Amerifag tanks are a joke. Nothing can stop the T14 Prove me wrong

Looks good but how does it perform? I think we need an expert opinion on this.

I am guessing the T14 is better for Russia's budget.

>>38006353
Broke down during parade

>>>/k/
That way.

>>38006353
The Abrams is like 4 decades old senpai, the only reason the US hasn't produced a new modern design is because it's not deemed as important and it's not worth the money.

>>38006353
>mediocre bait
do people really have nothing better to do on this board?

>>38006353
>invisble to thermal scanners
yeah senpai i bet this jdam won't be able to find an exhaust port anywhere

File: This is the end.jpg (7KB, 220x173px)

7KB, 220x173px

>>38006727
what does America need some fancy tank for when we have the best versions of these.
throwing money at an expensive vanity project that is designed primarily to combat other heavily armored vehicles at a time when US armor already vastly exceeds the quality of the dated Middle Eastern vehicles they could possibly come up against. When we need a more modern tank to fight a more modern enemy, we'll do it.

>>38006471
Military fag here

Its good, but it's very expensive and very few have been made.

It's got modular armor (battlefield repairs are possible) and can be equipped with an active defense system.

What really makes or breaks modern tanks is their optics- American tanks are constantly upgraded with the best optics money can buy. Soviet/russian optics were/are mediocre, but I assume they have made upgrades over the years.

IMO this tank has achieved parity with the M1A1, possibly the M1A2.

I doubt an actual american M1A2 Abrams and a T14 Armata will ever be in direct conflict, however. The biggest problem with comparing these tanks is that the ones that will see combat, the exported versions (the T-72 to Syria and the M1A1 to Saudi Arabia, for example), are all downgraded, slightly shittier versions of the real thing, without the optics, reactive armor, etc that the militaries of America or Russia use.

Lastly, ignore idiots like
>>38006727
who think that we need to reinvent the wheel with new weapons or vehicles every 10 years. Yes, there are plenty of vehicles and weapons that always need updating/replacing (like theHMMWV), but if the base model works, there is no need to change it. The Colt 1911 was has been used for over 100 years with very few modifications. The M2 .50cal HMG was first used in WWII, and it is still used by frontline units today. The base model of the Abrams works great for the mission set, we keep upgrading it with better computers, optics, and armor to keep pace.