Is it in the archives?
It’ll be worse than the NATO equivalents so why not.
Without heavy handholding it’s essentially a 2S38 with an MBT cannon, entirely reliant on ERA.
HAHA yeah okay. Open a history book as I said previously. The late 90s - early 2010s will be the best for the USA / Germany.
T-55s T-62s, T-72s etc would stomp.
IS-3,4,6,7 would all be equal br to the T29/30/34
Obj.279 would be 8.3 with the T58
Need I continue?
2 Likes
Better just buy KF-51 like would be easier for countries in one alliance just unify tank designs
Not really. Making the IMBT will promote Italian industry and will end up as an additional option since the point of the Joint Venture is to eventually sell it to third party countries.
1 Like
Iirc the SEPv2 itself is from like 2008, so I think France is the nation with the least modern MBT in game, closely followed by the US, Israel and Sweden.
You forgot it has an APS meant to degrade APFSDS.
Also you think it’ll be worse. That’s your opinion, not a fact. Stop strutting your opinion as a fact.
It’s also older…? And didn’t abrams x, KF41, etc all copy the T-14 pretty much?
1 Like
Literally nothing proving it can
Statistically it’s worse than other next gen MBTs
They were designed to respond to a thread, and as seen with the Mig-25 → F-15 saga, they will be better
They really wouldn’t lmao.
Historical ammo M48 against historical ammo T-55 is balanced
Historical ammo M60 against historical ammo T-62 is balanced
NATO lacking T-64 and T-72 direct equivalent is very much balanced by NATO having overwhelming CAS during the 60s. F-4E with AGM-62 and even AGM-65A + similar against Shilka. Yeah.
The Proto IS tanks are the only offenders.
Really, Soviet/Russia has a lot more to lose with historical BR than the situation now. You’d be a complete fool to think otherwise. F-14A against MiG-21 is a good example of what you would get.
Please do especially post 2010 lol
3 Likes
In a ‘historical matchmaker’ they would cease to exist
Cherry picking a few places where russia might be better does nothing to offput the absolute NATO dominance post 70s, Just imagine T-80BV vs Leopard 2A6
1 Like
Isn’t that happens with difficulties ? Like it has third party technology and thus must go trough their approval.
Germany definetly won’t allow any competition in tanks market since it growing military might.
Are you basing your entire point on a URL that can be changed on a whim?
This is the URL of the so-called “leak”: https://warthunder.com/en/news/8616-development-t-90m-obr-2017-the-modern-masterpiece
The text after the ID can be changed to whatever you want, e.g. https://warthunder.com/en/news/8616-development-your-mom, and it’ll still show you the 8616 article, i.e. the Tornado devblog.
3 Likes
No… The US had an Abrams with unmanned turret prototype in the late 80s/early 90s. The M1 TTB.
And the Stryker MGS was a production vehicle before the T-14 even left the drawing board.
2 Likes
This screenshot of the URL is mine; I took it at the time. It’s interesting to know that they changed it.
For game it is enough that the speed of intercepted targets indicated for T14 APS allows you to intercept apfsds. It will be the best APS in game along with iron fist with current APS implementation (delete any apfsds that it can intercept)
1980s…
3 Likes
I doubt that the german government would prevent Rheinmetall from making money
I know that vehicle. And what does this have to do with his incorrect claim that the T-14 influenced NATO unmanned designs?
Both sides experimented with this idea in the 80s, and the US was first to mass produce this design with teh Stryker MGS.
Every new piece of military equipment influences its rivals to improve.