>'Here is our claimed 'superior' Tank, let us just use it as an overly expensive artillery piece because the propaganda damage of loosing them would outweigh their actual battlefield capabilities'
>tank shoots at enemy
You can bet they just fired in the general direction of Ukraine at best if they wanted to tell a partial truth, and nowhere near any Ukrainian position.
>rolls over the border >fires indirectly in the direction of Ukranian forces.
I used to fire a rifle at targets to my north while in Northern Vermont. Does that mean I was engaged in special operations in Canada?
I guess you have toddler level reading skills too, if it took you until the reddit reference to realize that the post wasnt pro Ukraine lol. Now it makes sense why you nuggets need overly obvious cocomelon size flags added to your webms
I guess you have toddler level reading skills too, if it took you until the reddit reference to realize that the post wasnt pro Ukraine lol. Now it makes sense why you nuggets need overly obvious cocomelon size flags added to your webms
>calls other people tourist
Now I see that you have descended from toddler to parrot level language skills.
by soviet doctrine, the best tanks are concentrated into mechanized divisions for the breakthrough and exploitation and the worst tanks are spread out to support infantry or expended in probing attacks
if a T-14 is used as a guntruck, then this is implicitly a sign that its an inferior model only good for moving at walking speed and shooting at bunkers and trenches
essentially making it a giant waste of money
the only "enemy" that tank will ever fire at is a cardboard cutout on a range. Russia is a pathological liar of a nation, no other country lies more, not even chinka
There's no other feasible way to use a tank in that war without losing it immediately, due to sheer amount of anti-tank weapons of various sizes. These weapons also double as anti-infantry weapons because they go boom and people can't sustain much boom, it's why they're so prominent even if the amount of armor fielded there is minuscule.
it was claimed before and without geolocated evidence its just fairy tales for vatnigs again. at best its photo ops at some staging area closer to the border
>it was claimed before and without geolocated evidence its just fairy tales
Exactly. Same as any Leopards or Abrams. I'll believe it when I see one burning
You and thousands more. I want an Azovite to make the kill with quality ground and drone video of burning gopnigs screaming as they don't quite make it out of the vehicle, never to shill MY /k/ again.
Military equipment being destroyed in a war won't stop internet propagandists from doing their jobs, nor will it stop fanboys from fanboying. You're dumb and weird
i'm have no idea how israel didn't block the transfer of these to ukraine
also from what i have been told in the IDF, they don't have a lot of penetration against armored vehicles
THIS IS IT putin is deploying INVINCIBLE T 14 ARMATA directly to UKRANIAN TWITTER! soon the t 14 armata will conduct DEEP OPERATIONS and maneuver to attack the entire STRATEGIC DEPTH of ukranian twitter feeds.
This. The embarrassment of losing one to a Bradley is what the vatniks deserve. They'll probably say said Bradley was crewed by NATO super soldiers with a British Field Marshal as commander. It will probably also have a cloaking shield.
Same is true for driving into enemy ATGM killzone. No amount of armor can save you from being struck repeatedly by those huge frickoff rockets. >b-but I can just shoot at the MANPAD! they can't hit me if I hit them first!
First of all you can't, ARGM range is far beyond your cannon range. And second, even if you somehow could, good luck figuring out which one of those ten million single-pixel blips on your FLIR is the launcher.
>First of all you can't, ARGM range is far beyond your cannon range
What? Tank cannons have a 5km range
1 year ago
Anonymous
The most popular ATGM of Ukraine conflict - Kornet - has range of 8 km. There are modifications of this ATGM with greater range than that.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>The most popular ATGM of Ukraine conflict - Kornet - has range of 8 km.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet
1 year ago
Anonymous
sauce from the wikipedia article
https://armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2011/0720/16058936/detail.shtml
>The most popular ATGM of Ukraine conflict - Kornet
No.
1 year ago
Anonymous
sauce from the wikipedia article
https://armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2011/0720/16058936/detail.shtml
1 year ago
Anonymous
Here's your koronet bro
1 year ago
Anonymous
Not kornet.
They went into privet nook to suck each other off.
This is a warcrime.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>one goes behind a wall and presumably kneels >other approaches him and stands
This is actually plausible
1 year ago
Anonymous
Though so. Static Kornet positions are dead meat in this war. Stugnas at least have a remote control.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Their mistake was leaving their shelter while there was a drone airborne. Someone in there has to be very moronic to ignore this guideline, either the crew or their superior. Probably both.
1 year ago
Anonymous
With a speed of 320m/s. Cannons fire at 1600-1800 m/s. The flight time difference at those ranges is huge.
Also good luck hitting frick all at 8k meters using the sighting system on the kornet. Or a javelin or any other similar platform.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Javelin has a maximum range of 5km with a thermal sight and 12x zoom, dumbass
1 year ago
Anonymous
So less than range and zoom than a tank cannon. Which was my initial point
1 year ago
Anonymous
Do you have any idea how the Javelin works?
1 year ago
Anonymous
javelin is fire-and-forget.
same thing with the british saab tune im blanking on, but thats not really guided even though it tracks.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nlaw locks and tracks a target to a point. You still have to be able to place your shot or the missille will blow up on a wrong part of your target.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It doesnt track the target, it guesstimates where the target should be based on his movement or lack of it.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It follows the targets magnetic profile while in flight I don't know if tracking is a good word for it as Im a ESL dummy.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>can't move >not even enough to fill the line even though they left huge gaps in between
Dictatorships are such a fricking joke.
it isnt any kind of active tracking
it just estimates for lead based on how fast the user is tracking the target, ie. how quickly the gun is moving to stay on target
1 year ago
Anonymous
There absolutely is a form of magnetic tracking going on. I was trained not to have any cars or anything big made out of metal between the missile and the target when firing.
I bet This is a 5D Scrabble move to explain why they won't be at the parade in May. "They are all went to life on a farm in Eastern Ukraine. So sorry non could be at the parade:("
I just need to find his old accounts when he posted on military forums, for authenticity's sake. Someone here apparently found them all, but I don't know if there's an archived post.
>the starstreak is a shit product >has helicopter, aircraft and drone kills >praised by Ukraine >so much so they asked for more >Russia said they'd target people who used them >nooooooo there is only a dozen videos not hundred so it is shit
By that logic the Mistral is the worse AA system ever. Hell, don't even think we've seen Gepards down anything either. Don't be moronic.
Props for making isolated crew cabin I guess, now ammo cookoff won't kill the boys. Funny how every soviet autoloader tank technically had cookoff barriers but they were never hermetically sealed.
It's a cool tank but I honestly don't expect much of note from it. At the end of the day it's only a tank. This war exemplified very patently that people who thought tanks were hot shit have basically just been drinking their own kool aid, and factually tanks as a whole fill a niche that doesn't actually exist.
There's no scenario in which tanks make a difference. They don't outrange anything other than RPGs. Their firepower is inferior to plain old field artillery. Their protection can't reliably save them from anything more substantial than a bullet, and even then it can be crippled by machinegun fire. They're huge and unwieldy and you can hear them coming from literally several miles away, and the same weapons used to destroy clumps of infantry can be used to destroy tanks.
There are niches for mobile artillery, for light IFVs, for ultralight MANPADs, for lightly armored medivacs, for completely unarmored trucks. But there is no nice that a heavily armored limited range mobile cannon fills. Tanktards will insist that it is, based on some textbook strategy bullshit that is as detached from reality as cringey corporate memes are detached from comedy. Tanks don't have a niche because its entire gimmick - heavy armor - is just that, a gimmick. It's readily bypassed even by hand-held weapons, as per their modern state. And besides armor, tanks have nothing going for them. So for all intents and purposes, it's just a worse IFV that costs more.
Same reason why Russia uses increasingly old tank stock: it's a shitty mobile artillery, but it's a mobile artillery nonetheless. At the want of proper self propelled howitzers, you use tanks.
I've been in that war and I have never seen tanks used in any other role. That includes the multiple times enemy tanks fired at me from basically their maximum range.
>muh APS
It reduces the odds of successful hit, not by very much, for a very limited number of times and only exactly once per specific direction, with a chance that the system will fail altogether after the first connection due to the explosion knocking out the sensors.
So yeah. Turned out those are a whole lot of talking big shit and not a whole lot of backing it up. Much like 99% of everything else about tanks.
>muh APS
It reduces the odds of successful hit, not by very much, for a very limited number of times and only exactly once per specific direction, with a chance that the system will fail altogether after the first connection due to the explosion knocking out the sensors.
So yeah. Turned out those are a whole lot of talking big shit and not a whole lot of backing it up. Much like 99% of everything else about tanks.
On the topic of APS, specifically the russian Afganit IMHO makes too many poor trades in capability. It lets go of 360 degree protection for more rounds on the frontal arc, the interceptors themselves are non-articulated and predicated on turret orientation meaning you can still be hit frontally if your turret rotated too far to one side. It has no hard-kill capability against top attacks so it relies fully on soft-kill for those, I can't find sources on what the soft-kills are but I'm assuming IR smoke/chaff. I will give it that it has better ammo capacity and the interceptors themselves look much bigger which lead to better performance against APFSDS especially if they're EFPs but I'm not sure it's confirmed what the actual interceptor is.
APS is better than no APS but I'd much rather sit in a tank with thick NERA composite arrays and an articulated APS like Iron Fist even at the expense of APFSDS performance and round count.
I'd rather not sit in a tank period. It's not a motorized fortress anymore, nowdays it's a motorized casket. You're much better off on foot, just for the fact of not being a juicy target for everyone within 30 km radius. I suppose ideally you could ride a 50cc bike.
I'd rather not sit in a tank period. It's not a motorized fortress anymore, nowdays it's a motorized casket. You're much better off on foot, just for the fact of not being a juicy target for everyone within 30 km radius. I suppose ideally you could ride a 50cc bike.
Also, there's this one important thing of note. No type of armor can stop laser guided 152mm munitions. If you field tanks that can't easily be taken down by ATGMs, they'll be put on D-20 priority hit list which is actually worse because that shit is a guaranteed instakill.
>mobility, protection and high caliber direct fire are somehow not useful
So sick of this "thje tank is now obsolete" shit because we see Russian ones getting blown up left and right. It's a doctrine issue, not an issue with the tank as a whole becoming useless. Ukrainians still want them and need them, every nation is still trying to have the best next gen tank, so they are obviously still fulfilling a role that other vehicles such as IFVs, mobile artillery and various light armor are not.
>Another one of these smollest of smolbrain takeaways from the war
For the billionth time, stop extrapolating two poor, post-Soviet nations struggling with tank warfare (the Ukrainians by all accounts doing better, their issues seem to be down to type of equipment and lack of numbers and less on poor application) to mean rich, first-world, NATO militaries will face the exact same struggles. Every single premise of your post is fundamentally flawed for that reason. You assume Western tank doctrine looks anything like we've seen employed by either side. >We haven't seen a proper combined arms assault with IFVs and infantry moving in force >we haven't seen tanks outfitted with NATO sensors, equipped with NATO FCS's and ammo >we haven't seen tanks kitted with APS >hell we've *barely* seen tanks using smoke screens offensively or defensively.
When it comes to drones and tanks, none of the conditions on the ground are fit for extrapolation to Western militaries.
Well using them as artillery bears like 0.1% chance of losing the vehicle at each sorty. Using them as anything else and the odds skyrocket to 30+%. What little advantage they bring temporarily doesn't justifies losing such an expensive vehicle and its crew.
>temporary
To elaborate. Most /k/ wouldn't think it's a huge problem because their whole idea about using tanks comes from video games where the battles are not nearly as intense nor protracted as in real life, or there's just straight up videogame physics involved, so this factor doesn't comes into play. But in real life tanks have very limited amount of ammo and they run out very fast, at which point they have to abandon battle and run all the way back to the base. They typically run out of ammo in less than an hour, in particularly intense scenarios - within minutes. This isn't a make-or-break amount of power.
Oh hey what a blast from the past. Man, the cold war eastern designs were so... Wjhat do you mean it's from 2010?! Nononono. Come on! There's no way someone designed something that silly in 2010! It looks like an overgrown T-62 they strapped a whole ass arsenal on top of! Like someone tried and failed to modernize an IS3 by slaping guns on top!
How the frick did the Norks manage to build a 2010 MBT that looks like it'd get raped by an Italian 1990 8x8 (picrel).
Why are non Nato countries so technologically backwards, and why do they suck so hard at LOOKING modern?! It's not that hard guys, just drop the discount soviet aesthetic and we might take you seriously... for a few seconds at least.
Yeah I'm sure if they changed their israelite puppet every 4 years rather than having the same israelite puppet for 20, they could drive tanks better
Well, seeing how post democratic transition even Spain managed to have a substantial weapons industry. While Russia's has subsisted off of selling its soviet stock while its industry inevitably degrades into oblivion. I dare say changing your israelite puppet every 4 years allows you to be objectively more competent at making tanks.
Get Siestaed on, vatniks.
I don't think the guy making the video is reliable and is he clearly making his own propaganda but when even a third of what he say is true, eh, I'm giddy with anticipation at seeing the Ukrainian army curbstomp everything Russian.
It's really a shame Crimea will likely be too hard to retake.
All you needed to get out of it is that the Armata has a shit engine and laughably outdated optics and electronics. The shit engine is indisputable and literally broke down during it's debut in front of the eyes of the world. Then consider all the rest of what we've witnessed first hand in Ukraine and the absolute joke of Russian technology where they have to buy foreign electronics and cameras for their drones. Modern Russia cannot into tanks.
All you needed to get out of it is that the Armata has a shit engine and laughably outdated optics and electronics. The shit engine is indisputable and literally broke down during it's debut in front of the eyes of the world. Then consider all the rest of what we've witnessed first hand in Ukraine and the absolute joke of Russian technology where they have to buy foreign electronics and cameras for their drones. Modern Russia cannot into tanks.
So... who won?
Author video claim he is from Croatia, don't know if we can verify such things
There’s a low-IQ understanding of tanks in this thread. If you look at tanks vs ATGMs in a vacuum you can see how the cost-benefit ratio won’t favor the tank. But, we live in the real world in which tanks are a critical piece of modern warfare doctrine, ie, combined arms, sensor-data fusion, maneuver, etc. Neither side in Ukraine is capable of modern warfare so you shouldn’t take lessons on modern warfare from this war.
>If you look at tanks vs ATGMs in a vacuum you can see how the cost-benefit ratio won’t favor the tank
if the two of them fought in an empty void, the tank would just go around the ATGM because it has tracks and an engine
>critical piece of modern warfare doctrine, ie, combined arms, sensor-data fusion, maneuver, etc.
People can spin this as tanks getting carried by air support but even in that case they're still massively amplifying the effectiveness of those air strikes.
Did it fire at a forest and then show a bunch of dead ukrainians in a snow field?
Better yet, it fired at a forest and then showed a bunch of dead russians in a snow field.
>'Here is our claimed 'superior' Tank, let us just use it as an overly expensive artillery piece because the propaganda damage of loosing them would outweigh their actual battlefield capabilities'
>tank shoots at enemy
>HURR DURR THAT DOESN'T COUNT
I fricking hate you people
>tank shoots at enemy
You can bet they just fired in the general direction of Ukraine at best if they wanted to tell a partial truth, and nowhere near any Ukrainian position.
>he thinks the tanks were anywhere near ukraine at all
Kek
can i see the said shot at the enemy by armata?
show us a video you moron
Sir where are the proofs sir?
>Sir where are the proofs sir?
Oh, saar, I em verrry verrry sorrrry, but I have redeemed them, saar.
It shot in the general direction of the enemy. Does that count?
I fart in your general direction
>rolls over the border
>fires indirectly in the direction of Ukranian forces.
I used to fire a rifle at targets to my north while in Northern Vermont. Does that mean I was engaged in special operations in Canada?
You did you duty, man of /misc/
>he doesn't know
Who are you calling U people?!
we hate you too, gay
speak for yourself you hivemind Black person
sheni traki deda mogithan
>tank shoots at enemy
This still hasn't even happened, lol.
This, it’s toddler level thinking on the part of our new u/k/raine reddi.t friends
>Russia is bad
>therefore only things that make Russia look bad are true or real
why can ziggers not post a single time without immediately outing themselves? No one but you is this obsessed with reddit, trannies, gays, etc.
I guess you have toddler level reading skills too, if it took you until the reddit reference to realize that the post wasnt pro Ukraine lol. Now it makes sense why you nuggets need overly obvious cocomelon size flags added to your webms
Nah, leave tourist.
>calls other people tourist
Now I see that you have descended from toddler to parrot level language skills.
Leave tourist
>coke with outlandish claims with 0 (zero) evidence to back it up
>call the detractors names from the FSB approved list instead
gee
>>tank shoots at enemy
May I see it?
No.
by soviet doctrine, the best tanks are concentrated into mechanized divisions for the breakthrough and exploitation and the worst tanks are spread out to support infantry or expended in probing attacks
if a T-14 is used as a guntruck, then this is implicitly a sign that its an inferior model only good for moving at walking speed and shooting at bunkers and trenches
essentially making it a giant waste of money
the only "enemy" that tank will ever fire at is a cardboard cutout on a range. Russia is a pathological liar of a nation, no other country lies more, not even chinka
There's no other feasible way to use a tank in that war without losing it immediately, due to sheer amount of anti-tank weapons of various sizes. These weapons also double as anti-infantry weapons because they go boom and people can't sustain much boom, it's why they're so prominent even if the amount of armor fielded there is minuscule.
Wow all three of them?!
it was claimed before and without geolocated evidence its just fairy tales for vatnigs again. at best its photo ops at some staging area closer to the border
>it was claimed before and without geolocated evidence its just fairy tales
Exactly. Same as any Leopards or Abrams. I'll believe it when I see one burning
>they have not yet participated in direct assault operations
tl;dr: its not being used in combat
ALL THREE OF THEM?!
oh its a vid? cool i thought the sude was a picture
>russians claim T-14 is finally in Ukraine for the 200th time
Nothingburger
I'll cum buckets if one is lost to a Ukie larping as a SS Panzergrenadier using a Pzf 3.
Honestly I just want one to end up in some bog on the border, giving wise advice to nearby passers by, such as "don't invade Ukraine".
You and thousands more. I want an Azovite to make the kill with quality ground and drone video of burning gopnigs screaming as they don't quite make it out of the vehicle, never to shill MY /k/ again.
I don't think it's tank crews posting here
but the gif will become instant kryptonite to Armatards forever.
Military equipment being destroyed in a war won't stop internet propagandists from doing their jobs, nor will it stop fanboys from fanboying. You're dumb and weird
Unfortunately it appears that the PzF-3 supplies have been completly depleted by this point.
However...
i'm have no idea how israel didn't block the transfer of these to ukraine
also from what i have been told in the IDF, they don't have a lot of penetration against armored vehicles
THIS IS IT putin is deploying INVINCIBLE T 14 ARMATA directly to UKRANIAN TWITTER! soon the t 14 armata will conduct DEEP OPERATIONS and maneuver to attack the entire STRATEGIC DEPTH of ukranian twitter feeds.
Well, it is time for America to pay the bills!
Name of right?
Dee Williams
thanks!
How long before it ends up like the Terminator?
>1 destroyed after almost a year
So... as good as advertised? Possibly better?
It’s easier for them to never get destroyed if they are never deployed because they don’t actually work
You mean only one deployed after a year
I'm personally hoping one gets knocked out by a Leopard 1.
I don't care what does it so long as we see if it can beat the turret tossing world record.
For me a Bradley, either way I'd probably take the day off just to join the online hysterical laughter.
Bradley crews are probably going to be the first ones to encounter them anyway, so my money is on them
This. The embarrassment of losing one to a Bradley is what the vatniks deserve. They'll probably say said Bradley was crewed by NATO super soldiers with a British Field Marshal as commander. It will probably also have a cloaking shield.
We all know they're just going to drive them into a minefield anyway.
My thoughts exactly. Wether you send a T62 or a T14 into the minefield, TENK IZ TENK
Same is true for driving into enemy ATGM killzone. No amount of armor can save you from being struck repeatedly by those huge frickoff rockets.
>b-but I can just shoot at the MANPAD! they can't hit me if I hit them first!
First of all you can't, ARGM range is far beyond your cannon range. And second, even if you somehow could, good luck figuring out which one of those ten million single-pixel blips on your FLIR is the launcher.
>First of all you can't, ARGM range is far beyond your cannon range
What? Tank cannons have a 5km range
The most popular ATGM of Ukraine conflict - Kornet - has range of 8 km. There are modifications of this ATGM with greater range than that.
>The most popular ATGM of Ukraine conflict - Kornet - has range of 8 km.
Why yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet
>The most popular ATGM of Ukraine conflict - Kornet
No.
sauce from the wikipedia article
https://armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2011/0720/16058936/detail.shtml
Here's your koronet bro
Not kornet.
They went into privet nook to suck each other off.
This is a warcrime.
>one goes behind a wall and presumably kneels
>other approaches him and stands
This is actually plausible
Though so. Static Kornet positions are dead meat in this war. Stugnas at least have a remote control.
Their mistake was leaving their shelter while there was a drone airborne. Someone in there has to be very moronic to ignore this guideline, either the crew or their superior. Probably both.
With a speed of 320m/s. Cannons fire at 1600-1800 m/s. The flight time difference at those ranges is huge.
Also good luck hitting frick all at 8k meters using the sighting system on the kornet. Or a javelin or any other similar platform.
Javelin has a maximum range of 5km with a thermal sight and 12x zoom, dumbass
So less than range and zoom than a tank cannon. Which was my initial point
Do you have any idea how the Javelin works?
javelin is fire-and-forget.
same thing with the british saab tune im blanking on, but thats not really guided even though it tracks.
Nlaw locks and tracks a target to a point. You still have to be able to place your shot or the missille will blow up on a wrong part of your target.
It doesnt track the target, it guesstimates where the target should be based on his movement or lack of it.
It follows the targets magnetic profile while in flight I don't know if tracking is a good word for it as Im a ESL dummy.
it isnt any kind of active tracking
it just estimates for lead based on how fast the user is tracking the target, ie. how quickly the gun is moving to stay on target
There absolutely is a form of magnetic tracking going on. I was trained not to have any cars or anything big made out of metal between the missile and the target when firing.
thats the trigger mechanism, not tracking.
I bet This is a 5D Scrabble move to explain why they won't be at the parade in May. "They are all went to life on a farm in Eastern Ukraine. So sorry non could be at the parade:("
Is that a woman or a dude? I need to know what genitals it has when I pretend I'm fricking it later
I expect one at Aberdeen by the 4th of July of this year.
So they'll drag one to a middle of some forest, CGI some cannon fire and claim the destruction of a dozen banderist division?
Extra protection on their flanks? The Armata vehicles were all already wide as frick.
You mean it has G I R T H
Time to beat turret throwing Ukraine Javelin national record, do what you do best vatnik, you got it!
>some tank can drive but dont shoot
>some tanks shoot but cant drive
Never tought he was talking about armatas...
Isn't this like the 3rd or 4th time they have said this lol?
Are tanks truly obsolete now bros?
>copying donbabwe's move of wearing out all your tank barrels doing indirect fire
Are they that desperate to say armata did something?
>send your best tank into battle
>relegate to indirect fire because you are so afraid of it getting yeeting
topkek, russia never disappoints in this war
How long until the tractor brigade gets one and it ends up on a trailer in South Carolina?
I wish Armatard was still with us having meltdowns.
I want to feed his old posts to an AI and revive him as a horrible frankenvatnik AI monster.
Do it. /k/ needs its own robovatnik.
I just need to find his old accounts when he posted on military forums, for authenticity's sake. Someone here apparently found them all, but I don't know if there's an archived post.
Warriortard has taken up the mantle. As has Dennis. Possibly the same people.
warriortard isn't technically wrong though, the starstreak is a shit product
Hello warriortard.
>the starstreak is a shit product
>has helicopter, aircraft and drone kills
>praised by Ukraine
>so much so they asked for more
>Russia said they'd target people who used them
>nooooooo there is only a dozen videos not hundred so it is shit
By that logic the Mistral is the worse AA system ever. Hell, don't even think we've seen Gepards down anything either. Don't be moronic.
Warriortard and Glowie Screecher are sock puppet characters of Armatard, he's with us and seething like he always has.
God damn, that Armata has more introductions than a late 80s VCR dating tape.
Digits also nice reference
it debuted by shelling a flower bed in Belgorod
@57972828
yeah
>they use T-14
What, all ten of them?
Props for making isolated crew cabin I guess, now ammo cookoff won't kill the boys. Funny how every soviet autoloader tank technically had cookoff barriers but they were never hermetically sealed.
proofs?
as spg
It's a cool tank but I honestly don't expect much of note from it. At the end of the day it's only a tank. This war exemplified very patently that people who thought tanks were hot shit have basically just been drinking their own kool aid, and factually tanks as a whole fill a niche that doesn't actually exist.
There's no scenario in which tanks make a difference. They don't outrange anything other than RPGs. Their firepower is inferior to plain old field artillery. Their protection can't reliably save them from anything more substantial than a bullet, and even then it can be crippled by machinegun fire. They're huge and unwieldy and you can hear them coming from literally several miles away, and the same weapons used to destroy clumps of infantry can be used to destroy tanks.
There are niches for mobile artillery, for light IFVs, for ultralight MANPADs, for lightly armored medivacs, for completely unarmored trucks. But there is no nice that a heavily armored limited range mobile cannon fills. Tanktards will insist that it is, based on some textbook strategy bullshit that is as detached from reality as cringey corporate memes are detached from comedy. Tanks don't have a niche because its entire gimmick - heavy armor - is just that, a gimmick. It's readily bypassed even by hand-held weapons, as per their modern state. And besides armor, tanks have nothing going for them. So for all intents and purposes, it's just a worse IFV that costs more.
So why the ukies want western tanks so badly then?
to bomb donetsk children, slava ukraine!
hail hitler to that, brother
Same reason why Russia uses increasingly old tank stock: it's a shitty mobile artillery, but it's a mobile artillery nonetheless. At the want of proper self propelled howitzers, you use tanks.
I've been in that war and I have never seen tanks used in any other role. That includes the multiple times enemy tanks fired at me from basically their maximum range.
You fail to mention APS which adults fit to their tanks but these third world squabbles lack.
>muh APS
It reduces the odds of successful hit, not by very much, for a very limited number of times and only exactly once per specific direction, with a chance that the system will fail altogether after the first connection due to the explosion knocking out the sensors.
So yeah. Turned out those are a whole lot of talking big shit and not a whole lot of backing it up. Much like 99% of everything else about tanks.
On the topic of APS, specifically the russian Afganit IMHO makes too many poor trades in capability. It lets go of 360 degree protection for more rounds on the frontal arc, the interceptors themselves are non-articulated and predicated on turret orientation meaning you can still be hit frontally if your turret rotated too far to one side. It has no hard-kill capability against top attacks so it relies fully on soft-kill for those, I can't find sources on what the soft-kills are but I'm assuming IR smoke/chaff. I will give it that it has better ammo capacity and the interceptors themselves look much bigger which lead to better performance against APFSDS especially if they're EFPs but I'm not sure it's confirmed what the actual interceptor is.
APS is better than no APS but I'd much rather sit in a tank with thick NERA composite arrays and an articulated APS like Iron Fist even at the expense of APFSDS performance and round count.
I'd rather not sit in a tank period. It's not a motorized fortress anymore, nowdays it's a motorized casket. You're much better off on foot, just for the fact of not being a juicy target for everyone within 30 km radius. I suppose ideally you could ride a 50cc bike.
Also, there's this one important thing of note. No type of armor can stop laser guided 152mm munitions. If you field tanks that can't easily be taken down by ATGMs, they'll be put on D-20 priority hit list which is actually worse because that shit is a guaranteed instakill.
>mobility, protection and high caliber direct fire are somehow not useful
So sick of this "thje tank is now obsolete" shit because we see Russian ones getting blown up left and right. It's a doctrine issue, not an issue with the tank as a whole becoming useless. Ukrainians still want them and need them, every nation is still trying to have the best next gen tank, so they are obviously still fulfilling a role that other vehicles such as IFVs, mobile artillery and various light armor are not.
>Another one of these smollest of smolbrain takeaways from the war
For the billionth time, stop extrapolating two poor, post-Soviet nations struggling with tank warfare (the Ukrainians by all accounts doing better, their issues seem to be down to type of equipment and lack of numbers and less on poor application) to mean rich, first-world, NATO militaries will face the exact same struggles. Every single premise of your post is fundamentally flawed for that reason. You assume Western tank doctrine looks anything like we've seen employed by either side.
>We haven't seen a proper combined arms assault with IFVs and infantry moving in force
>we haven't seen tanks outfitted with NATO sensors, equipped with NATO FCS's and ammo
>we haven't seen tanks kitted with APS
>hell we've *barely* seen tanks using smoke screens offensively or defensively.
When it comes to drones and tanks, none of the conditions on the ground are fit for extrapolation to Western militaries.
TWO
MORE
WEEKS
Moeagareeee moeagareee Arumataaaa
Kidoooo Senshiiiii Arumataa! Arumata!
Are they too scared to use them as something more than a glorified artillery?
Well using them as artillery bears like 0.1% chance of losing the vehicle at each sorty. Using them as anything else and the odds skyrocket to 30+%. What little advantage they bring temporarily doesn't justifies losing such an expensive vehicle and its crew.
>temporary
To elaborate. Most /k/ wouldn't think it's a huge problem because their whole idea about using tanks comes from video games where the battles are not nearly as intense nor protracted as in real life, or there's just straight up videogame physics involved, so this factor doesn't comes into play. But in real life tanks have very limited amount of ammo and they run out very fast, at which point they have to abandon battle and run all the way back to the base. They typically run out of ammo in less than an hour, in particularly intense scenarios - within minutes. This isn't a make-or-break amount of power.
may I see it?
I know /k/ is seething at Russia and the T-14 is by all reports a piece of shit but can we all admit it looks cool as hell?
It looks like shit. The T-90 is a significantly sexier tank.
Agreed that the T-90 is sexier. But the Russians can't keep the Cold War tank aesthetic forever, can they?
No, but then again Russia isn't going to last even close to forever anyway.
It's a Lego tank ugly as frick.
T90 is peak Russian sexiness, especially the early model with the red eyes.
It looks like blocky chink shit
It's the definition of souless anon, T.55 or the T.-90 look cooler.
>t. Wears Che Guevara tshirts becuase they look cool
no
Oh hell no. The Song gun ho IV on the other hand
is pure sex, if only because you know you would spam the shit out of it in C&C.
Oh hey what a blast from the past. Man, the cold war eastern designs were so... Wjhat do you mean it's from 2010?! Nononono. Come on! There's no way someone designed something that silly in 2010! It looks like an overgrown T-62 they strapped a whole ass arsenal on top of! Like someone tried and failed to modernize an IS3 by slaping guns on top!
How the frick did the Norks manage to build a 2010 MBT that looks like it'd get raped by an Italian 1990 8x8 (picrel).
Why are non Nato countries so technologically backwards, and why do they suck so hard at LOOKING modern?! It's not that hard guys, just drop the discount soviet aesthetic and we might take you seriously... for a few seconds at least.
Calm down spastic he just said it looked cool, it's past your bedtime.
>/k/ finally gets to see the armata in action
>can't help but seethe because it's russian
very cringe tbh
It's bs. Same bs story also claims they used the T-14 in Syria.
someone should steal one and paint it purple and gold.
new point defense just dropped
Holy hell
meanwhile the Hipoint YC9 has yet to surface
America btfo forever, Russia wins the paperweight game
Prepare your anus hohols
>literally can't even move
Can't make this shit up.
Imagine the screaming.
>can't move
>not even enough to fill the line even though they left huge gaps in between
Dictatorships are such a fricking joke.
Yeah I'm sure if they changed their israelite puppet every 4 years rather than having the same israelite puppet for 20, they could drive tanks better
All evidence points to that being the case, yes
Based and Moderatepilled.
Well, seeing how post democratic transition even Spain managed to have a substantial weapons industry. While Russia's has subsisted off of selling its soviet stock while its industry inevitably degrades into oblivion. I dare say changing your israelite puppet every 4 years allows you to be objectively more competent at making tanks.
Get Siestaed on, vatniks.
>drive right into the mine field in your path
This whole column will last for a 10 minutes max
>eight of them
>only three are working
>two farthest back are wooden mock-ups
Nice quads, but there's six of them
Reminder
I don't think the guy making the video is reliable and is he clearly making his own propaganda but when even a third of what he say is true, eh, I'm giddy with anticipation at seeing the Ukrainian army curbstomp everything Russian.
It's really a shame Crimea will likely be too hard to retake.
All you needed to get out of it is that the Armata has a shit engine and laughably outdated optics and electronics. The shit engine is indisputable and literally broke down during it's debut in front of the eyes of the world. Then consider all the rest of what we've witnessed first hand in Ukraine and the absolute joke of Russian technology where they have to buy foreign electronics and cameras for their drones. Modern Russia cannot into tanks.
So... who won?
Author video claim he is from Croatia, don't know if we can verify such things
There’s a low-IQ understanding of tanks in this thread. If you look at tanks vs ATGMs in a vacuum you can see how the cost-benefit ratio won’t favor the tank. But, we live in the real world in which tanks are a critical piece of modern warfare doctrine, ie, combined arms, sensor-data fusion, maneuver, etc. Neither side in Ukraine is capable of modern warfare so you shouldn’t take lessons on modern warfare from this war.
>If you look at tanks vs ATGMs in a vacuum you can see how the cost-benefit ratio won’t favor the tank
if the two of them fought in an empty void, the tank would just go around the ATGM because it has tracks and an engine
>critical piece of modern warfare doctrine, ie, combined arms, sensor-data fusion, maneuver, etc.
People can spin this as tanks getting carried by air support but even in that case they're still massively amplifying the effectiveness of those air strikes.
Why is it that every time I look at this tank I just see another 'modernized' T-72?
>extra protection on their flanks
Wood or ERA?
Nooo! The parade is just around the corner! There will be only t34 left to show!
to everyone who watched Lazerpig's T-14 vid: Most of his vid was literally not true
Regardless of if it is indeed a good tank, Russians are so incompetent that they won't utilise them properly and they will be wasted.