after me.
BEST
TANK
EVAR
Jackson White
Many German tank aces and American ones too lost tanks and got back into the fight. Had Kalashnikov's tank fucking detonated just as it was designed according to kekaku you wouldn't have the AK or PKM today. Are you seriously trying to suggest that during the Dunkirk evacuation the British should have stayed in their tanks on the beach and fought to the very end because it would have been unreasonable to get on the boats and come back to France in new tanks?
So where are these captured M1A1Ms? Were they used against the Iraqis or Syrian army? They would clearly be present in propaganda videos shooting at their enemies as it would be a powerful image. Or were all of them blown up in propaganda videos because they didn't have the support structure to use such tanks and rarely use the occasional BMP-1 for running over POWs in front of the cameras?
So when were stolen vehicles turned around right there in the field ever used? I can only think of one occasion being the battle of the bulge where German tankers who had their tanks knocked out during the huge sweep captured abandoned M4s. Of course this was a last ditch desperation move and not applicable to your apparently transcended idea that if you make your shit out of explodium it will help you win. Even then once the captured M4s ran out of ammo or needed any kind of maintenance they were left behind as they had no support structure for such tanks at all. If you were to capture enemy tanks, you would need to capture their factories or a MASSIVE stockpile of spare parts, munitions, and maintenance instruction manuals for them to be any use other than "its better than walking" for tank crews that otherwise have no working vehicle. And again, that tank with no support structure will likely exhaust its ammo or need track maintenance at the end of the battle which are problems that cannot be resolved leading to it being abandoned for hopefully the crew getting a proper vehicle they can support and are trained on by then.
Furthermore, you are going to need fucking ammo and new blow out panels along with having to likely replace the bulkhead doors if you were to steal an Abrams from a battlefield. So where are you going to get those? I hope the tank had spare bulkheads and ammo that somehow didn't burn on it or else you will have to order those doors and pannels from the United States and hope they don't check the return address.
It was a fucking joke because a makarov is the only piece of combloc equipment that will fit a western cartridge in an albeit borderline suicidal way. 5.56 WILL NOT chamber in a 5.45 gun. And if it did, it would create dangerous overpressure just like in the mak. This is also getting in the way of the fact that 5.56 will barely even fit in a 5.45 magazine to begin with and certainly will not feed reliably. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE 5.45 was created to be ballistically coefficient to 5.56 because Russian advisors in Vietnam got a good look at captured rifles and ammo and realized it was superior to 7.62x39? So maybe you should stop fucking talking out of your ass on everything and spewing things that are OBJECTIVELY WRONG here.
Don't the REAL Russian tanks also use depleted uranium composite armor? The first picture is from an Abrams that was lost in an intense ammo dump fire and is not battle damage.
No one in this thread even said that. You just started sperging out like a retard from the get go with this shit.