Too tired to do research on this thing.
Can someone tell me if the T-14 is a gud tank or a joke
>>30580419
It makes my peepee hard and sticky fluid come out.
>>30580452
thanks for the information..
>>30580419
It will never go into mass production .
>>30580419
It probably might be a good tank and at the very least, the vehicle itself is fantastic but i have my doubts about the turret being armoured enough and wondering how tough all those sensors are. Not to mention how reliable the tech is.
It gives off a powerfull T-64 esque vibe with a dazzeling array of new features/technology that may or may not be matured enough to be mounted on a tank that will be serialy produced.
It's technologically superior to western tanks, but it will most likely never see real combat just like the abrams.
>>30580419
Is humanitarian aid, very good.
>>30580464
It's already did, lol.
>>30580419
It's going to be good tank, after few modernizations.
No real info out there, could be good, could be a flawed showpiece only good for internal propaganda.
My personal bet is that we'll see some sort of T-72++++ forming the backbone of russian armor for the next decades in russia.
>>30580419
It's likely capable, not actually that big of a deal though.
I already miss Cold War Russian aesthetics.
>>30580419
The theories they have for the tank is good, but since it is still under tests it might get changes. But for now, I'd say there's been some steps forward from the current meta.
Pic related. T-14 tank commander controlling a drone above the tank looking for targets.
>>30581615
Stitched feed from 2 cams and auto tracking of target.
Ameriboos and other denialist faggots absolutely buttblasted at it's revolutionary crewless turret design, which makes up for any flaws by ushering in a new era of tank design. Focus on crew survivability by having a lighter armored, unmanned turret for some reason fall on deaf ears on these people, who think blowout panels are the have-all be all of armor protection is what makes the Armata a truly world class-tank.
Negatives:
Russians broke-dick assholes make like 15 of them probably and run out of money
>>30581615
>Facebook button
>254 Spam Messages
>Catgirl button
>>30581515
>My personal bet is that we'll see some sort of T-72++++ forming the backbone of russian armor for the next decades in russia.
Nah. Those T-72B3M/4 upgrades they shill that would make a T-72B into a T-90 tier tank are so fucking cheap UVZ is complaining there isn't that much of a bottomline for them to bother with really. Not only that most of the upgrade work are done at the old LKZ plant(its basically a huge repair factory now) as the main Urals plant are tooled for T-90S/As and now Armatas. In fact they secured a few hundred million dollars loan just to upgrade their main factory for Armata- they, as well as the bank are that confident of a secure state order.
Besides the T-72B3 didn't quite perform as well as it should in the Ukraine, a few getting blown up even. They are now talking about armor upgrades most especially a full and comprehensive(no more ballistic gap on gunner's side of the turret) Relikt kitting as well as maybe replacing the internal composite armor. But that would just jack prices even more and the T-14 becomes even more attractive.
>>30581650
>Besides the T-72B3 didn't quite perform as well as it should in the Ukraine
Nice bullshit. Please, share your authoritative analysis with us.
>no more ballistic gap on gunner's side of the turret
Nice bullshit. This gap is inseparable part of the chassis. It would requite to fully remake the whole glacis to get rid of it.
>>30581677
>turret
>chassis
I should go get some sleep.
>>30581677
>This gap is inseparable part of the chassis
You don't even know what you are talking about.
>Nice bullshit. Please, share your authoritative analysis with us.
There were B3s in Ukraine, and some(2 on lost armor I think) of them did get blown up. Get with the times comrade, save the maskirovka for the next operations.
>>30580461
Would you like to hear more about hard peepees?
>>30581702
How were they blown up? In which circumstances? Doing what? How does this say anything on their performance? Please, share your authoritative analysis with us.
>>30581650
T-90 is essentially a T-72++++, new turret and all but it still a direct descendant of the T-72.
>>30581515
why not. as automatized systems are being actively incorporated into military activity, human tank crews in russian mbt's will eventually be replaced by remotely controlled modules and, in time, fully autonomous units capable of independently conducting military operations on the battlefield. in all likelihood, unmanned t-72 derivatives will stay in the field indefinitely, being put out against african mammals still manually loading shells inside hopelessly obsolete western designs
Who the hell cares about tanks anymore when you can just blow the fucker up with an ATGM from 20 miles away?
>>30580419
IF YOU WANT YOUR TANK TO YELL "HEY FAGGOTS I'M MASSIVE AND I'M HERE PENETRATE ME LOL XD" THIS TANK IS OF BEST
>>30580419
looks really shittily made from the outisde
easy crew kill
>>30581765
>T-90 is essentially a T-72++++, new turret and all but it still a direct descendant of the T-72.
And they stopped making them since 2011...
>>30581736
http://lostarmour.info/armour/
тип тeкникa: <select тaнки, т-72б3>
There you go.
>>30580474
Would be funny if in 10 years or so a simplified and cheaper T-14 came out which would sort of be the equivalent to the T-72.
>>30581862
>There you go.
This does not answer any of my questions. We all know a couple of B3 were blown up. Please, share your authoritative analysis on its performance with us.
>>30581887
What exactly are you trying to prove if you admit T-72B3's were there AND suffered unexpected losses.
>>30581871
>Would be funny if in 10 years or so a simplified and cheaper T-14 came out which would sort of be the equivalent to the T-72.
It is the el cheapo version of the Object 195, which was killed in the crib.
We already have the heavy IFV T-15 based on the Armata. What are the most likely platforms to be based on the same modular chasis?
>>30581797
>HURR DURR EVERY BATTLE HAPPENS AT EXTREME RANGE
Do I need to remind you why we moved away from full power cartridges?
If every battle would happen at range, then nobody would bother buying anything else than SPGs
It makes Ameriboos cry about how shitty it must be.
That is how good it is.
>>30582268
Some AA/SAM and SP artillery as usual.
I'm not convinced to crewless turrets though, but well, it'll be interesting to see if it's worth anything.
>>30582268
The third is an engineering vehicle, the fourth is a minelayer, I forgot teh fifth.
>>30582358
The fifth is a TOS-1 variant. Or probably an Uragan or something.
>>30582306
>If every battle would happen at range, then nobody would bother buying anything else than SPGs
>>30581887
>>30581736
What we see here is the proofster (tm), he has seen something about russia/russians/russian military he doesnt like, so he will questioning everything around it in a ridicules scale. You better have papers signed by Putin proving your point or he will call it fake, you russophobic and lament about a western campaign of russian hate, also western media only tell lies! Will we see him questioning other stuff? No, because he is a hypocrite.
>>30580419
I guess we'll know whenever it actually sees combat against an equivalent force.
Atleast they're leaving meme manned tanks to go into superior drones.
>>30581352
>but it will most likely never see real combat just like the abrams.
posts like this should be permaban material
>>30582306
>then nobody would bother buying anything else than SPGs
You mean ICBMs I'm sure?
>>30582268
That shit is absolutely titanic for an IFV
>>30582471
>It has a miniature 1/3rd scale BMP suspension
MFW
>>30582384
>Armata TOS
Mmmmm, delicious.
>>30581615
Gotta say, that's pretty nifty.. Is there anyone else that has integrated UAV consoles in a tank?
Seems like Russians are leading tank development once again. ERA, autoloaders, APS and now all this.
>>30581786
>Russian automation
Sorry, but this video always comes to mind, kek.
Sorry Russia, I had to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf14iXrRO0
>>30584704
>Seems like Russians are leading tank development once again
>>30584802
What exactly have Western tanks done in the past 30 years except to add mine resistant drivers chairs and ERA on the skirts?
>>30584853
>when corrected i will just make more stupid claims or question everything
what a rare sight of a poster...NOT
>>30580419
It hasn't seen combat yet, so there is no way to say for sure, but it could be theoretically really capable.
Same with the F-35.
>>30584853
everything else russia tries to catch up to
>>30584802
Itt: Butt blasted ameriboos as per my earlier post.
>>30585101
>abloblo abloblo
>russia stronk!
>u all mad!
it so boring...
by the way
how is that AIDS problem going in russia?
oh? numbers are still skyrocketing?
well...
better be prepared and buy yourself some evil fascists HATO nazi condoms )))))))
you never know when your officers come in your room and rape your little nigger ass
>>30581931
That suffering losses per se doesn't say anything about the performance. Please, quit manoeuvring and share your authoritative analysis with us.
>>30581643
Is important to stay connected, comrade.
>>30585202
You are doing the exact same thing, just not even slightly on topic.
>>30585202
>30585202
Come back when the americans have a crewless turreted tank. Clearly the next logical step in survivability by making a small turret profile, which can be well armored despite it's small appearance due to a lower internal volume needed.
This allows you to focus the armor protection onto the crew compartment and hull.
It's the next logical step in tank design.
How anyone gets so buttblasted and cries over the M1 being 40 years old is beyond me, m-muh loaders!
It doesn't matter how good it is when the Slavs only make a dozen of them.
Russa is a failed state.
>>30585406
>>30585749
>Russa is a failed state
Oh fuck off, their economy imploded 25 years ago.
Germany and Japan were in similar situations after WWII, except they received aid from the US.
Russia is healing on it own, it'll probably take a while. Comparing them to the US or USSR at it's height is retarded.
>>30580419
The truth is no one knows because it's never been in combat. Everyone thinks the M1A2 is a great tank but....if it were a great tank then they wouldn't have to throw an extra 2 feet of armor on it as an add on. Tank warfare is obsolete, guerrilla warfare is were it's at.
>>30586477
They're on their third depression level event in 25 years.
It would be tragic if it were happening to people.
>>30584853
> Panoramic thermal commander optics
> Solid state electronics
> Fiber optic wiring
> Battlefield Networking
All of these came on Western Tanks first, some before 1986, others after.
>>30586477
> Not comparable to USSR at it's height
> but sure blustering like USSR at it's height.
People in Prague and Budapest look at Georgia and Ukraine, and see very familiar things.
>>30586304
>>30586477
>>30587036
>>30587065
Please kill yourselves or take your national dickwaving to /int/ if you don't actually want to discuss anything weapons related.
Russia will never be able to afford large quantities of it.
>>30587294
Sure, when Vatniks stop shitting up every single thread they touch.
Every thread
> Hey guys weapon X
> some decent discussions
> Cyka blyat Poccи́я weapon stronkest, Moscow to Paris in 3 weeks. Fatniks perpetually BTFO
> thread derailed until it dies.
Americans and Euros rip on each other a decent bit, but nothing comes close to Vatniks.
>>30587386
You're literally enabling them to shitpost every time you reply. What do you get out of replying to them? You won't convince a retard to stop shitposting and the majority of /k/ already agrees with you.
Vatnik and chicom shitposting only happens because dumbshits keep replying. Just report and ignore.
>>30580474
So you're saying it's a modern equivalent of the IS-3?
>>30581635
>Crewless turret
>Revolutionary
America beat you to it you fucking vatnik.
>>30587716
>Never went beyond prototyping
Then again america has the money to splash on screwing around a little
>>30587868
And there's a reason it never went beyond that stage. The fourth crewman is too useful for just about everything in the field to lose him and the unmanned turret was seen as unnecessary.
>>30580419
It's a good joke.
>>30580419
Is gud. They just need to get someone that actually has the capability to build modern tanks to make it.
>>30587716
Fatnik, please. Soviets were developing tanks with unmanned turrets since early 70s.
>>30587412
>Vatnik and chicom shitposting only happens because dumbshits keep replying. Just report and ignore.
So you really think they would go away if you just ignore them? Oh sweet summerchild. They would just keep spamming til everyone thinks this is an official russian chan.
>>30589016
>>30587716
I like how the american turret version is closer to what they have now on the Armata then the russian prototype.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qBEuTzm.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>30580419
Aye. But can it fire 3 rounds a minute in bad weather?
>>30589191
I like how uninformed are you.
An Armata thread, would you look at that...strange how there are no more Armatards posts about the Armata being smaller than a M1 Abrams...i wonder what might have happen? Oh yeah, picture related happened.
Better save the image, because you can bet they will try it with the same garbage in a month again, like with probaly everything else before.
>>30589292
>tries to say otherwise
>actually shows he is wrong
you cant make something like this up
>>30589554
Fatnik, please.
>>30589605
You got a version with more randomly stuff plastered on it? Or only this removal van version?
>>30589681
I don't know about any other pictures of Object 477A.
>>30589681
Ivan! We need to move all the stuff! Just pile it up on the turret!
>>30589720
And still manage to claim otherwise...quality posting.
>>30589739
To claim otherwise what, retarded fatnik? Armata turret has nothing to do with TTB.
>>30589768
So you dont even know anymore what this was about? The train of self embaressment seem never to stop for you.
>>30580419
All tanks are a joked you freckle faced bitch. These antiquated glorified tractors are a waste of military money and resorses and are made fodder to a mudman with an RPGz. The money spent on these pieces of shot could be better spent on equipment that could save more lives. It's literally a fucking the the U.S. still produces them anymore but I guess if you tin foil wearing tank idiots can have your fantasy about being a tank driver none of the facts actually matter right?
>>30589831
>what this was about
>american turret version is closer to what they have now on the Armata then the russian prototype
Fatnik, please. You are not even trying anymore.
>>30587041
> Panoramic thermal commander optics
When it arrived its range advantage was in the 1.5 km stretches of flat land in the Fulda Gap and similar areas. The Soviets planned on reducing this limitation by firing illumination rounds across Abrams positions which was actually pretty workable. Still not that great as a dedicated thermal camera.
> Fiber optic wiring
Weight savings are nice but I'm inclined to disagree given how much of a pain it is to mend these things.
> Solid state electronics
Both sides introduced them roughly in the same time in their ballistic computers if I remember correctly.
> Battlefield Networking
Everyone was playing with radios, and even flag even before WW2.
>>30589866
Did you even checked the refering posts? I know that thinking hurts the Vatnik brain, but you should at least try it fromm time to time. For your own good!
>>30585202
>hohol speaks.
what do you think you're doing?
you can't just take the american dick out of your mouth! put it back in and keep sucking, salo eating faggot
>>30588671
More like cameras are still all shit then. Thermals for example can't be employed for extended periods of time like days on end.
>>30587036
>It would be tragic if it were happening to people.
t. importer of shitskins
>>30589888
>Did you even checked the refering posts? I know that thinking hurts the Vatnik brain, but you should at least try it fromm time to time. For your own good!
Oh the irony! nice trips btw.
>>30589925
>>30589893
>hohol
>t. importer of shitskins
Someone call 2014, it lost some butthurt vatniks.
>>30589933
>still not getting it
How does Vatniks even manage to get through their day with such brain capibility?
>>30589888
>Fatnik dementia
Fatnik, please.
>>30589833
This. Tanks are outdated in modern warfare and need to be replaced soon and are in fact going to be gone within the next twenty years.
>>30587036
That's nothing. Wait till Hilldog wins, she will prove why America is no.1, in everything, even at collapsing. That dissolution of theirs is nothing but child's play to what we'll see. Better stock up on guns and ammo while you still can and vote Trump.
>>30590018
Trump want to delete tanks from the military and use the saved usd for better equipment for the military. I don't blame him.
>>30589981
>How does Vatniks even manage to get through their day with such brain capibility?
Holy fuck the irony again!
>>30589944
He's bringing out the forced memes, ran out of retorts already?
>>30589998
You got any more of those photos? You know the ones that didnt actually helped your own cause or were actually rather the opposite?
>>30584732
I was expecting something more along the lines of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHFoVYGYOxc
>>30590048
>irony
>irony
>irony
>must repeat this word, hopefully people will. think. i win this argument through this
>forced memes
>hohol calling
It was real in your head wasnt it?
>>30590061
What opposite, fatnik retard?
>>30590048
>He's bringing out the forced memes
Which forced memes?
>>30590142
You keep trying to retort but the word "irony" really sticks. Like a jackass who keeps charging and gets repelled and smacked silly all the same.
>>30590156
oszilating turret
>>30589016
>>30589768
At best: non integrated optics and armor
>>30589605
And now look at this
>>30587716
>>30590194
Are you that assblasted Armatard? Your overall stupidity and clingy selfdeluded believe of being right, by dragging in new and throwing other stuff over board, kinda stands out.
>>30590261
Woah, woah slow down chief. Take deep breaths, calm down, its not your fault you are really that dumb.
>dragging in new and throwing other stuff over board
ahahaha the irony again. man this is good exercise for my core.
>>30590194
So you get butthurt over how there are similarities between the american prototype and todays Armata, contrary to the earliest russian models? And when getting paraded around for it you dont even get that?
>>30589999
Damnnnnn!!!!!!
>>30590226
Nah, you look at this >>30589605
>>30590310
>irony
>noun, used by vatniks trying to distract from the fact they perform poorly inn a discussion
>>30590319
I don't care about tanks. I only care about making both sides of the debate mad. I got the vatniks the other day, seems like a good day for the fatniks now.
>>30589016
At least post things that were actually functional vehicles instead of wooden models.
>>30590319
>similarities between the american prototype and todays Armata
Fatnik dementia.
>contrary to the earliest russian models
Except there are Soviet turret models both similar to modern T-14 and not. T-14 turret has nothing to do with TTB.
>>30590354
I did, retard.
>>30590364
And your argument is invalid.
>>30590351
i_was_only_pretending_to_be_retarded_jokes_on_you.jpg
>>30590345
Oh please, spare me the BS. Discussion ended 60 posts ago. Now we're just flinging bantz, and last I checked you can't even manage a single retort that didn't come back against you.
>>30590388
>i_was_only_pretending_to_be_retarded_jokes_on_you.jpg
That maybe so but I'm not the one seething in their dried sweat encrusted armchairs, furiously typing a reply a la tumblr landwhales when seeing something mildy offensive.
>>30590380
>And your argument is invalid.
You failed hard as a kid on those spot the difference pictures, didnt you?
>one version without armor
>one version with added armor
How can the armor be intergrated when its added?
>>30590389
More like you are dragging yourself through your own dirt much for oour amusement.
>>30590416
>oh noes
>i made a fool of myself again
>i must act like i was only trolling (C)
>>30590467
>oour amusement
>furiously typing a reply
>>30590491
You wouldn't be samefagging if you weren't so confident you could make your statement across with just one post.
Must be reaaaaaaally mad to wait about a minute to type in a reply you furiously typed in record time, then realized you had to leave some 30 seconds or so so it doesn't appear that you are that invested in getting a retort back.
>>30590389
So expert, bonus question: which off those turrets looks more similar to an uncovered Armata turret?
>>30587716
>>30589016
The answer might baffle you and explain why you made a fool of yourself.
>>30590380
>I did, retard.
Is that why your picture was a wooden model?
>>30590445
You still obviously fail hard at them since you are still desperately trying to bush your bullshit about T-14 turret being similar to TTB and not actual Soviet and Russian prototypes.
>How can the armor be intergrated when its added?
What armour, retard? The only thing T-14 and TTB turrets have in common is commander's sight on the top. The very layout of T-14 turret is much closer to Object 477A with various systems and electronics strapped on the sides of it.
Armata designers looking at Rheinmetall 130 mm gun. Guy on the rightmost is T-14 designer. Why he's smiling, no comment :)
>>30590575
Read the thread, imbecile.
>>30590591
It is an "ah we are fucked" smile.
>>30590612
Why are you trying to avoid that I responded to a picture of a wooden model.
>>30590549
>haha, you are furiously replying
>better reply furiously myself
And one would think, it cant get better with you.
>>30589881
>When it arrived its range advantage was in the 1.5 km stretches of flat land in the Fulda Gap and similar areas. The Soviets planned on reducing this limitation by firing illumination rounds across Abrams positions which was actually pretty workable. Still not that great as a dedicated thermal camera.
That's first gen FLIR on Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams.
The panoramics came on M1A2 and Leopard 2 KWS, they provided much better image quality and greatly improved commander situational awareness.
> Both sides introduced them roughly in the same time in their ballistic computers if I remember correctly.
NATO introduced the first ones, and were also the first to have completely solid state electronics. That's part of the reason that the Abrams and Leopard 2 had better stabilizers than T-72 and T-80, the solid state digital electronics allowed those 2 to measure the gyro more accurately and frequently.
> Everyone was playing with radios, and even flag even before WW2.
Talking things like Blue Force Tracker, which gave tank commanders RTS-like views of the battlefield.
And all that is pretty normal. The Soviets/Russians focus on the "hard" aspects of equipment design, NATO focuses more on the soft aspects.
>>30590591
Because he is an giggly idiot.
>>30590631
Why are you desperately trying to avoid that other pictures were posted after that? Is the urge to shitpost this strong with fatniks?
>>30590588
So which of those turrets is the clostest to the armata >>30589016 >>30587716 ? Could it maybe be that the early russian model turened out to be not so good and that america and russia came to similar conclusions in the end? One earlier then the other, which was the whole point to begin with?
>>30590733
With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
>and that america and russia came to similar conclusions in the end
Dat backpedalling, top kek. The difference is that Americans stopped at Obj.477 equivalent, while Soviets went further than that with strapping various equipment and sensors on the turret itself as it is evident with Obj.477A and subsequent Obj.195. TTB has nothing to do with them.
>>30589132
No, they wouldn't. I guarantee the vast majority of "vatniks", "chicoms", and other shitposters like gungrabber posts are bait specifically for you retards rather than an actual ruble poster.
>>30590826
>With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
Added non integrated armor and optics. In case you missed it or in your specific case try to ignore it so obviously.
>The difference is that Americans stopped at Obj.477 equivalent,
More like at the long run ended where the TTB was, what did the Obj.477 has that the TTB hasnt and was put on the Armata? Checkmate.
>>30590909
>Fatnik dementia
Fatnik, please. The only thing T-14 and TTB turrets have in common is commander's sight on the top.
>what did the Obj.477 has that the TTB hasnt and was put on the Armata?
All equipment strapped on the turret instead of chassis, retard. Which can also be seen on Obj.490A turret. The real question is what did the TTB turret have that the Obj.477A and Obj.490A didn't and what was put on the T-14 turret?
>>30590826
>Which of those two?
>The third!
>>30591027
>2+2=3, 2+2=5. Which of those two?
>2+2=4, retard
>Fatnik gets upset
>>30591003
>Fatnik dementia
I wonder why you always use this instead of my actual quote, is it because it would it rather obvious how non relating and wrong your answer is?
>Fatnik, please. The only thing T-14 and TTB turrets have in common is commander's sight on the top.
Also no oscillating turret, intergrated armor not just added, same thing for the optics. Talking about dementia.
> The real question is what did the TTB turret have that the Obj.477A and Obj.490A didn't and what was put on the T-14 turret?
Answered above.
You can now again say this had that, ignoring the differences on the models (one with oscillating turret,...), while in the end non model had all this like the TTB or Armata.
>>30591084
Which is more similiar? By your own logic and example given only the Armata turret itself could be the answer.
>>30590902
Doesnt explain why those groups are so heavily over present, when it would be more easy to use an not so obvious approach.
>>30591219
>heavily over present
Theres 2 or 3 "vatniks" in this thread out of 56 unique posters.
>>30590703
I responded specifically to one image, did your victim complex get triggered by having a wooden model get called out?
>>30591165
>Progressive Fatnik dementia
Fatnik, please. Neither 477A nor 490A have oscillating turret. Both have armour around the gun. Both have optics on the turret.
>same thing for the optics
What optics are there on the TTB turret with the exception of commander's sight, retard? Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>>30591195
With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
>>30591393
Like a complete imbecile, you responded specifically to a picture of a model, completely ignoring the subsequently posted pictures of actual functional vehicles.
>>30591003
>The only thing T-14 and TTB turrets have in common is commander's sight on the top.
crew positions, autoloader carousel with vertical storage
>>30591479
>crew positions, autoloader carousel with vertical storage
>Turret
Lol, fatniks. Anyway, even T-64 had vertical autoloader and the crew is in an armoured capsule, same as in Obj.299 project.
>>30591408
>nor 490A have oscillating turret.
>>30589768
>same thing for the optics
Added on the side of the turret outside the case of the gun not same case as gun.
>With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
That wasnt the question. Do you get that concept? Obviously you cant dare to answer as asked, because it would undermine your position.
>>30591567
>We had this on that tank, the other thing on another,...
>please ignore how this was all present in one american version
vatnik dementia
>>30591582
>Added on the side of the turret outside the case of the gun not same case as gun.
Just like on Armata, retard. Ballistic casing is not a part of the turret. Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>Which is more similiar?
>That wasnt the question
Fatnik dementia.
>>30591606
>this was all present in one american version
Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>>30591606
>this on that tank, the other thing on another
Obj.299 project included both an armoured capsule and vertical autoloader, fatnik retard. It was also meant to me modular, just like Armata platform.
>>30591677
>the americans were totaly going to release a tank with nothing of this! I swear on my babushka! This so revelant.
You are getting quite obvious desperate.
>>30591691
More tanks! You need to totaly drag in more tanks into this!
kek
>>30591432
>respond to a picture of a model saying don't post things that were not real
>"REEEEEE I POSTED REAL THINGS TOO!!!!"
fascinating
>>30591736
>Implying implications
This fatnik is of broken. Bring the new one.
>>30591749
>Projects in development were not real because no vehicles were built
But not this one. This fatnik is of broken too.
>>30591776
>This fatnik is of broken. Bring the new one.
aka i lost the arguement, hope no onne notices
>>30591567
>Anyway, even T-64 had vertical autoloader
The T-64 autoloader is an L shape in the stored position, the T-14 and M1 TTT store their ammunition vertically.
>and the crew is in an armoured capsule
The T-64 did not have an armored capsule for its crew.
>>30591794
>Didn't answer questions, resorted to implying implications
>Anyone else lost the argument
Lol, broken mad fatnik.
>>30591776
>Projects in development were not real because no vehicles were built
It went no farther than a wooden model, nothing was developed for it that carried on into future vehicles, it wasn't a real vehicle.
>>30591819
>Object 299
>T-64
pick one
>>30591808
Do you really think that non attached smoke launchers are important? It simply is so desperate. Kinda getting really picky, while being totaly blind for the obvious: russian tried a lot around, in the end the earliest version was totaly scrapped and they took different design choices to put something together what could be based on the TTB.
>>30591891
Dont you get it? If you want to have one tank that is closest to the Armata, you dont pick one but multiple instead. If you are confused by this "logic", i am too.
>>30591878
It was a real project.
>>30591891
>Object 299
>Armoured crew capsule and vertical autoloader
Pick both.
>>30591894
Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>what could be based on the TTB
Except it could not, since there were Russian projects and vehicles built that had far more similar turrets to the T-14 turret than the TTB turret was.
>>30581736
BUT THE PROOFS
>>30591932
You don't get it? If you got BTFO with the implication that TTB was revolutionary and then BTFO again with the implication that T-14 turret is based on TTB turret, you don't learn a lesson and stop posting, you start to shitpost immensely, refusing to accept objective reality until the bumplimit is reached.
>>30585228
It means either thr tank needs to be reevaluated or the Russians got besmerched by the Ukrainians in tactics.
One of the main strength of Armata (after superior technologies) is a modular design which is good for logistic, maintenance and the final price.
USA or others not even close
>>30591990
>It means either that M1 needs to be reevaluated or that Americans got besmerched by the towelheads in tactics.
I see.
>>30592013
rusbong shill detected
>>30591934
Tell me did the Obj 490 have an oscilating turret? >>30589768
Did the Obj 477 have added armor? >>30589292 >>30589605
Does this >>30589016 or this >>30587716 look more like the uncovered Armata turret?
Strange, how you keep ignoring the questions and only ask new ones by yourself. Could it be that you are just a dishonest hypocrite person? So afraid of admitting you are wrong? Why should anyone answer any questionns when you dont answer on your own?
How burgers can even competent?
>>30592041
>Did the Obj 477 have added armor?
Lol, are you implying 477A oesn't have armour around the gun the same way T-14 does?
>Does this >>30589016 (You) or this >>30587716 look more like the uncovered Armata turret?
With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>>30592013
Totally stolen from LKZ. Object-299 based IFV even looks like a goddamn T-15.
>>30592125
No shit nigga, Armata platform is ideologically a direct continuation of Object 299 project. Even the roadwheels are the same.
>stolen
Wasn't LKZ pretty much absorbed by UVZ?
>>30592076
>>Does this >>30589016 (You) or this >>30587716 look more like the uncovered Armata turret?
>With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
You were asked for two options, it doesnt matter if you mean something else is there, you have to pick one of the two. Cant because you would lose? Too obvious.
Answer the question:
Does this >>30589016 (You) or this >>30587716 look more like the uncovered Armata turret?
Any idiot can answer the question, can you?
>>30592212
With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>>30592041
>dishonest hypocrite person
ESL detected. You don't have to say person after hypocrite, its kinda redundant. >>30592041
>on
should be even instead of on. On kinda says he's letting others answer for himself and so far he does pretty all the replies himself.
>>30592076
>>Did the Obj 477 have added armor?
>Lol, are you implying 477A oesn't have armour around the gun the same way T-14 does?
So you spontanously think only the armour around the gun counts, or what? Rest doesnt matter? It better not or it would break. your artificial made "arguement".
>>30592241
>Question is about armour
>Answer is about armour
>you spontanously think only the armour around the gun counts
Fatnik dementia. Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>>30592224
>I got caught not answering again, better repeat questions that i made later, hope no one notices this tactic for retards
Squirming like from the start.
>>30592270
>Lies, I don't like your answer, you must play my retarded demagogy game
This fatnik is still of broken. I requested a new one quite a while ago. Where is it?
>>30592263
>Question is about armour
>Answer is about A SINGULAR PART OF THE armour
How convient. Again with questions and still literally NON was answered >>30592041. Only more evasive manuveaurs to evade the obviouus outcome.
Answer the questions.
>>30592295
You cant even chose one picture of two and expect it aint obvious? Answer the question, which one of the two?
>>30592314
Which other "parts of the armour" are you talking about? Ballistic casing is not a part of the turret's armour.
>NON was answered
Fatnik dementia. Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>>30592342
>LIES, PLAY MY DEMAGOGY GAME!
Where is a new fatnik? This one is completely broken.
>>30590591
the left
>well fuck our new armor is for the ass
guy on the right
>told you so
>>30592263
>Where is the stuff that can be easily added?
>Please ignore how the concepts of russian protoypes must be CHANGED to fit into it
>Also too stupid to distinguish between two pictures or answer a question generally
>>30580419
yuge yoke
>>30592385
>Where is the stuff
It is the question that you are supposed to answer. You sure won't, since you will BTFO yourself with it.
>the concepts of russian protoypes must be CHANGED to fit into it
Not in the case of the Object 477A.
>LIES! LIIIIEEES! PLAY MY DEMAGOGY GAME! REEEE!
What is it with fatnik supplies today? Or are all fatniks of broken? Must be the case.
>>30592352
>Ballistic casing is not a part of the turret's armour.
Especially not when it doesnt have integrated armor.
>>NON was answered
>>30592369
An A or B question asking for similarities, you failed to answer it. That says everything about you and no talking about broken this and that or about m-muh demagogy is going to fix that.
>>30592415
Answer the A or B question, retard. Yes, the one everyone can answer. No, not like you, that is what people do when they know the outcome and act childish.
>>30592429
What "integrated" armour, retard?
>NO! NOOO! PLAY MUH GAME!
The answer is neither A not B, imbecile fatnik. With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
>>30592465
>LIES! LIEES! DOESN'T COUNT! PLAY MY DEMAGOGY GAME NOW!
The answer is neither A not B, imbecile fatnik. With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
>>30592468
Wrong the answer is A or B. Answer it. There is no logical error that could not let this question be answered with A or B.
>>30592490
The answer is neither A not B, imbecile fatnik. With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>>30592481
Wrong! A or B? Everyone can answer such a question, why cant you?
>>30592499
Answer the question, the question can be answered with A or B without doing anything wrong.
>>30592037
That looks like Russian Blue, you're their shill.
>>30592505
>>30592519
>No! Lies! Play my retarded demagogy game nao!
The answer is neither A not B, imbecile fatnik. With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
Tell me, fatnik, where is gunner's sight on TTB turret? Fatnik, where are smoke grenade launchers? Where are APS launchers? Where are sensors, fatnik? Fatnik, please. Show these on the TTB turret.
>>30592534
How can the answer not be A or B? It was asked for similarities, how does it affect the question when there is something else? In no way. Answer the queestion, desperate.
>>30592556
Because neither A nor B is correct.
>Resorts to outright demagogy
>Calls anyone else desperate
Lol, mad broken fatnik.
>>30592568
It was asked for similarities, not something else, therefor any other answer is wrong. Answer the question.
>m-muh demagogy
>b-broken
Wont safe you.
Can we get lifetime ban for this guy?>>30592568
And a month ban for this one?>>30592606
Pretty, please?
>>30592534
"Sensors" and APS was not around in the 80s to the level deployed on the TTB/477a (drozd was quite frankly, terrible).
The TTB started devlopment 1 year before the molot.
The gunners sight is to the (stage) right of the gun on the turret.
>>30592606
>LIES, PLAY MY DEMAGOGY GAME!
This won't save you, imbecile. The answer is neither A not B. With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
>It was asked for similarities
I take it English is not your native language? Mykola, is that you?
>>30592671
Dont throw stones when you live in a glass house, my friend.
Your grammer is very terrible.
>>30592671
A or B can only be the possible answers, since they were only the ones asked for. Any other answer is incorrect.
>I take...
That you try everything to get out of this situation.
Answer the question. A or B?
>Russia thinking America can't reverse-engineer the basics of the design and improve everything about it
>>30592795
America had a basic T-14 in the 80s.
The drawbacks are not worth it.
>>30592802
So we coast on the Abrams and just hope?
>>30592669
>"Sensors" and APS was not around in the 80s to the level deployed on the TTB/477a
Deployed on 477A and 490A. TTB obviously lacks any sensors or equipment at all on the turret with the sole exception of the commander's sight.
>The TTB started devlopment 1 year before the molot.
And the SU was developing tanks with unmanned turrets since early 70s.
>The gunners sight is to the (stage) right of the gun on the turret.
That's where the coaxial gun is. And apparently some sort of an ECU.
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39182
>>30592702
>Lies! Play my demagogy game!
The answer is neither A not B. With the exception of Object 195, this one, retard >>30589605
>>30592802
>America had a basic T-14 in the 80s.
TTB was modular design?
>>30592844
Armatards, officially too dumb to answer a A or B question comparing looks.
Answer the question.
>>30582403
not him but
>what is burden of proof
>>30592795
"Must mock Russia by stealing design and making it better!"
>>30592872
The problem is; the proofster doesnt actually care for proofs, it is about underminding a position by demaning proofs on an unusual scale to descredit the reality that is not to his liking. Proofs presented to proofsters will either be ignored, ridiculed, declared fake, used as base for asking more (stupid) questions or demand more "valid" sources. At the same time any other information to the liking of the proofster is accepted.
>>30592844
First things first, tank-net is a known malware site. Dont go there, nobody itt go there.
That said...
>Deployed on 477A and 490A.
They both had a radar for drozd. Drozd was not that great, hence why i brought it up.
>That's where the coaxial gun is.
Yes, the coax is right above it.
>some sort of ECU
No, ECUs (engine/electronic control unit) dont have forword facing holes.
>>30592843
Your phrasing implies the Abrams is static and the same as it was in the 80's.
>>30592962
So what exactly changed? Abrams got Active protection system, modern NERA or at least ATGM firing from the gun?
>>30592967
From the base M1?
New gun, massively upgraded and new optics, massively upgraded armor, massivly upgraded internal fcs, new and then upraded battlefield networking (abrams true advantage, and always overlooked)
>>30592962
It's still a very old platform coming up on the limits of its ability to be upgraded.
It's a few decades old.
>>30593023
Thats simply not true.
Hell, by simply replaceing the data bus with fiber optic saved like 2 tons.
The base design is quite good. It was the SU designs that had to be scrapped because they ran out of room for decent and logical upgrades. Hence why the T-14 is designed from a very western veiwpoint.
>>30589833
All animes are a joked you freckle faced bitch. These antiquated glorified mangas are a waste of japanese money and resorses and are made fodder to a american teens with an cartoons. The money spent on these pieces of shit could be better spent on equipment that could save more time. It's literally a fucking the Japanese still produces them anymore but I guess if you tin foil wearing anime idiots can have your fantasy about being an anime fan none of the facts actually matter right?
>>30593036
Yes. The Russian design has greater potential for upgrades by virtue of not being a 30-year old frame.
>>30593036
> Hence why the T-14 is designed from a very western veiwpoint.
lol.
What is western in Armata?
>>30593083
The emphasis on the crew surviving combat for one.
>>30592947
>No, ECUs (engine/electronic control unit) dont have forword facing holes.
That's like what, 2-3 times smaller than the gunner's sight on M1? And what are the huge sights on the sides of the chassis then? Is there any viable source on the TTB layout?
>>30592994
> New gun, massively upgraded and new optics, massively upgraded armor, massivly upgraded internal fcs, new and then upraded battlefield networking (abrams true advantage, and always overlooked)
So basically not that much.
The paltform is still the same with the Joe nigga loader. Slow firerate, increased weight, lower speed, the lower cruising range.
So it's a extensive way of developing.
>>30593036
>they ran out of room for decent and logical upgrades
Riiight...
Reading this: >>30592932
Then seeing this:
>>30593101
>>30593083
>>30592967
>>30593100
> The emphasis on the crew surviving combat for one.
This is why the Abrams crew has not a single chance if the ATGM or shell hit the rear section.
Well, Kornet can even penetrate abrams in the front turret armour and reach blast doors inside.
>>30593036
>It was the SU designs that had to be scrapped because they ran out of room for decent and logical upgrades.
Bull. You can keep upgrading a T-90 the same way you could an Abrams. Heck apply the Object-640 turret bustle extension with AL and you practically eliminated the problem with unsafe ammo storage. They didn't because of diminishing returns- to the point that it would cost close to a fresh new tank that why even bother?
>>30593101
>That's like what, 2-3 times smaller than the gunner's sight on M1?
Its about the same size as the 3 other optics on the tank.
Logically, there has to be a gunners sight, how else would he aim?
>>30593125
>So basically not that much.
Wew lad.
>Slow firerate
Fire ratea between autoloaders and non autoloaders are roughly similar. Various youtube videos of m1s rapid fireing proove this.
>lower speed,
M1 is governed. Speed is not an issue.
>the lower cruising range.
Has more to do with engine choice than anything.
>>30593188
> Fire ratea between autoloaders and non autoloaders are roughly similar. Various youtube videos of m1s rapid fireing proove this.
This is absolutely nonsense in what fatnik believes. According to you loader is some kind of terminator machine who can't get tired. Not to mention the loader can simply lose the shell on the floor and kill everyone inside and also to load a shell tank needs lower the speed.
> Speed is not an issue.
> Has more to do with engine choice than anything.
Speed and cruising range is always issue, because it's the main characteristic of machine - mobility.
>>30593150
>>30593129
There is no other logical explication to have a tank roughly the size of an abrams, with an autoloading unmanned turret, than they needed a bigger tank.
Why would you get a bigger tank (that is now a bigger target)? More room for upgrades. No other logical reason.
>>30589191
That's a non point, like if a vatnik argued that because the T34 features a rear-mounted transmission and the M4 does not, the US copied the T34 when designing the M26 with rear-mounted transmission.
Convergent designs.
>>30592994
>new optics
They even fixed the wild, wacky wobbly GPS reticle that older models had.
>>30593251
>Not to mention the loader can simply lose the shell on the floor and kill everyone inside
I'm sure you can give me an example of that ever happening.
>>30592802
For the M1 TTB to be more than a viable design on its own instead of a TTB- Turret Test Bed, you would have to opt for a brand new hull. The M1 hull isn't bad for a manned tank but when you are putting everyone in there you have to redesign and beef up the upper and lower glacis completely..The paper thin upper glacis has to go, the side armor reinforced (There was a massive fuel tank on each side of the hull) and of course the lower glacis further reinforced.
>>30593125
>increased weight
Except for the part where they reduced the weight by replacing almost all the copper wiring with fiber optics. Shaved a couple tons off the total weight.
>>30593251
>According to you loader is some kind of terminator machine who can't get tired.
The average tank has 30-50 rounds. The average man can do 50 low weight reps without slowing.
>Not to mention the loader can simply lose the shell on the floor and kill everyone inside
You cant be serious. Lurkmore.
>Speed and cruising range is always issue, because it's the main characteristic of machine - mobility.
It also has little to do with autoloader vs no autoloader.
>>30593257
Except bigger does not necessarily mean greater scope for potential upgrades. Consider when trying out a new gun: both legacy Western and Eastern tanks have to get a new turret as well if they want the same performance aside from firepower from these guns.
>>30593334
>Except bigger does not necessarily mean greater scope for potential upgrades.
You can put more things in a bigger box anon, not to meantion redundancys, engine size, etc.
>Consider when trying out a new gun: both legacy Western and Eastern tanks have to get a new turret as well if they want the same performance aside from firepower from these guns.
M1 made the move from 105 to 120 without a new turret
>>30593329
>The average man can do 50 low weight reps without slowing.
This is a terrible comparison as only a small number of ready rounds, 18 on Abrams, 15 on Leopard 2 and Ariete and Merk IV only has 10. Once those are expended you need to get rounds out of the hull storage which significantly lowers the rate of fire.
Autoloaders typically have more rounds ready to fire, 22 for T-72/90 as well as the Leclerc but reloading the autoloader takes a while, although in the case of the Leclerc the autoloader can be bypassed and the gun can be loaded manually.
>>30593341
>M1 made the move from 105 to 120 without a new turret
AFAIK it was designed to accept 105 mm rifled but with provisions for a 120 mm Rheinmetall gun. The margin for allowance isn't enough for anything beyond that however which is why the L/55 was not brought for the next firepower upgrade.
lads there was a previous thread about how could an infantry man kill a tank
would a sticky bomb infused with thermite with something that can burn hot enough to ignite the thermite be a good option?
i was also thinking you can just shoot it with one of those t-shirt bazooka's....
could this work....
