So now that the USA has reconciled with Russia, is it time to

We will as a soon as we find one.

File: m1a2sep2_abrams.jpg (368KB, 1350x750px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1350x750px

>>31972109
Whew that was a close one, the USA doesn't use a tank called 'Abrahams'.

>>31972174
What this dude said.

Also, just FYI OP, the plant that made the T-14 is facing severe financial problems.

>>31973234
So is all of Russia. Won't stop them.

>>31973287
ayyyyy

>>31972109
that tank is about as real as the building behind it

>>31974839

Well it's Russia, what do you expect.

>>31974839
>Buildings under renovation are not real
Kek.

>>31972109

Yeah, it's called the M1A3

File: laughing muscovites.png (147KB, 622x562px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 622x562px

>>31976251
>The M1A3 Abrams was in the early design period with the U.S. Army in 2009. At that time, the service was seeking a lighter tank version with the same protection as current versions. It aimed to build prototypes by 2014 and begin fielding the first combat-ready M1A3s by 2017.[25][45] Recent program documents suggest that the U.S. Army plans to start the research and development for the M1A3 in 2020.[24]

>>31972109
Why doesn't the west put autoloaders in their tanks?

>>31974874
No, its just a facade just like the T-14.

>>31972109
See that little black mud-flap looking strip just above the wheels? That's an IR-reducing piece of rubber. That big side ERA-composite doesn't extend down to cover the whole hull. What this means is, about 1/4 of the lower side hull is only about 190RHA effective armor.

Aim low and that protected crew compartment gets lit up.

Tell me what the Armata does that the Abrams doesn't.

Seriously, what advantages does it have?

>>31981252
The tank is designed from the begging to defeat ATGMs and has heavily integrated radar systems. Even the machine gun will target incoming missiles automatically before the APS softkill and hard kill activate. The MG is the first layer, the the smoke and ECM is second, third layer is the anti missile projectiles stored in the tubes around the turret, finally there's a close range anti missile explosive in some armor blocks that explode if all others failed.

The UK appears somewhat worried about them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/uk-military-intelligence-issues-warning-over-russian-super-tank/

I think the main fear is a group of T-14s breaking through defensive lines and destroying critical assets. In the past infantry with ATGMs, IFV with ATGM and helicopters would have prevented this if it were T-72/80/90. Now they would need challenger 2 everywhere, which are slower and may not even beat T-14s in equal numbers. Of course aircraft can still easily destroy T-14s but calling in airstrikes takes time.

>>31974874
I always liked that about Russia, I wish we did that over here so you didn't have to see the building all torn up getting worked on.

>>31972109
Will there even be numbers of those that actually matter in the next years?

>>31982730
I don't know if it'd be that hard to implement APS in the Abrams.

It seems like you could build a self contained module and just bolt that shit on top.

Certainly, the fire control system and sensors on the Abrams are already top notch.

Also, if burgers are the ones shooting at it, the worst threat isn't ATGMs so much as APFSDS travelling at the speed of rape, which would be harder to deal with with APS.

Honestly I'm more excited and the K2 and it's ability to fire top attack ATGMs and shoot at helicopters with the main gun.

>>31978767
Because then you don't have the option of putting your penis in the breech.

>>31978767
25% decrease in the amount of spastics you can keep out of crime

>>31982813
>Also, if burgers are the ones shooting at it, the worst threat isn't ATGMs so much as APFSDS travelling at the speed of rape, which would be harder to deal with with APS.
It's not really tank vs tank that is the issue but the T-14 gives additional advantages that are hard to counter.

Say you have supply logistics, artillery or command around 30km from the front line. Previously you could defend against armored attacks by setting up ATGM positions and AFVs with missiles. Now if 10 T-14s decide to launch a surprise attack on the position, the ATGMs won't stop them, the IFVs will be slaughtered, the T-14s will destroy everything then be gone before air support can be called in.

Now while western forces could defend with their own tanks, this causes a huge loss in mobility and strain on logistics. Also consider the conflict the T-14 is designed for, it would likely fight in eastern europe, where there's not thousands of Abrams ready to go. Initially it would be up against old Leo2A4 and other outdated hardware. Euros would be stuck relying on the USAF to destroy T-14s.because their land forces have few options against it.

Even 1v1 M1A2 vs T-14 isn't a certainty, they would be relying on the ability to field more M1A2s than Russia can T-14.

>>31983063
>ATGMs won't stop them
Fucking autistic. If people could just stop treating APS as magical space tech that will kill every threat, APS just gives a chance of protection, same shit as fucking ERA which often doesnt give the the said RHA protection, since it is strongly angle and position dependent.

>>31983358
>Fucking autistic. If people could just stop treating APS as magical space tech that will kill every threat, APS just gives a chance of protection, same shit as fucking ERA which often doesnt give the the said RHA protection, since it is strongly angle and position dependent.
There's a big difference between a simple APS add on and a tank built around multiple layers of missile defense.

Imagine trying to hold a position against 5 or so advancing T-14s. Say you have 5x TOW or Milan type ATGM. The ATGM launchers fire first, all 5 T-14s open fire with their MG at incoming ATGMs, 1 or 2 are hit at long range, the AESA reveals launch positions at least one gets hit before missiles reach the target, t-14s automatically fire smoke grenades and activate ECM, one lone TOW makes it through only to be destroyed by hard kill APS.

The T-14s are now surrounded by smoke, know the location the ATGMs fired from and are firing at them with 125mm HE-frag.

The same thing will happen with any IFVs but the T-14 will have an even easier time spotting them and they have no defense against 125mm APFDS.

>>31982730
>The UK appears somewhat worried about them.
with the state of the UK military and current politics, they'd be worried about Vespas with 20mm guns on them.

>>31983925
It's not perfect, but this is easily defeated in a defensive hold, where you're saying the t14 is in the offensive with the surprise of their armor, defensive ifvs fire 25mm, fuck up optics and defense system, then wing man fires tow. This is the tactic already practiced and employed when it's ifv vs tank.
Now, when ifv goes offensive against the t14 in a defensive position, then there's a capability gap-which the army is already addressing by attaching a company of tanks to bradley cav formations as hunter killer teams.

>>31972109

When does the 152mm gun get finished?

>>31984044
probs never

>>31972109
>USA has reconciled with Russia

Stop trying to make this a meme. Just because the next president is a vatnik traitor doesn't mean the whole country is.

>>31984007
>It's not perfect, but this is easily defeated in a defensive hold, where you're saying the t14 is in the offensive with the surprise of their armor, defensive ifvs fire 25mm, fuck up optics and defense system, then wing man fires tow. This is the tactic already practiced and employed when it's ifv vs tank.
>Now, when ifv goes offensive against the t14 in a defensive position, then there's a capability gap-which the army is already addressing by attaching a company of tanks to bradley cav formations as hunter killer teams.
That sounds pretty optimistic, autocanons aren't that accurate at 1500-2000m the odds of shooting out multiple tanks sensors before they return fire and destroy the IFVs are poor.

Infantry and AFVs just aren't going to be able to safely deal with them like they could T-72s

>>31984007
>easily
I'd shit my pants as an IFV crew if a whole lot of T-14 were rushing my position without any MBT on my side

>>31983961
Or people with unregistered butter knives.

>>31982730
>The tank is designed from the begging to defeat ATGMs and has heavily integrated radar systems. Even the machine gun will target incoming missiles automatically before the APS softkill and hard kill activate

Stopped reading here.

>>31978767
Because autoloaders are not an automatic advantage.

>>31984123
The election is over CTR.

>>31978767
manually, you can choose which ammo is relevant to shoot next, and where ammo is stored is another contributing factor

>>31983925

What if you have Javelin ATGMs which are designed to pop the top of tanks? I doubt that the T-14 has the ability to defend from missiles coming from directly above it, and by doubt I mean Javelins will destroy T-14s, and are widely issued to US infantry units.

Also, another way to more or less easily dispatch T-14s would to move Apache helicopters closer to the front. If an Apache Longbow loaded with nothing but 4 racks of 4 hellfires a piece gets a hold of them, the tanks are done.

>>31978767
because then they would have to allow women in tanks

File: p1633366.jpg (193KB, 738x1087px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 738x1087px

>>31984477
>What if you have Javelin ATGMs which are designed to pop the top of tanks? I doubt that the T-14 has the ability to defend from missiles coming from directly above it, and by doubt I mean Javelins will destroy T-14s, and are widely issued to US infantry units.
>Also, another way to more or less easily dispatch T-14s would to move Apache helicopters closer to the front. If an Apache Longbow loaded with nothing but 4 racks of 4 hellfires a piece gets a hold of them, the tanks are done.
Javlin are at a disadvantage from what I understand. Fire and forget makes easier to disrupt in some ways, if the seeker is blinded or the target obscured it will miss. T-14 has a vertical launcher on the turret, some of the hull mounted APS can possibly still cover the top as well.

File: 14322573_202332646851246_1530533276087528028_n.jpg (45KB, 528x720px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 528x720px

>>31984439
I think it's a Ukrainian CTR shill

Armata talk is so bullshit.

It's like a child gives its tank fantasy stats.

>>31984580

>Javelins are at a disadvantage

No, top armor is weaker, always, without exception.

>can be made to miss

They have a 94% accuracy rate and cam hit targets up to 4km out, most misses being caused by the temperature of the tank contrasting poorly with the ambient temperature. This means something in the desert, less so in Europe, where Russia is.

>APS on the top

So of that one launcher fails to destroy the missile, the tank is dead.

Sounds like the Javelin would fuck a T-14 up, especially if the infantry unit engaging it has more than one missile. (they do)

So how do the Russianfags want to explain that the hull is better armored than of NATO tanks although there are suddenly three men within the hull unlike just the driver like in the NATO tanks?

>>31982813
It's easy with Trophy.

>>31984426
>not destroying ATGM's with your 300 shot Kord machine gun or your 7.62 mm PKTM.

>>31982730

The way defence discussion works in the UK is that there will be various factions behind the scenes arguing for their department to receive more funding, and then these documents will be "leaked" to the press, who are only too happy to print an article critical of the government.

This is most likely not an impartial intelligence assessment, but armoured warfare advocates within the MoD making their case for a bigger budget. Which isn't to say it isn't factually true, however, there is an ulterior motive for painting the bleakest possible picture.

UK fags will in 20 years still claim the Challenger II is the best tank ever.

I love when Russia which is nowhere to find in state of the art material science are suddenly capable of beating every Western nation in regards of armor and ammunition.

>>31984694
Something something cultural expections.

People want the scary Russian so they overestimate their shit all the time although it was proven often enough that they are pretty subpar.

It's the opposite to China, which has a proven track record of science papers and stuff, catching up or even having the lead in some regards. And you can all the muh cheap China knee-jerk reactions not just by the dumb internet people but also from "experts".

>>31973234

> this fucking guy

Tell us about the "problems" with the T14 engine anon, I'll get ready to catch my sides.

File: 2ec[1].png (572KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 600x580px

>>31982813
>Certainly, the fire control system and sensors on the Abrams are already top notch.

>>31984827

I love how chinks who allegedly have all these "science papers and stuff" literally copied from Russians in regards to 90% of their tech, are "catching up".

Chang Micropenis, if for one moment you thought that you can hold a candle to Russia you're mistaken.

>>31984694

That's because their MIC actually needs to build stuff that works and can't afford to lose billions to Jewry such as Lockmart and Boeing.

Talk shit about them all you want, but the T14 has the most protected crew out of any tank and is at the top in regards to firepower.

>>31984858
That's quite the adorable post.

>>31984827

>>31984800

Is quite the example of that nonsense.

>>31984644
>They have a 94% accuracy rate and cam hit targets up to 4km out, most misses being caused by the temperature of the tank contrasting poorly with the ambient temperature. This means something in the desert, less so in Europe, where Russia is.

The t-14 is going to be firing it's radar guided MG the last 1km, it will then launch a smoke grenade volley filled with IR blocking particles, possibly try to damage electronics using the AESA and it still has at least two layers of hardkill APS should it get though that.

The thing is basically an anti missile platform with a 125mm gun attached.

File: nigger loader.jpg (241KB, 1280x833px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1280x833px

>>31984466
>manually, you can choose which ammo is relevant to shoot next
Pretty much every automatic mechanism does that from 30mm to 125mm guns since god knows how long.

>>31984934

So it's going to be firing it's MG and APS systems straight up? It van fire at something that is coming down on it from a 90 degree angle? No, it can't, if the APS mounts could fire at it, they wouldn't put a vertical mount on it.

>>31978767
Auto-loaders are actually slower than a loader.

The Soviet military shaped its armies to maximize the power of pure numbers, and to a certain degree, that was compromising the quality of each individual piece of equipment. Soviet tanks were lighter and cheaper to build than those of NATO. While unsophisticated, Soviet tanks built reputations for being rugged, easy to operate, and easy to maintain. Soviet tanks carried guns heavy for their size. Their hulls and turrets were designed with low silhouettes that made them difficult for enemy gunners to hit, especially when in a hull down position.
The auto loaders the Soviets had in their tanks complicated the cramped space, and weren't really built with the precision fit needed for it to work correctly, or rugged enough to withstand the rigors of combat. Indeed, in 1979 the GSFG commander forbade the use of the autoloader on the T-64 because of its disturbing habit of becoming misaligned and reaching back to grab the baggy trousers of the gunner and attempt to stuff him into the breach instead of the selected shell. And though the problem was known on the T-62, the newer tanks still had problems with their automatic ejection system. Instead of tossing a spent shell casing out a small turret hatch in the rear, the ejector sometimes bounced the hot piece of metal around inside the vehicle, much to the terror of its crew. Manual loading of the gun, conversely, dropped the rate of fire from seven to two rounds per minute, given that there was no loader assigned to the vehicle.

File: top_men2.jpg (21KB, 280x334px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 280x334px

>>31985027

> it's another fucking "soviets used to do this" episode

>So now that the USA has reconciled with Russia
Where the fuck do you guys get your news at?

>>31985051
>question about why the West doesn't use auto-loaders.
>so answer goes back to the first tanks to be fielded in numbers with an autoloader and the problems it caused.
>you are confused by this...

>>31985062
http://yournewswire.com/putin-ready-to-restore-relations-with-us/

>>31985068

Except that decision was made a couple fucking decades ago, and harping on about what soviets and yanks did back in the day, means fuck all.

The T14 doesn't have an auto-loader, because of the soviets. In fact I don't understand what your anecdotes about Soviet auto-loaders have to do with the T14 anyway.

Now if you wanna talk about US MBT's not having auto-loaders, because the M1 is basically 30 years old, that's fine, because that's the actual reason here.

But Soviet "doctrines" from a thousand years ago, and memes about them being "unsophisticated" have got fuck all to do with anything.

The real reason why the NATO tanks don't have autoloaders is the fact that autoloaders means to have two-piece ammuntion. This would mean you are limited in your penetrator length.
Russian KP ammunition isn't capable of penetrating a Leopard 2 or Abrams pretty much at any range.

>>31985093
I know it's hard for you to grasp teh concept of looking at the concept of critical thinking, so let's break it down.

OP asked why the West doesn't use them:
Auto-loaders are complex. And expensive. It's way cheaper and easier, and takes up less space for other shit in the turret to have another dude.

The M1 doesn't use an autoloader for those reasons, and the fact that the US fields MANY TIMES THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MOST EUROPEAN countries' "MBT".

The T14 and your opinions on tanks are what actually have got fuck all to do about anything, chief.

>>31985118

You got proofs on Russian ammunition not penetrating?

>>31985129

> the west went with the cheaper option

I'd love to live in the 70s with you, or whatever-fuck fantasy land you're currently in, but the West is CURRENTLY using auto-loaders, because pretty much all western tanks are almost 40 years old.

Nobody cares about western tank designers screwing the pooch last century, the question OBVIOUSLY implied an answer to the CURRENT situation of Western MBTs, and the answer to that, is that they're fucking old.

>>31985145
No. The West isn't.

"Modern" Western tank using an autoloader is the French Leclerc, chief. With less than 862 built as of 2007 when production ended.

Japan uses them, in the Type 90 and Type 10, but I don't think anyone's ever referred to them as the west.

>>31985167
Militarily japan and SK can be considered the west

>>31984830
I think he's talking about uralvaganzavod filing for bankruptcy

>>31978767
because the t-14 uses a double stroke autoloader that takes 7 to 9 seconds. meanwhile the average american niggerloader can slam one in ever 3 seconds

>>31984644
>>31984580
The hard kill APS on a T-14 are mounted along the base of the turret sides and cannot hit arcing top attack missiles.

The roof launchers are obscurants.

>>31985145
>>31984433
Come back when 130, 140 or 152mm guns are the norm.

File: tiger334cvb.jpg (153KB, 600x316px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 600x316px

APS is the new revolution in armor.

The saturation of ATGMs even in sand nigger infested areas means that even the most recent advanced MBTs are very vulnerable, so any tank without it is a liability.

IMO, working APS is what distinguishes the newest generation of vehicles from the relics, and therefore the K2, Merkava Mk4 Baz and Armata are the only new generation MBTs.

>>31978767
A tank with a loader has a higher rate of fire and they do not want to risk their tanks' main gun becoming useless if the autoloader fails.

Ammo positioning. The ammo is in a safe compartment at the back of the tank so if it ever blows, it won't kill the crew and cause the turret to fly off into the sunset.

>>31981252
Active protection system and gun able to penetrate 800mm of RHA.

File: 1477453147211.jpg (250KB, 1600x908px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1600x908px

>>31985653
>if the autoloader fails.

This is a stupid argument only proliferated by the Abrahams FATNIKS who can't come to terms that their tank doesn't have an autoloader due to technical limitations of the time (1970s).

If America designs a new MBT, you bet your ass it's going to have an autoloader and the same Fatniks will be howling at any tanks without an autoloader.

All modern tanks (Leclerc, K2, exception Altay) have autoloaders.

Only the cold war relics (Abrams/Leopard family - 1970s designs, Merkava - 1970s design etc.) have manual loading.

Make a deal with it.

File: 14563147677897.jpg (212KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1280x851px

>>31978767
They do . It is just current "western" tanks are very old and outdated, designed 40 years ago.

File: M2 Browning.jpg (17KB, 650x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 650x200px

>>31985702
If it ain't broke don't fix it.

File: ft17_1033.jpg (37KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x365px

>>31985712

lol k

>>31985742
Way to miss the point.

t. not even that guy

>>31985755

>Implying there was something wrong with the FT-17

Go kill yourself.

>>31985712
>If it ain't broke
>fug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsKdt-eMGI8

Our relations with Russia haven't materially changed.

>>31985768
You aint the brighest candle in the chandelier, are you?

>>31972109
You got to love how russian tech with hardly any real info out is supposed to be always working and awesome, while there is no end in nitpicking US stuff at the same time. It has become ridicule pathetic in the past years.

>>31985702
>Implying that the base design needs to be replaced

Bretty sure that there hasn't been any technological advance so large that upgrade programs aren't adequate.

>>31983063
kek

>Guis, Russia built better tank dan murica
>on the GDP of Italy

kek

File: 1430768740498.png (1MB, 2500x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2500x1800px

>>31972109
No, need to wait for the T-14B

>>31985780
Looks like the blowout panels worked. But without an Iraqi source, we do not know if the crew survived.

>>31985689
Good job not addressing any of the other points, fucko.

>>31985689
Flash news, the US operates on "What If"s. What's why they have a plan in case fucking Poland declares war on them.

>>31985809
That is because russian tech is so obsolete that it makes american tech look space age

>>31985887
>not expecting the Pollock double cross

File: 1478448626388.jpg (84KB, 1080x565px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1080x565px

>>31985880
>Good job not addressing any of the other points, fucko.

Good job overreacting like a little timid bitch.

There are more autoloaders in service in the T-72 alone than there are tanks in ALL of NATO, since.

Their A-Z autloader has proven extremely reliable, and reliability has never been a factor.

So you basically don't jave an argument, your only fallback now is HURR, MO CRU BETTUH

Well if more crew is better, why don't we go back to 9-man crews like the M3 Lee?

Fucking fatniks, you don't have a leg to stand on.

>>31985952
It is so stupid, that it already become funny again.

>>31985027
>1979 the GSFG commander forbade the use of the autoloader on the T-64 because of its disturbing habit of becoming misaligned and reaching back to grab the baggy trousers of the gunner and attempt to stuff him into the breach instead of the selected shell

A claim which is only found before the collapse of the soviet union. After when westerners were able to read soviet documents nothing has been found to prove this claim of the autoloader of the T-64 being troubled in 1979.

Hell all of its problems which was mainly related to the engine was fixed in 1972. Even in 1969 they were close to have all the problems out and the tank being able to fill state demands.

Where do I get this info? From Steven J Zalogas book abou the T-64 from 2014.

>And though the problem was known on the T-62, the newer tanks still had problems with their automatic ejection system. Instead of tossing a spent shell casing out a small turret hatch in the rear, the ejector sometimes bounced the hot piece of metal around inside the vehicle
A literall meme.

You are mixing the T-62's ejector which is clamied to troubled which is doubtful with the T-72's ejector which is perfectly catched and thrown out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTGM1n8CYyQ

The people that claim that the T-62's autoejector is troubled also claims it takes 10 seconds for it to throw out the case when it actually only takes 3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gj1GEBHuJo


Dont throw up memes when explaing why the west dont have autoloaders, the west is simply expeceted to fight a different war where maximum rate of fire is needed and having a extra guy for maintance etc.

>>31985811
>there hasn't been any technological advance
Autoloaders ))))

How is it fair to compare a 2010s tank design and an upgraded 1970s design?

>>31986107
When the 2010 design is finally on par with the upgraded 1970's design?

>>31984219
As someone who operated in ifvs before switching to tanks, there's a combination of "oh shit" and "fuck yeah, challenge accepted" that you feel when in a bradley facing against Russian armor. But you're right, t72 and t80 had different feelings. I imagine t90 and t14 would be something new.

>>31984007
The Bradley 25mm performs stellar at 1500 to 2000m. You're utilizing HE and not AP so you're going to have lag time, but any gunner who has shot a gunnery is going to be capable of it. Dismounted infantry though is going to have issues. Looks like the recoiless riddles are going to get popular again.

File: Herp Derp.jpg (142KB, 960x684px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 960x684px

>>31986107
It isn't, nothing the russians have can come close to a modern Abrams.

Can't wait when Russia buys 100 T-14 over the next 20 years.

>>31987294
And the US buys 500 more M-1s the Army and Marines don't even want.

>>31987322
Congrats on both using a misquote and not knowing what the US military wants.

>>31987625
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html
Shut up, idiot.

>>31972109
just get South Korea to make you some K2's those are better than both the M1 and the T14 Mememata.

Yes I am aware they are just upgraded M1's, but they are miles better.

>>31987786
I will give you a clue why you still have no idea what you are talking about, and no idea what is being said in that article.

There has not been a new Abrams built for the US military since the early 90's.

>>31972121
FPBP