this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
676 points (98.4% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6660 readers
322 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Back in 1989, when Saudi Arabia was looking to buy new tanks and did some tests, the Osorio performed better than the Abrams on most tests, was cheaper and was declared the winner of said tests. However, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait happened shortly afterwards and the Saudis opted for the M1 Abrams due to politicking. Unfortunately for Engesa, the company behind the Osorio, the Brazilian Army was never interested in such a large tank
sauce - https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/osorio.htm
I did some digging and couldn’t find any statistics proving the Osorio superior except in proposed cost.
Do you have any actual comparison data as to why the tank performed better?
That source claims it had better accuracy:
It was also ~10 tons lighter than the Abrams, thus easier to transport.
The real deal best source would be finding Saudi documents of that test, which is very unlikely for us to have access to.
War Thunder forums, this is your calling.
Time to start nerfing Osorios, but only when the language is set to Arabic.
Huh, interesting. Offensive firepower seems better at face value, but I wonder if there were other factors. Weight may be a ”problem” on the surface, but weight is also armor, so if the Abrams were better able to take a hit then I’d assume that is part of the calculation.
Maybe it’s decision making that militaries have always faced - lighter, faster, more maneuverable but not able to take damage, vs. heavier, less maneuverable, but able to take a hit or two and potentially keep fighting.
I'm guessing the tradeoff is less armour and other survivability features. The Abrams is designed to remain survivable even if the ammo cooks off IIRC, which must add an insane amount to both the weight and the cost.