jeez thanks again
You are welcome. I really don’t understand why i can’t be a moderator 🥲🥲🥲
1 Like
Probably. Which is sort of obvious due to it being way more expensive and modern. Not a guarantee it’s better for the money or something but clearly more a “king tiger” than a “sherman”
This isn’t the fighting T-14 was designed for, it’s still more or less a product of Fulda Gap mindset and fighting the US or some other first world power.
What Ukraine has is a handful of Challengers, a handful of Abrams soon and a handful of Bulat and other stuff, all basically 1990’s vintage with some modifications. The rest is Leopard 1, T-64 and so on.
None of these require T-14 to be used in order to defeat them. The reward is small and the risk is great.
Russia designs and fields vehicles useful to it, which by and large aren’t the kind of supertanks like Abrams X, T-14, Thumper and so on.
There’s no point using T-14, what’s it going to do, shoot through two Leopard 1’s that are in a neat line? All of how T-14 and these other tanks are designed doesn’t make them suitable for this particular battlefield. Like how Abrams wasn’t suitable for the “War on Terror” and subsequently recieved many major modifications aimed at making it more suitable.
The conflict is focused around drones and ATGM, but T-14 still has Fulda syndrome, it’s supposed to be used as part of some mass offensive in WW3, not rolling around for a few hours and occasionally shelling a position before getting hit by some laser guided artillery or a drone or something. Everything to lose and nothing to gain. A T-62 with some experimental anti-drone equipment and some thermals can do that job basically all the same.
Competitive doesn’t mean equivalent.
He’s right because IRIS-T and AIM-9X were developed specifically after R-73 was tested by Re-unified Germany, suddenly all that arrogance about advanced technology and other basically racist stereotypes suddenly fell off the eyelids of those paying any attention.
Prior missiles were inferior, subsequent ones are superior, IRIS-T and AIM-9X are obviously either on par or better in various ways, hence competitive.
Google says competitive means “as good as or better than others of a comparable nature.” and I think we’d all agree that AIM-9X and IRIS-T are “as good as or better than others of a comparable nature.” compared to R-73.
i still love how russian mains were arguing that germany never had R-73 and shouldnt receive them
While I agree with most of the things you wrote there is a ig difference in the doctrine.
The “West” put a lot more focus on protecting the Crew compared the the “East”, this resulted in more expensive, not always BETTER, vehicle for a certain job.
The goal was to keep highly skilled crew alive and put them into another tank/plane. The other side focused more on handing everyone a decent weapon and have strength in numbers. The T-14 is the first RU tank, that really focused on crew protection, the others are pretty much death traps.
Therefore a T-62 can surely do the “job” of getting a few shots of before it gets destroyed just as well, but it won’t do nearly as good a job to keep the crew alive, but that’s not something that side has any interest in either.
I’d say the purpose was to find an expensive solution to problems, the other stuff comes later. Need reasons to keep your factories retaining their skilled labour, it’s de-facto blackmail by the arms companies. Keep buying stuff from them or they fire the workers.
This is just wrong. The “East” has never had such a strong economy as the “West.” The Russian Empire at the time of the revolution had an economy equivalent to Brazil. The NATO alliance is composed of either former or current day imperial superpowers, who already long had opulence in comparison.
The comparitive simplicity and ruggedness of these designs quite clearly flows from their economic situations, USSR was devastated by WW2 and USA was completely untouched, the Marshall Plan saw it effectively consolidate all the power and wealth it had ever sought from those who once competed with it. China was locked in a struggle to simply exist at all after a century of humiliation.
T-14 is the most expensive “Eastern” design produced, it costs very little compared to an Abrams, Leopard or Leclerc. Not like this stuff really matters for export, your price point and alliegances determine which kit you buy, basically nothing else really matters.
Any tank is a death trap if it can be penetrated. Now for doctrine. Soviet designs chose to protect against Kinetic threats, since that’s what they saw as the threat at the time, all their tanks are exceptionally well kinetically protected for the time they were designed, meanwhile ERA dealt with the HEAT threat.
Of course something quite predictable happens when battle hardened Chechen veterans of the Soviet Afghanistan campaign are attacked by ERAless Russian tanks.
I’d say T-14 probably wasn’t designed to deal with drones, just like no tanks were designed to deal with drones. Ukraine conflict is a serious wakeup call for every designer, it shows a whole new range of previously ignored threats exist and that very lethal low-tech solutions can be used to destroy even the most advanced designs that existed prior.
T-14 isn’t really a fire support vehicle, it’s an anti-tank tank. Fire support is much of what I’m told happens in Ukraine, so basically any cannon on tracks will do the fire support job, or a dedicated vehicle like BMPT. T-14 isn’t running around with the 152mm it could have had, so it’s offering basically nothing extra in that department. So little extra capability for a lot of vulnerability.
So I’d expect that basically any old tank, equipped with anti-drone mechanisms and perhaps an APS to deal with ATGM/Javelin will be the primary workhorse, since tank duels are so rare. Use whatever you’ve got abundant parts and ammunition for first, then maybe throw your one-trick super-prototype in to get smashed if you’ve got no other choice.
ehh either way, doesnt change that they cant actualy produce them and are staying with their old stuff
they even started to newly produce T-80BVMs instead of T-14s, that should tell you everything you need to know.
T-14 is still too secret. I wish to see how Gaijin realize it
1 Like
over 1000mm protection, 60/60 gun handling, gen 6+ thermals with 100x zoom, 125mm ammo that didnt even make it of the drawing board yet
something like that i imagine
they’ll add the magical 152mm cannon that hasn’t even been mounted on a t14 yet, and probably wont be.
or that yeah
By your logic, no country can produce anything except their current tanks, since they’ve more or less not done it for decades. What’s clear is all parties haven’t seen a compelling enough reason to jump to a new chassis and shoulder those new costs.
Feel free to explain why at least 20 are driving around.
They prefer something cheap to something expensive?
prototype ones build before sanctions? its quite clear russia lacks the ability to currently build them, those 20 mean nothin, besides being a ridiculous low number and them deciding to continue building t 80 bvm
1 Like
That’s not blackmail, that’s just basic business and industry. A company can’t exist without product demand and sales, an industry that has no use for knowledge won’t retain it. The French and British small arms industrial capability is a perfect example of what happens when industry sits without work or demand, they don’t exist anymore.
20 built in the 9 years since it’s design is in no way impressive.
Do you think technology is some kind of dark science or something? Those same sanctions are meant to have crippled Russia by stopping them from having thermals, conveniently they are making new tanks with indigenous thermals. It’s more convenient to import than to start your own production, but why do you insist it’s impossible?
20 means a lot more than most of the other prototypes like Abrams X, thumper etc, all these 130mm and 140mm prototypes. A one off is a one off. T-14 is clearly much closer to a reality than single-build speculative prototypes or mockups often shown at defence expositions.
Really low profits I’m sure. Defence lobbying has nothing to do with ridiculousbudgetary expansions and consistent maintainance of comical fleets of tanks.
Defence industries have enormous importance and influence, they are in many ways an exceptional industry category, especially with their disproportionate influence on government spending.
These industries are financialised and internationalised. Why have RSAF when you can buy H&K outright and get them to do something for you?
Who cares about impressive? It is proof it can be done and it isn’t impossible. If there’s time, money and will then anything can be done.
I thought I’d check the usual official channels and apparently the design is still being worked on
Feel free to treat it with the same skepticism you treat marketing brochures and placards at defence expositions.
But apparently the “West” can sell people a barely functional plane and nobody will dismiss its existence.
I will stop since this is going way off topic about Leopard 2 performance in the current patch.
20 over X years isn’t that impressive for what is supposed to be a military superpower.
How many were produced this year? Probably close to 0.
It’s likely that the M1E3 that the US wants to work on will already be the M1A3 when the T-14 goes into serious production.
1 Like
Barely functional ? The F35 has been flown in combat missions by both the US and Israel. The article you linked just criticizes software failures that still happen, but “barely functional” is a gross over statement that I would expect to find on RT news.
most of the F35 bad press comes for RT originally
1 Like
Oh I know and based on how he is talking about it, that’s where he got all of his information.