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).
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.
You literally responded to what i already answered…
Uh no…? The F-22 was not used right out of the gates. It was tested for a few years and still has yet to see any major conflict. Same with the F-35, but those are still auto ejecting pilots.
Props to you for the false information though.
Pretty much everyone did that by the end of WW2 and that continued to be a trend bar the US with the Pershing.
The T90M has been effective thus is why they aren’t sending out Armatas. Not to mention, the fact, they have roughly 60+ of them, and they are probably re adapting features to combat the new age of drone warfare that every country in the world is most likely gearing up for.
From what I have found first combat operation for it wasn’t till 2014 mainly being delayed due to pilots losing conscientious while flying. Although by that point and time the need for an air superiority fighter was absent.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/f22-plane-isis/index.html
But I guess that is just false information.
I would say the Armatas are not out because they are more and likely still teething.
Yeah cause they were not used by Israel.
You have a lot of misunderstandings about modern combat and I think war thunder has been making your perspective more skewed. Tanks aren’t only meant to fight tanks and tanks are nearly impossible to hide no matter the size unless they are dug in and immobile. In large scale combined arms warfare there are many ways to obtain intel (drones, satellites, infantry, etc.) and modern Abrams have many digital features to obtain and share intel that aren’t possible to implement in war thunder. Tanks are meant to fight in combined arms and its clear that you aren’t considering this when you claim that the Abrams is objectively bad
I trust news articles very little, not to mention I trust cnn less, they love to lie, even about the weather forecast.
T-90M is more numerous, cheaper to upgrade, and effective. That’s why it’s still being used.
Worst case they’re upgrading an old fleet of vehicles that if they get retired they could be sold or kept in storage for a worst case scenario.
F-22 Raptor First Time used in Combat in Syria on a secret mission - Fighter Jets World
With the Raptors Over Syria | Air & Space Forces Magazine
F-22's role, impact in Inherent Resolve increasing
F-22 Raptors Grounded at Langley Air Force Base | Defense Media Network
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/28/report-congress-breath-military-aircraft-oxygen-issues
I know a lot of them are news sources but you aren’t going to find really other sources.
I can agree with that although Russia didn’t have many T-90As to begine with estimates around 220.
I’m sure there is declassified operational documents for the F-22 if it was used in 2015 like these articles say. But what was the point of bringing this up?
I’d also like to add the 1st gen T-90M and the Armata both came out in 2015.
You were talking about how countries will not use their latest tech in war unless their capital is about to be usurped. I can’t find a case where that is true.
Other than the US, it seems most nations don’t. Unless they absolutely have to, and that’s pretty rare. But today’s warfare has totally changed the balance of armor in conflicts.
Need more 12.7mm > with Proxy for anti drone warfare.
I like the the German KF41 has its commander station with a built in tracker and 20mm proxy for anti drone warfare
I think it is more common than you think. Supposedly the Armata has made it to an location for use according to Russian state TV. But they will not have it participating in front line combat. Probably cause of its low numbers.
A .50 with an proximity warhead would be very impressive.
Yeah it appears a lot of armor seems to be adopting autocannons for drone defense.
I did say greater than 12.7mm >
I actually like the 14.5 hmgs, but sadly they don’t make them anymore I’m pretty sure.