This honestly.
Before the war we at least kinda thought that Russia had an alternate strategy to military power. They were alternate, novel, interesting, and that was how they seemed.
But now we know that actually it was (as the cards did kinda point) utter shit, Russia is now offensive to many /k/ommando's, for being so disappointing, and for letting the whole idea of "alternate military power method" turn out to be fake.
>good idea bad execution seething homosexual
no its a terrible idea and terrible execution
Unmanned turrets for MBTs is a terrible idea.
they shift all the thick armor on the turret down to the Hull to protect the 3 man crew inside of said hull.
This means that the turret needs to weight less or your tank will weight 10-20 tons more than one you currently produce.
Because the turret now weights less because you removed most of the armor up there the Gun and and all visual components need to operate the tank are exposed to lighter enemy fire than before.
If you want to protect against that lighter enemy fire then you need to up armor the turret to protect all the components up there.
Now you have a MBT that weighs a frick ton that offers a negligible increase in survivability.
Abrams X is a perfect example of it being a shit design, >Move crew into the hull >Add more armor to the hull >to protect the turret they kept the same amount of armor that is currently there.
They say it won't weight more but the armor they add to the hull (as well as making the hull larger to accept 3 crew side by side) will increase the tanks weight by 10-20 tons. >Survivability doesn't change because the crew is behind the same fricking thickness of armor that it would be if they sat in the turret.
A smaller, unmanned turret with the same protection level as a manned one is obviously going to be lighter since you don't have a frickhuge crew compartment to protect, just the gun and autoloader. Are you moronic?
>faster >more range (less need for resupply) >can cross more bridges >can be carried by more aircraft >smaller target >increased crew survivability
you're right, none of these are advantages
11 months ago
Anonymous
>faster
Slower because it weighs more >more range (less need for resupply)
It weighs more >can cross more bridges
less bridges because it weighs more >can be carried by more aircraft
Fewer aircraft can carry them >smaller target
Almost no impact in modern tank combat. >increased crew survivability
An insanely small increase in survivability on a platform that weighs more and can go to fewer areas because it weighs more
I did write out explaining the advantages but then I realised it would be wasted on a moron like you so I stopped.
there are no real advantages for an Unmanned turret in an MBT.
for lighter vehicles they are good because they actually do increase the survivability of the vehicle fighting against other vehicles in a defensive position significantly. For MBTs the weight increase for a fraction of a percent increase in survivability does not make it an advantage.
if you fire from defilade with an unmanned turret no people are exposed
you can do the same with a current western MBT and have no threat to the crew.
All tank battles have been determined by who sees who first and who fires first, If you're in a western tank part of a western army which has communication between units and actually practices recon, you will see the enemy first.
11 months ago
Anonymous
your whole thing seems to be based on your assumption that tank manufacturers are "just lying about weight bro trust me". And you put a lot of faith into your assumption of "muh western invincible combined arms awareness" which has been true in the past but is moronic to think that's a guarantee.
People are important and thats not including how expensive and critical they are, a mission killed vehicle is just an inconvenience. a "marginal improvement in survivability" is a based and redpilled goal.
russBlack folk could just slap digital 3d models in blender and morons like you would still call it a "great tank", holy shit i hate r*ssiaboos so much it's unreal
I fricking hope that ukies get the design from them after the war and atcualy make it functional tank due it looks nice on paper its decent and they will want a domestic made tank in NATO standards
If they introduce a new tank post war it'll probably either be a new design, or a domestic variant of an existing western tank. Personally I'm more excited to see what their westernized T-series tanks are gonna look like.
No part of T14 is appropriate for western standards and tbh it'a fricking moronic anyway. Ukraine will buy Leos or Abrams or develop an indigenous T84 successor.
Bustle autoloader would have still been better. You could have made the frame smaller with the same level of crew protection. Make the bustle easily swappable with blowout panels and you dont even need to care too much if it blows.
>It's a great tank
Serious question: does the A-85-3A engine factor into your assessment? Because that level of noise and unreliability -- moving slowly on a level parade ground, under the supervision of a bunch of technicians -- falls somewhat short of "great" for me.
Engine is mild steel or aluminium and basically only useful as spaced Armor against HEAT, it doesn't do much against KE penetrators.
By putting the engine in the front, you make the hull of the tank taller and increase the area than needs Armor protection.
This reduces effective Armor protection.
> less incentive for Russian MIC to launder money > money will actually go to procurement
little did adidas know they were actually supporting Ukraine by selling to Russians...
Nah. Now it's coming in via the black market, meaning the same corrupt officials have to embezzle even more to be able to keep buying their Adidas stuff.
Can't find it right now but saw a video today of Russians filming a train loaded with only T-55s in Voronezh today, going towards Ukraine. (Voronezh is already close to the front, it was one of the cities in russia Wagner captured in the coup)
Unpopular opinion, I unironically fricking love the St. George's Ribbon/Red Star combination. Two historic symbols blended into a very sleek and modern logo.
Russia would have win in just two weeks had they used this
They are saving it for when the real war starts
>would have win
Indeed, ESL-kun, indeed.
Soon...
Please, not the Czechoslovak T-34
OH SH-
>All the advantages of the autoloader but nobody in the turret
/k/ will seethe but It's a great tank
I could design a great tank too if it never actually had to see combat .
its a good idea on paper
problem is its still gonna be on fricking paper if you never try it on the damn field
sizeable portion of /k/ seething about this war is just how much of the Russian military has turned out to be vaporware
This honestly.
Before the war we at least kinda thought that Russia had an alternate strategy to military power. They were alternate, novel, interesting, and that was how they seemed.
But now we know that actually it was (as the cards did kinda point) utter shit, Russia is now offensive to many /k/ommando's, for being so disappointing, and for letting the whole idea of "alternate military power method" turn out to be fake.
good idea bad execution seething homosexual
>good idea bad execution seething homosexual
no its a terrible idea and terrible execution
Unmanned turrets for MBTs is a terrible idea.
they shift all the thick armor on the turret down to the Hull to protect the 3 man crew inside of said hull.
This means that the turret needs to weight less or your tank will weight 10-20 tons more than one you currently produce.
Because the turret now weights less because you removed most of the armor up there the Gun and and all visual components need to operate the tank are exposed to lighter enemy fire than before.
If you want to protect against that lighter enemy fire then you need to up armor the turret to protect all the components up there.
Now you have a MBT that weighs a frick ton that offers a negligible increase in survivability.
Abrams X is a perfect example of it being a shit design,
>Move crew into the hull
>Add more armor to the hull
>to protect the turret they kept the same amount of armor that is currently there.
They say it won't weight more but the armor they add to the hull (as well as making the hull larger to accept 3 crew side by side) will increase the tanks weight by 10-20 tons.
>Survivability doesn't change because the crew is behind the same fricking thickness of armor that it would be if they sat in the turret.
A smaller, unmanned turret with the same protection level as a manned one is obviously going to be lighter since you don't have a frickhuge crew compartment to protect, just the gun and autoloader. Are you moronic?
Overall the weight of the Tank increase for no increase in survivability,
unmanned turrets in MBT are a waste of time and resources.
>faster
>more range (less need for resupply)
>can cross more bridges
>can be carried by more aircraft
>smaller target
>increased crew survivability
you're right, none of these are advantages
>faster
Slower because it weighs more
>more range (less need for resupply)
It weighs more
>can cross more bridges
less bridges because it weighs more
>can be carried by more aircraft
Fewer aircraft can carry them
>smaller target
Almost no impact in modern tank combat.
>increased crew survivability
An insanely small increase in survivability on a platform that weighs more and can go to fewer areas because it weighs more
there are no real advantages for an Unmanned turret in an MBT.
for lighter vehicles they are good because they actually do increase the survivability of the vehicle fighting against other vehicles in a defensive position significantly. For MBTs the weight increase for a fraction of a percent increase in survivability does not make it an advantage.
you can do the same with a current western MBT and have no threat to the crew.
All tank battles have been determined by who sees who first and who fires first, If you're in a western tank part of a western army which has communication between units and actually practices recon, you will see the enemy first.
your whole thing seems to be based on your assumption that tank manufacturers are "just lying about weight bro trust me". And you put a lot of faith into your assumption of "muh western invincible combined arms awareness" which has been true in the past but is moronic to think that's a guarantee.
People are important and thats not including how expensive and critical they are, a mission killed vehicle is just an inconvenience. a "marginal improvement in survivability" is a based and redpilled goal.
I did write out explaining the advantages but then I realised it would be wasted on a moron like you so I stopped.
if you fire from defilade with an unmanned turret no people are exposed
>autoloader is based on the t-64/72 death ring
those advantages are now meaningless
russBlack folk could just slap digital 3d models in blender and morons like you would still call it a "great tank", holy shit i hate r*ssiaboos so much it's unreal
>Makes (supposedly) amazing tank
>Can't produce more then 13
Yes truly genius
The T-14 would be a great platform, if only the thing actually fricking worked
...
I fricking hope that ukies get the design from them after the war and atcualy make it functional tank due it looks nice on paper its decent and they will want a domestic made tank in NATO standards
If they introduce a new tank post war it'll probably either be a new design, or a domestic variant of an existing western tank. Personally I'm more excited to see what their westernized T-series tanks are gonna look like.
Aren't they hoping to go all in on that new oplot tank? I know they're pretty proud of their t-80, so I imagine some sort of Westified version of that
No part of T14 is appropriate for western standards and tbh it'a fricking moronic anyway. Ukraine will buy Leos or Abrams or develop an indigenous T84 successor.
Bustle autoloader would have still been better. You could have made the frame smaller with the same level of crew protection. Make the bustle easily swappable with blowout panels and you dont even need to care too much if it blows.
what are you going to do with your tank when the turret is in geostationary orbit after the first hit?
>It's a great tank
Serious question: does the A-85-3A engine factor into your assessment? Because that level of noise and unreliability -- moving slowly on a level parade ground, under the supervision of a bunch of technicians -- falls somewhat short of "great" for me.
I also can't wait to see it's turret enter low-orbit.
if they were going all out with survivability why not put the engine in the front?
already patented
It is flat frick Thursday
Front engine location in a tracked vehicle is not patentable due to ancient prior art,
Engine is mild steel or aluminium and basically only useful as spaced Armor against HEAT, it doesn't do much against KE penetrators.
By putting the engine in the front, you make the hull of the tank taller and increase the area than needs Armor protection.
This reduces effective Armor protection.
that makes sense. wouldnt the spacing of the engine increase penetrator yaw tho?
That would be entirely dependent on the size of the engine.
The abrams would still be the same height if they moved its engine to the front and then changed the exhaust to the sides.
Checked and true. Turbines are especially lightweight and rather soft compared to recip engines.
armatabros...
> less incentive for Russian MIC to launder money
> money will actually go to procurement
little did adidas know they were actually supporting Ukraine by selling to Russians...
Nah. Now it's coming in via the black market, meaning the same corrupt officials have to embezzle even more to be able to keep buying their Adidas stuff.
Haven't the whole project been canceled?
soon
russia so scared of lgbt they cant even make functioning troonys anymore
>soon comrades...
Soon piggies will squeal at sight of mighty T-18 tank pulled from warehouse!
We save it all these years just in case!
Can't find it right now but saw a video today of Russians filming a train loaded with only T-55s in Voronezh today, going towards Ukraine. (Voronezh is already close to the front, it was one of the cities in russia Wagner captured in the coup)
Its happening https://twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1676309803117735951
>https://twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1676309803117735951
tanks in 30 min
Good Elon goys...
I am still sad we missed the kino coup timeline where in the only a actual combat use of a T14 is defending Moscow against a literal mercenary mutiny
Unpopular opinion, I unironically fricking love the St. George's Ribbon/Red Star combination. Two historic symbols blended into a very sleek and modern logo.
Frick Ziggers and Frick Russia though.
I think their military is more aesthetic than Ukraine right now.
Ya it's definitely aesthetic af... too bad it's wasted on ziggies
t-14 was already spotted in ukraine. Months ago at that.