Responding To Dev Server Feedback Regarding Turret Baskets

[MrBombastic8]

i mean the Russian Army, the Red Army
same same, but different

[rainy2000]

@GALWAYLION

when I go into France, Rafale, and equip them as a secondary.

How do you know that they’re on the Rafale if (for example) this is your first time hearing about this type of ordnance?

@GALWAYLION

The game doesn’t say “IR Hammers” now do they?

IR is just a way of targetting.
I think you’ll find out that I would be refering to the SBU 64 version.

[MrBombastic8]

@GALWAYLION

Sorry, you’re not that daft

[GALWAYLION]

Major difference, Red Army is for the Soviet Union, which included the likes of Russia, but plenty of other Soviet nations such as Georgia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and more. Russia is just Russia.

I don’t blame you, Red Army sounds cooler than Russian Army.

[GALWAYLION]

Well that’s bollocks, my screen just gives me the funny numbers and letters. I don’t get the luxury of funny nicknames.

[rainy2000]

Skill issue
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[MrBombastic8]

bro
“the russian army is coming”
ok
“The Red Army is coming”
AH HELL NAH

[GALWAYLION]

[rainy2000]

Hover over them

[GALWAYLION]

Three bloody years on this game, and now I learn we get nicknames for these things. Unfortunately, I’m not seeing Mavericks when I hover over AGM 65Ds, but I digress. At least now I know what Hammers are.

[An_Pigeon]

@MrBombastic8

then why the fork did they send it on the frontline???

Propaganda aka moral for their troops.

@MrBombastic8

bro dont “son” me it sound like u trying to be a grown up

An Pigeon:

Then stop using statements like " the red army" which hasn’t existed since 1946, the current Russian military is called the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation aka the army of the russian federation

@MrBombastic8

and its not even frontline they just send it to test if its gonna survive which now u said that they would lose it which is funny because they dont really send it directly on the frontline

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here, try reword it

@MrBombastic8

Same hull design, same autoloader, same gun, same doctrine

Same hull design ? got a source for that?
As its a reworked larger hull with the crew moved to the front.
The autoloader is also different as the full turret is now unmanned.
last i checked its a newer 125mm gun, Believe only used on the T90M and T14.
And the doctrine for the T14 is not the same as when the USSR made say, T72, or T80 so the tank has changed, hence the height differences.

@MrBombastic8

Just make more T-80BVM then cuz that shit is way less expensive

They’re systematically making.
T80BVM 3s I think it is, T72B3s, T90Ms, as well as refurbishing old tanks as well.
hence why the T14 is on a skeleton production line.

@MrBombastic8

i say red army because it sounds cool but yes ik they havent been making tanke since 1946

It sounds ignorant af and the damages the red army caused it is quite a poor name, it is not infact “cool” if you knew the history behind it.

@MrBombastic8

The head of the Russian defense conglomerate Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, confirmed that the state-of-the-art Russian tank, the T-14 “Armata,” is not being deployed in the war in Ukraine, which the Kremlin has labeled a “special military operation.”

Yes like i stated to you previously, the cost of it and moral effect of losing it one would be detrimental to them?

whats so hard to understand about it.

@MrBombastic8

He underscored the prohibitive expense of the Armata as a deterrent to its immediate deployment, stressing the need for funds to develop newer and more cost-effective tank models.

He also states that the same as the su57 it relied on western technology that of which has been incrdibly difficult for the russians to get.

This is beyond off topic and youre literally not going anywhere with your points?

[An_Pigeon]

Technically no either, officially the red army was changes to soviet army in 1946

The red army historically wasnt very good, so they changed the name of it…

[GALWAYLION]

I was talking that the Red Army encompassed the Soviet Union prior to 1946, I should have been more specific. Russian Army can either be the imperial military of Russia (prior to the fall of the empire) or the Federation. Then again, who exactly talks about the tsar anymore (hides my Orthodox cross and Nagant revolver).

[MrBombastic8]

@An_Pigeon

Then stop using statements like " the red army"

why shouldnt i?
if its sounds cool then id use it, the others have no problem either
if u dont like it then agree to disagree

@An_Pigeon

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here, try reword it

heres a more better version
if sending it to the frontline to moral boost then why take it back
a tank that change nothing, moral boost yay new tanke then left, would that do anything to the slightest knowing that you wouldnt even have a chance to ride it after all or it wouldnt moral boost the one that is in the trenches because head boss want more land
“if they lose it”, IF they lose it which it wont because it was send to a well protected base to asset for firepowers and tactics which then was withdrawn because again, the cost
or other reasons

[An_Pigeon]

@MrBombastic8

why shouldnt i?

Why should I * not why shouldn’t I.

@MrBombastic8

if its sounds cool then id use it, the others have no problem either

Because its not a case of agree or disagree, the red army has commited a plethora of atrocities across the time it existed, it is quite an inapropriate name to use especially for the context that it is in.

I would personally prefer you not use it, at least in these discussion, like calling the modern german army the Wehrmacht.

@MrBombastic8

“if they lose it”, IF they lose it which it wont because it was send to a well protected base to asset for firepowers and tactics which then was withdrawn because again, the cost

No tank is indestructible, at the time it was rolled into the field there was also the glaring issue of drones that if you haven’t noticed have rendered even the most expensive war machines useless.

@MrBombastic8

the cost
or other reasons

Again I already stated that at the beginning of the conversation the moral and financial cost is why it was pulled from the frontlines , it is infact not a cancelled project.
I then went into more detail to inform you that it also suffers the same issues as the Su57 relying on western technology for some aspects of it, thus is even harder to manufacture right now.

@MrBombastic8

if sending it to the frontline to moral boost then why take it back
a tank that change nothing, moral boost yay new tanke then left, would that do anything to the slightest knowing that you wouldnt even have a chance to ride it after all or it wouldnt moral boost the one that is in the trenches because head boss want more land

Because in war, even seeing something that is touted as highly effective can boost morale, the troops on the front may only see it for a brief period in a safer area before deploying, thus meaning they may never know if it is actively fielded or not.
(currently not however thats not how morale bolstering techniques work)

Much like a tiger tank would put fear into allied troopers even when there was only a smattering of them. When german troopers seen it, it bolstered their morale, even if it wasnt some wonder weapon.

T-14 Is anything but a wonder weapon xd

[UniqueScorpions]

They also don’t want the technology captured.

Every country does this.

[quartas121]

Dont you just love the GBU-38(V)4/B with the BLU-109/B bunker buster warhead?

Or would you rather have me call it 500lb JDAM

[UniqueScorpions]

@MrBombastic8

Too expensive to produce
one T-14 cost the price of 2 T-90M and if yk the 2 T-90M would have much better protection and firepower than the T-14
secondly the T-14 weight 25% more than the T-90M on average (55 tonnes)
They should just better off make a new transmission that can get the tank to reverse more than 4kph rather than making an entire new tank because that shit is costly

Yup! Your first sentence is right, but that’s why pretty much every country is making a cheap alternative.
Abrams X is too expensive.
KF-41 panther is too expensive etc etc.

T-90M does not have better protection…
T-14 has Monolith / Malachite ERA (not relict like I thought previously) and this is a whole new generation of ERA.
The T-90s have about 480mm UFP armor if I recall angled which equates to about 560~
The T-14 has 800mm at a slight angle, then add in the new generation ERA. Its armor is probably far closer to 1000mm.

More armor = more weight? Still way lighter than the abrams, Leo’s, challys…

Although I agree a new transmission for T90s would be nice, it would most likely require a hull lengthen to compensate, from my estimation, could be anywhere from 6-18 inches longer

[UniqueScorpions]

@__Renzo__

Nah the MBT-70 was only a prototype and used as such.

The T-14 Armata is used by the russian army for testing, training and propaganda things, showing intents of taking it into service when they get more significant numbers available.

However the problem is that those numbers seem to be far away.

60 was the last number i saw in January, they seem to make 3-4 a month.

Still a way higher a number than others producing new mbts. (Which it took 7 years for people to copy the Armata.)

@MrBombastic8

@An_Pigeon

While off topic, send me a source for this?
Why would they keep producing htem on the back burner if theyre going to cancel them.

MrBombastic8:

The head of the Russian defense conglomerate Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, confirmed that the state-of-the-art Russian tank, the T-14 “Armata,” is not being deployed in the war in Ukraine, which the Kremlin has labeled a “special military operation.”

Chemezov attributed this decision to the tank’s exorbitant cost, indicating that the military is opting for the more economical T-90 tanks instead. He underscored the prohibitive expense of the Armata as a deterrent to its immediate deployment, stressing the need for funds to develop newer and more cost-effective tank models.

“In terms of its functionality, it certainly surpasses existing tanks, but it’s too expensive, so the army is unlikely to use it now. It’s easier for them to buy the same T-90s,” Chemezov

Russian officials say some really random things just as in the US sometimes, even the UK and Germany. I’m not even sure if the defense minister deals with buying tanks, he just deploys his forces, usually someone under him on a committee will see the tank, test it, and buy it.

@An_Pigeon

@MrBombastic8

Same hull design, same autoloader, same gun, same doctrine

Same hull design ? got a source for that?
As its a reworked larger hull with the crew moved to the front.
The autoloader is also different as the full turret is now unmanned.
last i checked its a newer 125mm gun, Believe only used on the T90M and T14.
And the doctrine for the T14 is not the same as when the USSR made say, T72, or T80 so the tank has changed, hence the height differences.

It’s a 2a82-M1 I believe, it got a new round with a longer projectile, Vaccum - 1 which has supposedly some pretty good stats. It carry’s 45 rounds of ammunition I believe.

Max gun depression is most likely -8 degrees now as the turret whole tank is slightly taller, but not like a towerous monster.

[bertgame]

@An_Pigeon

Then stop using statements like " the red army" which hasn’t existed since 1946, the current Russian military is called the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation aka the army of the russian federation

Meanwhile russian dudes hanging ussr flag on their tanks in ukraine. Hmmmm