Does any country send their newest vehicles into combat? No. Why? They don’t want it to be captured.
I’m assuming they’re working on anti drone warfare with it.
Quit the glaze buddy.
2 Likes
I thought the reason USA was so scared by foxbat was bc they saw it go mach 3 on radar and also saw it at Soviet airbase or airshow (I forgot which) and it looked kind of similar to USA advanced fighter concepts
Facts are facts, unless you can dispute them. ;)
Israel got their first F-35 in 2016 and used them in combat 2018
3 Likes
Where? They have been basically useless from Iraq to Lebanon to Chechnya to Syria. In Ukraine they were useless BEFORE drone warfare became a thing. They are a terrible design and the T-80’s have fared no better. The only real success they had was in Georgia, but that was a rather brief affair and the Georgians didn’t really fight back.
T-72/T-90 and T-64/T-80 are both fundamentally flawed designs that use archaic technology. The carousel autoloader is colossally stupid on many, many levels. It’s slow. It’s overly complicated. It’s a death sentence from a survivability standpoint. From there it is just typical Russian technological problems. Poor breech design. Poor gun tube quality. Poor ammunition quality. Poor automotive performance due to weak and archaic engines. The only good sensors/fire control they have are all foreign made. And even then, they cannot fully compensate for the poor quality of the guns and ammunition. The secondary weapons are inferior to those used on western tanks. The reliance on reactive armor reduces their already poor survivability. They have no competent APS. All in all they are the bottom of the barrel from a tank perspective. K-1 and K-2. Type 90 and Type 10. M1 series. Leopard II series. Challenger I/II series. Merkavas. Those are all substantially better tanks. They are only competitive against Chinese tanks and that’s only because Chinese tanks are Russia knockoffs.
In no way are they worth the money. Even if you could buy 4 for the price of every Abrams (which you can’t for modern variants) it’s a waste of money.
The historical record is crystal clear.
1 Like
You mean the petal that is flipping through the air somehow goes straight like a dart and maintains enough energy to pen through a slopped piece of armor? If that’s how Gaijin has that modeled, they need to fix that
do you know if they have more armor or not or you look at ingame abrams and base it on ur opinion
abrams + relikt = best protection for the crew
there isnt as much leopard as abrams, and there isnt much relikt since they all slap it on abrams, point being?
propose your own design then, it aint that hard. If you think the armor of abrams are poorly optimized you are not educated enough
actually no, the engine deck is big enough to redesign to fit a smaller engine. It can also incoporate more armor by slapping composite on it, the original abrams was design to keep this in mind hence they dont need a new tank for better armor, they can just upgrade the current one
“outdates” keep up with modern stuff, its not outdates if it works well against modern tanks
yeah and whats the sources for that
the protection on the Type 10 isnt that great either, it has quite some flaws to its design but thats what the engineer at mitsubishi did. The armor is also classified, the current ingame armor isnt correct so dont base ur opinion on that nor the abrams
hell you shouldnt get facts from war thunder at all
T-14 all and all is just a prototype, it was more invested in because the T-90M was deemed ineffective and outdate like you said right?
you dont even know the armor of the Armata itself or Type 10, Abrams or anything, all you based of are war thunder model which are close enough or wrong(type 10, ztz, abrams, chally, merkavas, etc…)
you say alot but 0 evidences, 0 proofs, 0 basis
no thats actually depend on the situation or the war itself
still no proof of that
newer doesnt mean better
also correction on one of ur comments
Abrams X isnt in production because its expensive its not in production because its not a tank, its a tech demo mock up on what the abrams could be if it incoporate modern design and different ideas in a tank, its like another version of the CATTB which is essentially abrams with autoloader, smaller but equally if not better engine, 140mm gun, way way more armor(still on an M1A1 modified chasis)
This last paragraph says it all. Of course you think they’re terrible compared to the abrams, if you have actually looked at how they were implemented, and look at facts of those time periods, Iraqi T-72As were fighting gen 1 M1 abrams. (About a 12-14 year gap in technology btw).
Considering the abrams NEEDED a gun upgrade in less than two years really says something.
The Russian auto loaders aren’t nearly as bad as you claim, the T series are in total are just over half the height of an abrams. They’re small tanks compared to an abrams.
I’m glad you bring up APS and Merkavas, those worked soooo well for them. 😂
Aren’t you glad they sold those useless spa’s to the US too?
It’s true the autoloader found on the T72 /T90 is slower at 7.1 secs load time, but it’s consistent, they can actually load faster, just like a T64B / T80s can load as fast as 3.84~ secs. But they lock them at 6.0 secs. Why? To have the highest possible longevity of parts. They can also load on the move much easier than a manual loader, and the only thing that out paces them is the Type 10s.
(T-90M and T-80U are pretty good tanks all in all, not like you’ll agree).
If you plan to respond, bring facts, not opinionated fiction.
Incorrect. Unless your capital is being invaded pretty much the newest tech is hidden so it’s not captured, everyone does this.
Abrams X isn’t in production because it was a concept tank yes. Expense does have a lot to do with it. But regardless the design needs a overhaul.
I have to disagree with this statement.
no its correct
in ww2 the moment the pershing were done minimal testing it was send directly to the front line to face against tiger and panther
in under correct circumstances where troops need something better the newest and “best” tank would be send to the frontline
which is not the case here since Russia is either paranoid that their 15 billions rubles tank is gonna get capture or its not even close to being done
You got me there with the Pershing, but why did they do that? (This is pretty much the last example in the last 80-100 years though).
- No Allied tank other than maybe the IS-2 at the time stood a decent chance at deflecting a round from a Panther or a Tiger I
From a strategic point, it’s quite smart, you don’t want your enemy to have a counter to your best weapon.
But if you have any examples where this isn’t the case, let me know.
they did it because sherman werent holding up against panther very well
Pershing is the direct competitor to tiger but sherman werent very armored and the “engineer” said the sherman werent holding up anymore hence the pershing after they done initial testing(test defects, issues, etc…) and training it was send to the frontline though the war end quicker than they thought
All examples I have seen the most modern equipment has been making it to the front. As soon as the F-22 was in what was considered an exceptable operational state it was sent on a combat deployment. The Ghost hawk was being used for covert missions. The F-35 got used as soon as it made it to operational standards.
Nowhere do I see the lets hold the good stuff from battle hidden until your country is about to be usurped. Maybe Germany did that during WW2 I know they had a lot of wonder weapons I wonder how that worked out for them.
Not about conquering Europe. It’s literally about whether it fits the battlefield
Idk why you don’t understand
A 70 TON TANK
THE SIZE OF 3 SCHOOL BUSSES
WITH LITERALLY NO ADVANTAGE TO A TANK 1/3’D THE SIZE OF IT
THAT DOESNT RELY ON A HUMAN LOADER
WITH A 1 SECOND RELOAD
IS NOT FIT FOR THE BATTLEIFIELD TODAY
A TANK THAT IS MEANT TO DEFEND EUROPE BEING OVER 68 TONS CANNOT DEFEND EUROPE
Like seriously dude
I don’t care how much penetration it has
I don’t care how much armor it has
The only thing that makes it a good tank or not is how well it fits its job description
The literal 70 ton tank only being able to be transported by boat and by rail is not capable of defending Europe
ERGO THE ABRAMS IS THE WORST TANK IN THE WORLD
Simply because it isn’t capable of original mission parameters. That’s it, that’s why.
Again I’m not being mean or biased or anything
I’m not anti American
The fact is
The Abram’s can’t compete
With the technology advances we’ve had it shouldn’t exist. The people working on thing hate it. It’s an awful excuse for a tank. Back in the 80’s it made sense
It wasn’t too heavy
It had a lot of engine power
It had a good gun
Now it’s literally obese
Its engine power is honestly not that great and diesel technology has caught up
On top of that diesels get better fuel economy and aren’t going to send your crew on a one way trip to heaven
Autoloaders load faster than a person and don’t fatigue and are easy to work on nowadays
Composite technology has gotten to the point a 40t tank can compete with a 70t tank in terms of armor
It’s that simple
The smaller you are the harder you are to spot
The harder you are to spot the easier your mission objective is
This isn’t bias this is purely logic. The Abram’s is and has been outdated since at least the early 2000’s
The only difference is that’s the soviets capitalized on smaller, lighter, and more modular tanks back then.
Technically speaking for a T-90M to be modern all they have to do is slap and adapter plate on it and strap a Chinese transmission to it and it’s now it’s capable for another decade
It’s not about bias it’s literally about the mission parameters and the Abram’s always fails each category
Well that is wrong.
This is also false.
I’m not going to comment on the other comments because some of them are just opinion.