T-14 Armata mod 2021

[MekboyVN_068]

Bruh is the words i saw in your comments and all of them are all BS, bet that you not even know what is the real problem of T-14 is.

[Kingtiez]

Bait?

[DaleksInc]

Somewhat.

Basically, I’m trying to point out that (similarly to the 2S38) it’s a glorified technology demonstrator, with huge issues that the game doesn’t currently model in vehicles with similar systems (cough where breakable autoloaders? cough).

[DaleksInc]

Very well. In that case, where is (for example) the internal turret/autoloader access hatch? While they’ve been (understandably) reluctant to allow information out about key systems (information which would be needed to model the tank correctly, by the way), they have allowed video of the crew compartment, provided that active screens and other vital information is blurred out. At least some of that video shows the bulkhead where such a hatch should be, if it actually existed.

The one possibly incorrect thing I mentioned is the transmission issues; it’s feasible (although highly unlikely, considering the event they were practicing for) that the infamous Red Square breakdown was just a fluke.

[MekboyVN_068]

@DaleksInc

In that case, where is (for example) the internal turret/autoloader access hatch? While they’ve been (understandably) reluctant to allow information out about key systems (information which would be needed to model the tank correctly, by the way), they have allowed video of the crew compartment, provided that active screens and other vital information is blurred out.

For what reason they need the hatch for it ?
The purpose of T-14 designation is protect and “isolate” the crew, why the heck they want to directly access by the crew ?

@DaleksInc

The one possibly incorrect thing I mentioned is the transmission issues; it’s feasible (although highly unlikely, considering the event they were practicing for) that the infamous Red Square breakdown was just a fluke.

You got it wrong, the problem is caused by the engine, not the transmission.
If you take an “accident” as a failure sign to conclude that the “transmission is suck”, then welcome, with that logic, i can said that M1 Abrams side armor is suck since with just a RPG-7 non tanderm, it easily penetrated the tanks although they claim that all of the side armor is the “actuall armor” and work again HEAT.

In case you just want to refuse the existent of T-14 as fully tanks design and functioning.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrq8yGn0N0

[Mahiwew]

Asked to leave for worst bait

[DaleksInc]

@MekboyVN_068

The purpose of T-14 designation is protect and “isolate” the crew, why the heck they want to directly access by the crew ?

So that they can fix jams (which are a fact of life with autoloaders) and/or manually load rounds if necessary.

[굴러온]

@DaleksInc

cough where breakable autoloaders? cough

then why not manual loaders got slow on the move and can’t reload while jumping from the cliff XD

[굴러온]

On the fixing jam prospective, Russians just choose to repair in the back with help of repair vehicle. Two hatch for three man, added with isolated cabin for protecting crew from spall makes it unable to repair on front.

On manual loading, it is also impossible for Armata to be access and load round from inside the hull, even if such ‘hatch’ is located between autoloader and crew space. All reserve round(13 among 45 total round) were stored in the bustle on the rear of turret so crew inside could do nothing on the hull.
Also, Soviet autoloaders starting from T-64 relocate their shell by reversing autoloading mechanism. What crew on T-14 should do is putting round to case emission hatch(which exist in side of turret) and let autoloader do their job

[ZVO_12_INCH]

I have written many times about thermal imagers here and on the old forum-so briefly…
To date, NATO countries have no advantage
…
You can easily find information about thermal imagers in the current war on the Internet.
NATO countries are also different-there are, for example, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Bulgaria and so on…
A thermal imager today is an expendable material the same as a cartridge, there are a lot of them in the war of different classes and capabilities …
It is important which thermal imager is installed on a tactical reconnaissance drone-everything is very good here for the Russian army…
Also, the work of special reverse engineering teams on both sides and non-compliance with licensing agreements on both sides are not advertised in the media…
You probably also haven’t heard anything about the Nakidka-which is massively used on Russian equipment in the current conflict…there are a lot of photos on the Internet…
Tank thermal imagers are on the T-14 as of 2020…Further, access to information on military procurement was prohibited by a special law of the Russian Federation…-to date, thermal imagers of this class are installed on the Merkava-4M, the start of modernization was planned for 2023/Type 10/most likely on K2-although there is no exact information on Leopard-2A7 for some countries, that is, not all NATO countries…There is no exact information on Chinese…
https://m.vk.com/wall-93248495_298485?z=photo-93248495_457311344%2Falbum-93248495_00

[ZVO_12_INCH]

I have already written about reverse engineering and non-compliance with licensing agreements between the Western Bloc and Russia…
A few old links…"Армата" избавилась от проблем со зрением
https://dzen.ru/a/YGDm0gOLIHkM4EIP

[DaleksInc]

@굴러온

then why not manual loaders got slow on the move and can’t reload while jumping from the cliff XD

I would be alright with that, provided Gaijin does a halfway-decent job of implementing it (and doesn’t “forget” to also model breakable autoloaders).

EDIT: Now that I think about it, that would actually make for an interesting gameplay mechanic; manually loaded tanks can fire very quickly as long as they are stationary and their loaders aren’t knocked out; while autoloaded tanks fire more slowly and can have their autoloaders destroyed, but retain the same rate of fire while on the move.

[64_bit]

They added the Ferdinand despite its major issues.

[64_bit]

They are integrated with the gun breach in game.

[p0padan1e]

This ,with 1000mm againist kinetic is too OP fir now

[Mahiwew]

@Kminek246

still not fully finished as they are still repairting it as it keep braking down

How many more times will that misconception still be regurgitated?

[bbbdddaaa]

personally i don’t see why not. we have the challenger 3 already, why don’t we have the T-14?

[Teh0]

“Due to having no access hatch for the turret and autoloader system, if the autoloader is damaged it takes an extremely long time to reload, and the cannon cannot be reloaded during that time.”

I think making auto-loaders as a destroyable module should be a priority to improve top tier gameplay.

[Zucc_Boi]

@Alan_Tovarishch

I have to disagree to that logic there. It doesn´t make any sense to put T-14 in production as of now because it would be at the expense of production capacity for T-72/90 tanks and parts, the priority right now is to maximize output, not to produce new bottlenecks. If Russia acted this way right now it would be replicating strategic mistakes the 3rd Reich did during WW2, prioritizing producing new stuff at the expense of the older stuff that could be produced in higher volumes. That on itself is strong argument enough. However there is the no smaller problem related to training crews and maintenance personnel who are already perfectly familiar with existing tanks.

I didn’t make that argument, and I also believe Russia should pick a single tank (T-80/90) and just produce that in huge numbers.

@Alan_Tovarishch

It doesn´t make any sense for Russia to go for T-14 today as it doesn´t make any sense for IDF to push Barak into serial production ASAP to get it into the war in Gaza.

Well Barak has already replaced the 4M in production. Very little difference in overall logistics and training between the two.

@Alan_Tovarishch

A more valid argument would be to ask what happened to Arena and why tanks aren´t equipped with it.

That is exactly my argument.

@Alan_Tovarishch

First impression is quite obvious: maneuver assets haven´t been a particular priority in Russian budget for quite some time. Instead they prioritized other kind of systems (AA, Iskander, Navy, hypersonics).

Before the war - perhaps. But it’s been 2 years, some crash program could have produced some proper APS by now, especially knowing that Russia had at least several types of APS with some degree of maturity. The sheer number of tanks lost to all sources is more than enough incentive to put in the money and deploy it. Russia’s valuation of its MBTs is more than monetary.

@Alan_Tovarishch

Had Arena-M been issued in considerable amounts, it would have made the biggest difference in the early phases of the war still not that big of an impact. Since the first months it became obvious that most of the tank losses are due to artillery fire. Arena-M can protect vs some of artillery projectiles but not all. As war went on, more varied ways of killing tanks emerged. Most importantly, grenade dropping drones and much more importantly FPV drones.

Most lost to artillery and mines. Perhaps. I could not find any statistics on reason of AFV losses, but even if we were to say ATRs, ATGMs, and FPV drones account for 10% of all AFV losses - that would be 1,400 AFVs of all sorts including 270 MBTs (Source - Oryx, I included captured). That’s a significant amount.
FPV drones, by the way - are something an APS can rather easily intercept. They typically approach at shallow angles (shallow enough for most APS) and feature a forward-facing RPG warhead. While an APS might typically filter out slower moving targets such as FPV drones and grenade droppers, it’s more an issue of software configuration. And as far as top attack threats go - Russia’s reluctance to deal with that threat with the Afghanit (strangely built around direct approach projectiles) does not mean a top attack defense cannot be fitted rather easily. If that turns out to be more an obstacle than I thought - then again a single system does not need to cover everything. Drones managed to drop RPG warheads on Merkavas in Gaza and on the border with Lebanon, but that was only seen in the very early days of the war and was quickly countered by providing infantry with new weapon sights (SMASH).

All in all, I’m convinced an APS of some sort, even one that can only defeat Stugna, Javelin, and some RPGs, would be tremendously valuable for Russia. Therefore its absence can only indicate for me the lack of ability to implement such a solution.

[Zucc_Boi]

@Armen Lozone

or maybe cost?
simply put… maybe its cheaper to roll out as many working tanks than to upgrade 1000 times more tanks in storage or active service with complex hardware and software.
plues lets not forget, in wartime… calling back active equipment isnt something we can do.
it gives the enemy an advantage for a time being and that is a jeopardy to the war effort on either side

Installation of APS is agnostic of whether the tank is upgraded or brand new. An APS that can only intercept ATGMs is still going to be cheaper than deploying MBTs without APS.

Russia also puts effort into recovering and repairing damaged AFVs.

@Mahiwew

You keep saying this, but it is still irrelevant in regards to the game.

Tested on vehicle = viable for game. Simple as.

The tests were hardly indicative of much. For the record I also object to the Iron Fist’s inclusion in game, as well as its ability to defeat KE. Yes, there is footage that proves it can defeat an APFSDS but if it’s not ready for deployment - it just isn’t.
But I do agree that if we go by the same parameters, Arena is viable, and even Afganit might be (although, again, only viable against CE). Sadly Gaijin does not have a single rulebook by which it decides what to add or remove from game. It just does it randomly and tries to justify it after the fact.