Why did Russia say it doesn't make sense for it to buy T-14 tanks?

[@JinKee]

friendship ended with T-14 armata. turtle tank is new best tank now.

[@Blackcain]

🐢

[@Nottotti-eg9nf]

Tortil 😁👍🐢

[@domokun845]

Back to the roots, Mother Nature's first tank.

[@S1lverarrow]

Yeaaa

[@comradeblin256]

YAY TUTEL ENJOYER 🐢

[@tommywolfe2706]

A few years ago one of our senior military officials said that our stuff is obsolete because if the Chinese really wanted to, they could just swarm us with drones by the thousands. I think the Russians are learning that throwing your best tanks into a place where a cheap drone can take them out is not the best move. We have witnessed a shift in how wars are fought. Its crazy to think that armored soldiers were on the battlefield for thousands of years, even after gunpowder and the tank would be the ultimate version of that armor, but its barely lasted 100 years as an effective tool.

[@Tonius126]

There is no alternative to tanks as an mobile fire support plantform. Aardvark wipe out 80% of iraqs armor and tanks were never said to be obsolete then. Russia lacks the advanced EW system due to advance chips and semi cinducters sanctions to cover all their armor.

[@currawong60911368]

Every measure has a countermeasure. Things will remain largely the same. Tanks, aircraft, ships have all been considered obsolete and yet here we are. All have counter measures, and so measures to counter the countermeasures and so on.

[@tomvlodek6377]

@@Tonius126 wrong, they have their own semiconductor industry and make some of the most advanced systems in the world with indigenously produced components, nice try at coping though 😂

[@soloqueuepixy]

lol no. cheap and light drones are blind and weak drones. they're only prevalent because the frontlines are barely moving, and the frontlines are barely moving because neither side has a way to effectively bypass the world war 1 artillery contest. this is because the russian air force is limited to lobbing glide bombs at stationary targets from the safety of friendly airspace, and the ukrainian air force barely exists. this is not a problem faced by the US air force, which proved even thirty years ago that it could do much more than that.

[@soloqueuepixy]

​@@tomvlodek6377 the country whose air force got caught upgrading their navigation to use basic civilian GPS lmao

[@P3RF3CTD3ATH]

The Turtle Tank is the future of tanks.

[@kxng_k0Ng_]

It’s for fpvs there’s vids of some taking 3 hits and kept going also they did a reconnaissance in force to find Ukraine positions in the vid it kept going and u see a grenade launcher being shot at it it did nothing it kept going and there was 1 with mine clearing equipment and it got tracked the Russians got it and repaired it.

[@kxng_k0Ng_]

There all different some look bad ass with chains and fat ammo boxes and so on. The vid is nasty the Ukraines kept trying to hit em and it kept going large scale combined arms positional warfare in Europe and its 30% modern footholds strongholds defensive belts military fortifications all types of trenches dougouts fox holes high ground low ground Russia hits concentration of forces and temporary positions in the front and rear all the time Ukraine only gets lil pricks Yk Ukraine doesn’t have fabs aviation bombs they don’t even have military kamikaze drones with war heads just military reconnaissance drones all regular drones fpvs drones boats and so on.

[@kxng_k0Ng_]

They Germans fought harder in ww2 they had the weaponry Ukraine doesn’t they got what they got and get what they get.☠️

[@sirwhitemeat9785]

@@kxng_k0Ng_ you love putin

[@John_Brian-qu5eq]

​​While i appreciate your support of russia, you are wrong about the level of tech that is available to the Ukrainians ​@@kxng_k0Ng_

[@gobomanaga5615]

Retooling factories currently producing T90's probably just isn't worth it.

[@shuathe2nd]

Is it a T-90 if it doesn't have night vision and thermal sights bought from western companies? Isn't it just a T-72 at that point?

[@gobomanaga5615]

@@shuathe2nd Russia produces its' own night vision both for tanks and infantry, Russians are second only to the US in night vision technology, and the US has explicitly banned selling any US night vision to foreign states.

[@alexnderrrthewoke4479]

@@shuathe2nd look nafo bot will you stop lying? Its getting old

[@jonny2954]

@@gobomanaga5615 Do you know the difference between image intensifier and thermal imager? Modern AFVs don't even have image intensifiers anymore, they run thermals only. Russia still can not mass produce thermal imagers, even the ones reverse engineered from western ones.

[@shuathe2nd]

@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 truth hurt snowflake? russia is taking a battering, and putin is turning it into north korea - if you like that then good for you, but clearly you don't like russian people if you want that fate for them.

[@SnazBrigade]

it would be funny if the T-14 ends up being changed substantially and then like the ak-12, the only place the original design exists is in a Battlefield game

[@Mwwwwwwwwe]

Welcome to the new soviet union...Been watching a lot of"paper skies" chanel recently and a common soviet theme is if it doesn't work, fake test results or push it into serial production and fix it with hundreds of upgrades. Or arrest everyone involved in the project for treason. That's what happens when a government sets unreasonable goals and expects delivery on a certain day no matter what

[@DaBestEmperor]

I think that is likely going to be the case, tbh.

[@rfak7696]

​@@Mwwwwwwwwe So, running a nation like a tech company?

[@mitchconner403]

Nah, they would probably just put a tool shed on top of the tank, and call it a day.

[@SRDPS2]

Can't wait in WarT hunder with magic no spall armor and no exploded ammo (spall liner isn't bad enough)

[@rahimoneill7294]

If Ukraine is the problem, then T14 is NOT the answer. Think this war will change a lot of views on what defines good equipment in a real war.

[@ДмитрийОсипов-ц6ы]

вот верный взгляд, и сейчас рулят Цари-Мангалы

[@thomashaapalainen4108]

​@@ДмитрийОсипов-ц6ыaudible fart noise .

[@greenling.]

If one believes that wars between major countries will be fought with either almost no airforce and fleet or with incapable ones and Artillery-shelling as method of advancement then... well maybe...

[@anthonykaiser974]

​@@greenling.True, but ubiquitous drone surveillance and attacks have definitely changed how the game has to be played. Any major tactical level mistakes can be detected and taken advantage of so much more easily, for example, at least without good deception and EW plans.

[@gamingrex2930]

This war will change a lot of views on what defines good equipment FOR this type of war. You're suggesting every new battle field will be another ukraine, lowlands interspersed with urban centres and a single branching highway. Or the fact that tanks will even be used in their current roles for future war.

[@dzoniii]

Its really simple. 10 Million dollars tanks get blown up same as 1 Million dollars tanks with drones and land mines. There is no point in making 10 Mill dollars tank when u can get 10 others easier and faster for same price.

[@kyb5203]

I think that is a very one dimensional way to think of equipment design. The cheaper tank may be a cheaper loss, but it will inevitably be lost at a higher rate. Secondly, a cheaper tank would not be able perform well under ideal conditions, as in a cheap tank that breaks through a defensive line wouldn’t be able to take as much ground as a high quality tank if it broke through defensive lines.

[@Thanatos833]

Sounds like a classically Russian approach, quantity > quality, which can be useful at time, as it was vs the Germans in WW2

[@Postoronniy]

Retooling the UVZ factory for full-scale T-14 production would mean stopping it for a year or more. This is unacceptable during wartime. The Armed Forces need continuous inflow of new/modernised/reactivated tanks to compensate for losses and to equip new units, which means that production of currently ready model (i.e. T-90M) must be ramped up. Meanwhile, the design of object 148 can be updated or possibly reworked, accounting for the experience gained during the combat operations of the current war.

[@Legion617]

They literally had nearly a decade to completely overhaul UVZ for the production of T-14s, without ANY war, and STILL haven't set up production. It's a dead end.

[@michigan2974]

We’ve seen 8 T-14s, they can claim all they want, but they have 8 T-14s. This is the same leadership tree that repainted missiles while doing laps around red square to make it seem like they had more then they did. If they had it they’d show it

[@FoxHound89612]

Regardless, the T-14 will never see war. It has more value as an intimidation tool than what it can offer in the battle field. Besides, I would assume the media would totally destroy Russia if one of those tanks gets destroyed.

[@BlackWolf9988]

​@@FoxHound89612 like russia cares what western media is saying about them

[@alienmorality]

8 or 20 it doesn't matter, it's an irrelevant number even if it was as good as is claimed/hoped

[@dEcmircEd]

being deployed to two war zones with plenty of footage pouring out without a single sighting. now that some stealth

[@WSOJ3]

Because a T90M reinforced with a turtle shell paired with an RC drone easily beats T14, and costs a lot less.

[@macmcleod1188]

The turtle shells were a stopgap measure which doesn't work against artillery they were only good During the period that Republicans denied Ukraine artillery shells.

[@macmcleod1188]

The t14 relied on Western components. Sanctions ended that. The same thing applies to the Moscow. That flagship had a hundred million dollars worth of western electronics in it. There would have been more, however the sanctions from the 2014 Crimean Invasion blocked purchases during the 2019 refit.

[@OnlyThis-1]

Сколько вы ребята будите еще смешить со своими промытыми мозгами. Ваша пропаганда делает же вам плохо . В Т-14 нет и не было ни одного западного комплектующего. Тепловизоры свои , вся электроника своя у нас. Мы восстановили лучшую в мире советскую электронику. Санкции только делают сильнее нас и развивают нашу экономику. Не смешите нас вашей пропагандой, потому что вас уже жалко становится. 😂

[@MzeewaUjiji]

That is a lie

[@Devil_Dog_98]

@@OnlyThis-1Join the army, Ivan. Your country needs you.

[@OnlyThis-1]

@@Devil_Dog_98 не переживай , у нас достаточно армии на фронте, чтобы выкинуть нато из украины навсегда. Ждем тебя в наёмниках. И да, наемников в плен мы не берем. 😉

[@Devil_Dog_98]

@@OnlyThis-1 Oh no, but that don’t matter Ivan! Mother Russia is calling! You need to get back and answer the call!😉

[@ADobbin1]

For the same reason the US hasn't bought half the weapons systems its developed over the decades. The new stuff usually doesn't do anything the old one can't do for less money and in the mean time some of the stuff on the new one gets put on the old one as upgrades. In the case of a tank a hull doesn't go obsolete, its just a hull. Put a new turret on it or an upgraded turret on and its technically a brand new tank. Just looks at the turkish M60's.

[@Siyasimünafucksavar]

Katılıyorum. Günümüzde tank fiyatları uçmuş durumda. (3×Tank = 1×F16) Bu resmen çılgınlık. En iyisi eldeki tankları modernize etmek.

[@honkhonk8009]

@@Siyasimünafucksavar Not really. Tank prices have gotten pretty cheap relative to aircraft costs. Especially the Abrams considering how old/mature the design is. They play on this alot considering how NATO switched from expensive MBT's to faster/cheaper LAVs and Strykers.

[@Zack_Wester]

@@honkhonk8009 plus the us is only building new M1 tanks at the lowest number to keep the factory and staff in support. had the US sensed a war soon and gov been United on that US could easily ramp upp production and lower the cost of per tank. would the cost per year be more or less or equal I dont remember.

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

Jeez the amount of bots in this comment section is insane

[@aurex8937]

Weird, I only saw bots from one side, and it's probably not the one you're referring to.

[@tetispinkman9135]

That's why I don't really read comment any more.

[@madbean3532]

Well, afterall, the nature of the internet - it has also bring all those conflicts in reality to zero distance. There's no Eden in the present day internet anymore, tainted by the nature of mankind. Ahh yes, don't mind my weird talk. It's just everything has been a bit too depressing....

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

@@aurex8937 what side do you think I’m referring to?

[@plebius]

Beep boop beep

[@privatebandana]

The new T-90 breakthrough tank Russia developed costs them between $1.5-2.5m, considering Russia has bolstered their own factories for mass production, we can assume it's under $2m per unit. That's 4 T-90 breakthrough tanks for every T-14, not to mention it takes much longer to produce the T-14 armata even if it enters mass production. So yeah it makes zero sense for Russia to go with the armata platform, ESPECIALLY in the type of modern conflict we have witnessed taking place in Ukraine. Remember, the armata platform was planned and design way before this war even started.. it would work amazing in small proxy wars around Africa and the Middle East, but in Ukraine where both sides has all kinds top-tier anti-tank options? Hell no.

[@mspicer3262]

the T-90M runs about $4.5mil per unit, half the expected initial unit cost of $9mil per unit for the T-14.

[@Chris-zr3to]

Except you lose the crew when a T90 gets hit. In theory the T14 crew would survive. Easier to replace tanks then it is experienced crews

[@irrelevantchannel200]

BMPT terminator preformed better than the older BMP models with higher survivability it uses same Armata platform I think so idk

[@mspicer3262]

@@Chris-zr3to it definitely costs less than $4.5 million to replace the 3-man crew. russian crews don't get much training, so it makes no sense to ensure their survival. that still makes the T-90 the better option, economically.

[@Chris-zr3to]

@@mspicer3262 maybe but it is hard to put a price on battlefield experience

[@stevesmith7839]

I agree. Cost per loss makes ground war prohibitive for tanks. Any infantry soldier can carry a shoulder mounted missile that will destroy any tank. Those missiles cost far less than tanks, and any vehicle can carry several of those missiles. Tanks are slow and consume huge quantities of fuel making supply chains more difficult to fulfill. Tanks are huge, easy targets making their crews sitting ducks. Mine fields are effective in preventing the movement of tanks. Missiles will continue to get cheaper and better where tanks have reached their performative threshold. Baring the ability to make tanks fly and use nuclear fuel, tanks are a dead end. Robot tanks won't cost crews, but they will still be susceptible to mines and missiles and aircraft, and they will be expensive for the foreseeable future. Robot tanks will have vulnerabilities because they won't have environmental awareness that a present human will have. When a mag-mine attaches to the bottom of the robot tank, it won't hesitate to bring that mine with it to the refueling depot or the remote operator's location.

[@Speedkam]

They can’t produce enough t90 let alone t14. Their production capabilities are just catastrophic

[@ivanhouk7112]

Ага, именно поэтому российская промышленность выпускает сотни танков ежемесячно!))))))) Российское производство превосходит всё НАТО в целом! Сколько танков в месяц может строить США?

[@apersondoingthings5689]

@@ivanhouk7112yeah you are just lying. Russia claims it can produce 1,500 tanks in a year. However, 20% are actually new tanks. 1,200 of those tanks are refurbished which is significantly easier to do than one from scratch. Mind you that’s with a wartime economy. The U.S. currently builds 840 new abrams a year but has the capacity to build 2,500 new tanks a year with the added ability to refurbish tanks on top of that in an economy not oriented towards war. If you want another number, there is currently more than one 1,000 F35s which is the most modern fighter in the world right now and started production in 2006. Russia has only made about 160 SU 34s since 2006, 150 SU 35s since 2007, around 650 SU 30s since 1992, and 22 production models of SU 57s since 2019. There are currently about the same amounts of F35s as all of the most modern Russian fighter aircraft in use by Russia and that is being generous by considering the SU 34 as a fighter aircraft. This is not the Soviet Union. Russia literally cannot make anything modern in good quantities and does not nearly have the production capabilities of nato let alone the U.S.

[@yutakago1736]

A good weapon need to be cost effective. If the cost of one latest tank = 10 older tanks. It is difficult to replace the losses in the battle field.

[@Chiller11]

I don’t think Russia will be in any financial position after this war to think about expensive advancements in weapons technologies. War is an exhaustively expensive undertaking regardless of the country and Russia was not in particularly strong economic shape before the war. They are on track to allot 35% of all government spending toward the war in 2024. That’s a lot of domestic services and infrastructure that won’t be addressed.

[@vp5209]

@@kresnik_ssand here come long-range Ukrainian drones. How many Russian oil refineries dis they hit last month?

[@СергейАведисян-х5я]

​@vp5209 and what it do to the front? Nothing.

[@tomvlodek6377]

@@vp5209 who cares, ukraine won’t exist in 2025 😂

[@tomvlodek6377]

@@СергейАведисян-х5я nothing 😂

[@tomvlodek6377]

@@СергейАведисян-х5я it’ll help him cope 😂

[@VaughanDee93]

Cheap drones are so OP it makes sense just to spam buy them and artillery

[@comradeblin256]

Long story short, turning T72 to become a mobile shed gave better and more reliable (and MUCH cheaper) protection against drones and artillery compared to any "Active Protection System" available in existence.

Really? They go pop just like all the others...

[@comradeblin256]

The tutel does not go pop, it just burn like leopard and abrams do. Its funny considering making a tank to a mobile shed increase its survivability.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

​​@@comradeblin256when even buildings are running awey from russia

[@LunaticTheCat]

Available in Russia, not "existence." You have no clue what type of classified systems the US and/or allies may be working on right now.

[@tomvlodek6377]

@@LunaticTheCat and you have no idea what they are working on either

[@Rumbler298]

Why buy T-14 when you can buy more Blyatmobile?🤣

[@AnmolX-jw8jr]

True

[@SuwinTzi]

What some commenter overlook is that retooling factories for mass production also drives up initial cost and hampers logistics

[@Gorillafishing]

Da komradski

[@dgart7434]

Without a major international buyer like Turkey, India, or Egypt I can't see Russia ever mass producing the T-14.

[@alexnderrrthewoke4479]

Low iq comment but somehow it produces tanks in mass for all other models. Make that make sense 😂😂

[@avarion9538]

They can't massproduce it, because the engine is terrible. It fails all the time, and they constructed and developed the tank around the engine, so they can't just use another engine. That means, the whole program failed. In average, the tank has problems every 40km or 25 miles, and needs specialists to fix it, so the thing is useless.

[@sH-ed5yf]

​​@@alexnderrrthewoke4479we talk about the t14. And in fact it is not mass produced. He is right about that...

[@ailinofaolin8897]

@avarion9538 So you watched lazerpigs shitpost video on the T14 and now you're an expert on that tank and how often it breaks down, in Ireland we call this shitetalk of the highest order.

[@alexnderrrthewoke4479]

@@sH-ed5yf not yet and again if you use laserpig as your source then you need to go to a therapy session. Seriously

[@nonyabisness6306]

we kinda do this too. generally no one makes their entire fleet the most modern tank. it's just so expensive.

[@stevenjones916]

Lots of tanks that are "good enough" are better than one "super tank". Hopefully the UK's MOD get the message also.

[@johnso2399]

when flying stealth shovels and nuclear powered washing machine can do that work, why do Russian still need T14?

[@ycplum7062]

Russia needs other countries to buy the T-14 to reduce the per unit costs through economy of scale before Russia they themselves can afford to buy them. Same with their fighter aircraft.

[@Therealwanderingyooper]

T14 was only ever a parade tank. Tested in Syria and no one saw it. Sounds like another joke

[@messier8379]

just like your Overhyped Challegner2 that got its Turret Tossed in Robotyne by a single Krasnopol hit

[@arghost9798]

​@messier8379 and afraid to appear in the frontline again ever since

[@surowelove]

Turtle tank > t14

[@hermes667]

In a war economy prices do not matter much, unless you can´t get hands on the ressources. And there we are: Russia does not get the high tech needed for such a tank and therefore simply can´t produce this tank. Also: this tank is pure crap and they know it. So they use other excusses for not producing it.

[@Australiaisupsidedown]

Yep!

[@jade7631]

That is suggesting tanks like the Abrams X is bad because they aren’t producing it. It could just mean it is to expensive, unnecessary, or simply takes to long to build. It was originally a technology demonstrator.

[@elig3671]

​@@jade7631Abrams x is on another level, pact with innovative tech like giving the crew the ability to see through and around the tank like an f35 pilot. While the t14 is just trying to be a regular modern abrams and failing.

[@hermes667]

@@jade7631 no. The Abrams is a fine tank, the T-14 is crap. But the Russians won´t get far with reverse engineering on captured Abrams tanks. They had good scientists and engineers, but their industry lacks the abilities. It is one thing to know how something works and another thing to produce it in a useable quality and quantity.

[@jade7631]

@@elig3671 Abrams X is a technology demonstrator. It will not be ready for at least half a decade. The T-14 was already in slow production. T-14 if matches what was speculated, out preforms the Abrams by a lot. We have already confirmed that a stripped down M1A2 can be killed with just a T-72B3M, and the T-14 was engineered to counter what the best the west has to offer. T-14 exist, while the Abrams X doesn’t.

[@ricdond]

next gen tanks will need major anti-drone capabilities, significant top armor improvements, be unmanned or have a very snall crew, have hardened sensors that survive precision artillery and auto cannon fire, and have capabilities that allow them to spot for indirect fire rapidly and accurately in my very humble opinion we are about to see the most significant paradigm shift in tank design in 80-100 years

[@wolven777]

Spot on! There are two ways to go that I can think of, extreme mobility and camouflage or even more armoring, but tanks cannot remain unchanged.

[@notaspy1227]

Yeah, Russia can't afford the R&D for that and I don't think Iran and North Korea will be much help. At least Western designs are made around crew survival.

[@JAy-dx1xb]

​@@wolven777 ya and even with infinitry there gonna need anti drone capabilities to I've ben thinking shotguns and bird shot you don't have to destroy the Droid just down it

[@wolven777]

@@JAy-dx1xb I don't think armor can be reinforced without severe loss in mobility and a more difficult maintenance and logistic, unless they invent some ulra light extra hard armor. Russians are very good with low cost high practicality solutions, I bet we will soon see a turret with a shotgun that engages drones.

[@JAy-dx1xb]

@@wolven777 Russia built there military around that the Ukraine war just prove them right wars is not about technology its about how much you have and I believe most of there T model tanks use the same mechanism making logistics and field repairing easier I wish the usa would stop with there tech up multiple billion dollars tanks there good against goat farmers but a real army there are gonna have to be changes we haven't seen real large scale war from the usa since ww2

[@stefano8936]

They need to redesign it as it's lacking the mosquito net

[@atklm1]

T-14 is same imaginary weapon as SU-57. And I’m starting to suspect that S-400 is just refurbished S-300, as they can’t even stop old version of an old ATACMS.

I liked the time where Binkov talked about hypothetical war better

[@routdog72]

Well it's obvious who'd win now

[@FreeRojava2025]

@@routdog72yes I think NATO might just wipe the floor with everyone.

[@RonJohn63]

Nah. Stuff like "How China can invade the US" is arrant nonsense.

[@looinrims]

@@FreeRojava2025not with that ammo shortage and weak will

[@FreeRojava2025]

@@looinrims There is no “ammo shortage” at least not in NATO. In Britain, a key player, there is a lack of equipment, but not really artillery, and only in its army, which is irrelevant since it’s main power comes from its navy and airforce. America produces 100,000 rounds of 155 per month. It produces hundreds of cruise missiles/month (or at least is planning to with Anduril) and has effectively restarted its MIC. NATO stockpiles have been scarcely depleted, with only quite old and numerous equipment being sent to Ukraine, such as Javelin and NLAW. NATO holds air power enough to cripple Russia and China within weeks. But if you think you will win, please try.

[@jackcrisci2957]

Because almost every tank since the T-72...has been a T-72 with DLC.

[@DollyRanch]

But the t-80 exists?

[@zlamas997]

@@DollyRanchoveral design principle is the same with t-80, there are major differences with autolader and engine but overall it’s t-72 on steroids.

[@DollyRanch]

@@zlamas997 the hull is also different

[@vp5209]

T-90 is an upgrade of T-72, T-80 is an upgrade of T-64, while T-72 is an upgrade of T-64

[@eminence_]

@@vp5209 T-72 is in many ways worse than modernized T-64. Get your facts straight. Reason why all countries are modifying T-72 is that because it sucks.

[@greebfewatani]

No army in their sensible mind will develop new tank before find a solution for the new threat. Ukrainian deployed some Abrams and it showed that even the Frontline western tanks facing big tactical issues with the new technology of drones and transparent battlefields

[@1337user]

Turtle tank is the new meta! 😂 T14 is already obsolescent! ❤

[@ataksnajpera]

From modern T14 to Mad MaX style shack.

[@tomvlodek6377]

And so is the challenger, panther and overhyped abrams

[@ataksnajpera]

@@tomvlodek6377 Ukraine got the oldest Abrams available M1A1 from 80s. USA is not stupid to send the best ones to some random country.

[@СергейАведисян-х5я]

​@ataksnajpera main difference of old and new abrams is secret armor. But side strikes with drones and artillery will still destroy both

[@ataksnajpera]

@@СергейАведисян-х5я most likely you will be able to only destroy tracks. Latest version of Abrams are much more difficult to destroy. One Abrams in Irak got hit 7 times by RPG and was still working.

[@eos538]

I highly doubt the T-14 was ever used in Ukraine. Both sides film everything, and we never got a single geolocated photo of one. And I suspect Russia concluded that the negative propaganda of T-14’s getting blown up would far overshadow any small advantage the tank would bring to the battlefield.

[@Youtubegoblin23]

It’s in a war. You have plants setup that can mass produce a tanks that’s 70% as good for 15% the price. Doesn’t need a video to explain this

[@nightowl9519]

Almost like any tank is better than no tank. Just waiting for a Stug 3 style vehicle to be introduced.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The other way around. A manufacturer complained about the Russian government requiring an older BMP variant even though it was more expensive. Money is "cheap". It wouldn't matter if the Armata was the same cost, if the electronics required more lead time due to sanctions.

[@Aplainwhitedoor]

Im waiting for modernized t-34s just for the lols

[@attilamarics3374]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Thats not exactly right, the exact interviews was that the government requested it, but they told them that it would be more expensive. Xou left out crucial parts of it.

[@attilamarics3374]

@@steezydan8543 They actually stated many times before for years and years that it wouldnt make sense mass producing it. People just keep reusing these same argument month after month like its some embarassing new thing. Russia doesnt want to build the T-14 Armata, just let it go, I know pro-ukrainians can spin it, but I read the exact same comments and watched the exact same videos, content farming is a thing I know, but this is embarassing.

[@willcchiwill8836]

Any question about the modern Russian military can usually be answered by "they can't afford it" or "they don't have the capacity to build enough"

[@BreadPittAAAAHHHH]

Yeah obviously lol, that’s what happens when you aren’t spending 800 billion dollars on “defense” (certified US of A moment) 😂😂😂

[@sylvainprigent6234]

Because the t14 is a good tank on paper only and it hasn't all the glorious capabilities that the sales pitch claim. And when in the real world of a real war, the sales pitch counts for nothing compared to the reality of high explosive anti tank weapons.

[@segalliongaming8925]

It’s clear to me that the T-14 is being cancelled in favor of the Blyatmobile.

[@hectoraccented5312]

That's the turtle tank first seen some weeks ago?

[@tiagodagostini]

In modern battlefield a TOP of line tank dies as easily as a T55. That mean it is nto worth to invest in expensive tanks.

[@triage2962]

Yes and the T14 is literally the Russian version of a western Tank.

[@EnigmaHood]

It needs to be redesigned, or better a new tank designed from the ground up to defend against drones and top attack ATGMs. The T-14 was designed before the Ukraine War, so it was designed before a good understanding of what threats tanks face on the modern battlefield would be. I think a new tank needs to be designed from the ground up to deal with both threats innately. My crazy ideas! Have drones affixed to the surface of the tank. These drones would be kinda like reactive armor, except they can move around and fly. When a threat is detected, either a drone, or an ATGM (including top attack), the drone detaches and flies out to intercept the threat and destroy it. Ideally, these drones should be kinda like robotic beetles i.e. ornithopters. We have built ornithopters before, but never a robotic flying beetle, but it can be done! The drones also double as reactive armor so even if a drone isn't detached in time, it can still protect the tank as normal reactive armor. Think of them as armor that moves. They can move around the tank and protect the parts of the tank that are most vulnerable at a given time. The drones could also be used offensively, and attack infantry and light vehicles, and possibly even some low flying aircraft. Another idea would be to use either these drones, or another kind of drone to surveil the area, and improve the situational awareness of the tank. Basically the solution to drones, is to not beat them, but join them!

[@Texo333]

tanks will not for long be so easy to kill. The drone problem will be solved soon. Active protection systems like iron first or Trophy will solve this. Artillery and mines will always remain a problem but thats the case for all

[@EvgeniyYakushev-m2u]

Everyone has already realized that the future belongs to “turtle tanks.”

[@commissargeko4029]

Reject modernity, return to StuG.

[@ataksnajpera]

No! It belongs to giant MECHs! Mechwarrior style!

[@johnnykrauze]

Tanks are a layer of weapon. Just like other weapons. No one weapon is the king of weapons. There is a counter weapon for every weapon.

[@marcm.]

Knowing how Russians do things to the letter of the law or contract, while killing the spirit of it, I'm willing to bet that those 20 original prototypes are the pre-production tanks also. I'm willing to bet that they only have 20 tanks, and those are the original prototypes, relabeled as pre-production pre-serial whatever. I'm also willing to bet, that they will send those pre-production tanks back to the factory and upgrade them and make into serial production number tanks, in addition to actually new production versions. The wording of all those contracts was just fudgy enough, to make me think that they're going to or have already massaged the meaning. The Kremlin is always about illusion, or grifting

[@ДмитрийОсипов-ц6ы]

поплачь в подушку, иллюзионист

[@dominuslogik484]

@@ДмитрийОсипов-ц6ы the real illusion is the 15 year old tank design still not put into actual production.

[@ДмитрийОсипов-ц6ы]

@@dominuslogik484 ты видимо просто тупой, в нем уже просто нет смысла, потому что сражения танк на танк редкость, а нужны Цари Мангалы для прорыва обороны и защиты от дронов + рабочие лошадки - Т-90, Т-72 б3 с мангалами и рэбами (которые у нас уже стоят, что там у вас по рэбам?) Но ты можешь сесть в свое высокотехнологичное гавно - Абрамс или Леопард, и сгореть там нахрен, не доехав даже до линии соприкосновения

[@johnclay2716]

@@dominuslogik484 15 year old design? You mean 35 year old design? T-14 is a late 80s Soviet design

[@dominuslogik484]

@@johnclay2716 when I say 15 years old im talking about the finalized design and not counting the time the Soviets did the heavy lifting then collapsed during the research stage.

[@b21raider27]

Putin’s next super yacht or more $ on the T-14, guess what’s going to win out? $700 million super yacht not too expensive. Da comrade, da!

[@ReviveHF]

The obvious answer is : Russia is not fighting a counter-insurgency warfare(For example Chenchen War and Battle of Marawi in Phillipines), instead they were waging attrition warfare(For example Second Sino Japanese War and the current War in Ukraine). T-14 wasn't adequate enough for the task, also you need to import military graded chips for the T-14 components as well.

[@stevinharper3551]

Russian excuses are great. They don't even bother trying to make it believable

[@jamesrowlands8971]

now explain why the West can't produce as many shells as the Russians can, despite spending more than $1tn a year more than the Russians on arms...

[@davout5775]

@@jamesrowlands8971 The US produces 1.2 million 155mm shells in peace times. Russia produces 3m shells of all kind during conflict. Besides, the US uses not artillery but their airforce. Direct comparisons cannot be made.

[@jamesrowlands8971]

@@davout5775 ahh, so the US chooses to fight a more expensive form of warfare, yet keeps on losing. Weird. I wonder why that is.

[@davout5775]

@@jamesrowlands8971 Losing? Can you please give me one example where the US was militarily defeated?

[@jamesrowlands8971]

@@davout5775 911.

[@slopedarmor]

Maybe also consider they might be full of it when they say the t14 is better than a t90. Maybe the t14 is worse. Maybe the prototypes dont even have full armour or fire control. Not to mention the t14 turret is less armoured and more vulnerable than a t90 turret. They will never put the t14 in production i think.

[@druid5808]

Oh mah gaaaaaa. As if this opinion was already voiced 2 years ago but a random Scottish alcoholic.

[@NothingIsKnown00]

In general, during peace time it makes sense to produce your most advanced stuff. During war time it makes more sense to produce your simpler, more reliable equipment. Especially if your most modern equipment is shit.

[@TotalRookie_LV]

T-14 was also too big for existing facilities - just doesn't fit in storage and repair boxes built for Soviet tanks. So the saga ended by not choosing T-14, not even T-90, instead T-72B3 was picked as Russian standard MBT.

[@eddgar-ce3md]

It was never meant for production anyway. They couldn't even make the X engine work, which is based on an old Austrian design, that no one used, because it doesn't work in a tank. While it looks great on paper, the engine is too complicated, requires a lot of maintenance and the cooling is a nightmare. They designed the hull around the engine. With a new engine, they have to redesign the hull. The tank is already too big, with a V engine, it will only get longer and heavier. And that's just one of the many issues the tank has.

[@secondamendment1927]

remember when binkov got to talk about hypothetical war, rather than war? The days of affording at least 2 meals a day, even on a walmart salary, with manageable fuel prices? Yeah, me niether, thank you 2020s

[@funkeyfreddy]

Facts

[@Soldner41]

Aslong an FPV Drone Costs like 200$ it doesnt matter how High Tech and expensive my Tank is aslong it isnt able to defend itself against these drones. I think, many countries currently overthink how they can counter the newly discovered threat. As for the Russians, currently, its smarter to buy/produce cheaper Tanks as they can do the same but for a smaller cost.

[@РайанКупер-э4о]

Agreed. Old design concepts does not make sense on today battlefield. We need to return to the drawing board and come up with something that will penetrate modern defences.

[@aynersolderingworks7009]

Tanks just need mounted AA guns, so the MGturrets will likely become autocannons turrets with a lot of automation to detect and shoot small drones

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

Ahh, another person that doesnt understand the "race" part of an arms race. Electronic Warfare will get better, and already has, and those cheap drones will not be useful anymore. It's already starting, with drones being increasingly lost before they could be used because the EW jams them.

[@patrickdegenaar9495]

T14 tanks cost around $7M. For the same money, you could buy 20 -30 automated (crewless) Toyota pickups with bolted on light armour, mounted missiles, and 50cal machine guns. Given today's battlefield, I suspect the latter would be much more effective.

[@bm952]

Those are great mine removing vehicles

T14's don't exist, so no they don't.

[@patrickdegenaar9495]

I'm just going by the Wikipedia estimate en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata. But you are right. It is not in production. So the estimate is just that. Either way, my point was that a swarm of fast, cheap, automated, less-armored systems will as a whole survive longer and provide equal or greater firepower for the same amount of investment.

@@patrickdegenaar9495 Oh, like chinese golf carts? Now you are just makin' shit up...

[@LunaticTheCat]

You couldn't be more wrong

[@damjanforjanic]

I think time has stopped for the production of new tanks for everyone until they find a way to protect the tank from drones.

[@garethmartin6522]

Yes exactly. Also the ubiquity of ATGM's. Heavy armour just doesn't work any more.

[@LunaticTheCat]

Although that may be true, that's not the reason Russia isn't procuring any T-14s

[@dhanu_4539]

Turtle tanks are the future!!

[@Benny_Shill]

Drones changed warfare. You don't need advanced tanks, you need a metal box on top of the tank to stop drones and rockets from penetrating the hull.

[@JAy-dx1xb]

Right Abrams showed us that 10 million a tank and 150 dollar drones are leaving them in the dirt. Cheaper tanks that u can mass produce is the way to go and Russia has that on lock

[@marcpaulus6291]

@@JAy-dx1xb No they dont. They cant mass produce. All they do right now is pull old Tanks from their massive Storages and send them into combat with a cheap overhaul. When their storage runs out the cant even outproduct daily losses.

[@alexnderrrthewoke4479]

​@@JAy-dx1xbdon't forget t-72 destroying abrams easy with one shot

[@alexnderrrthewoke4479]

​@@marcpaulus6291yes they can dude. Russia is mass producing all tank models and they reatarted t-80 tanks production again. Cope

[@avarion9538]

@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 not really. They take 80% from storage, and even this is just 120 tanks a month. That's not really mass production, if you look at the confirmed losses. Also keep in mind, a lot of it is T-55 and T-62, so if we talk about new tanks, the real number is around 25 a month. Russia published the 120 tanks per month and if you look into the factories, that produce the tanks, you can find the number, that 80% are from storage, easily.

[@DOI_ARTS]

The Turtle Tank was more successful than the T14

[@springbloom5940]

...and the Leopard 2... and the Challenger 2... and the Abrams...

[@skkhammuansangngaihte4989]

​@@springbloom5940all these tanks would obliterate any russian tank in open combat like during gulf war

[@abas656thegodemperor9]

expecting a conflict like that is naive at best, warfare changes and so should tanks,tanks arent gonna reach an end all be all stage,there will be pros and cons to every tank,just as there was in the gulf war.​@@skkhammuansangngaihte4989

[@Voschane]

@@skkhammuansangngaihte4989 "like during the gulf war" it's like having a M60 shooting at a T-34, poorly trained Iraqi tankers in rotting T-55's and T-72's vs modernized M1's isn't a good comparison.

[@skkhammuansangngaihte4989]

@@Voschane russian tanks still would likely lose to most tanks of west under normal convenient fight.Unless they fought the nato tanks from 1980s

[@ffx_6751]

Well, yeah, it's kinda painful to manufacture a multi million dollar tank which can be destroyed by a 100$ drone.

[@Alister.95]

"Test Batch" ---> Testing whether the procedures for syphoning money into private overseas bank accounts are sufficiently robust. (The Test was Successful).

[@MakintheMeats]

Its called the T-14 because it was supposed to come out in 2014

[@bajorjor1]

There is always 2114

[@csnation]

Simply put drones/top down munitions have made expensive tanks not cost effective. Because a tank is always weak on the top of its turret. A drone or top down munitions target that spot. And you don't need to put an impressive missile with a warhead that can go through several meters of armor grade steel with ERA on top of that to destroy this vulnerable weakness. Still tanks are important, but you don't need to go for the most expensive tank for that.

[@aitorbleda8267]

It needs to defend itself from drones, it makes no sense to build it otherwise

[@jamesgornall5731]

I honestly think now would be a great time for every military to reevaluate their tank designs and their fundamental role in warfare. Take a pause, build what you're already building if it is still needed, but go back to the drawing board for anything else in the future

[@Gypsum179]

T-14 is in the same boat as SU-57: unaffordable for Russia.

[@Digital_Griffin]

They were probably hoping to export both of those to other countries in order to subsidize development and production, but the war has largely put a stop to that. The Russian military just doesn't buy enough of them on its own to justify extremely expensive, bleeding-edge development programs

[@christineshotton824]

Ask not what you can do to the tank; ask what the tank can do to you.

[@joshuafairbanks5643]

Tanks need a complete redesign to be effective in the modern battlefield. As of right now they are built to be the strongest against taking direct fire shots from the front. But 60% of Rush's tank losses were from drones, and even a lot more anti-tank missiles are starting to have top attack capability. So building a tank with all the armor concentrated on the front is outdated and 20th century thinking. Also tank on tank almost never happens anymore.

[@Markfr0mCanada]

The T14 has such amazing stealth technology that none have been detected in Ukraine!

[@sting2death2]

Yea, The Abrams, Leopard 2, and Challenger 2 should copy T-14 stealth technology, seeing how their best contribution to the war was blowing up on camera.

[@josh-029]

@@sting2death2 Meanwhile Russia has sent over 3000 of its own tanks into low orbit. Truly an amazing feat of engineering, eh comrade?

[@sting2death2]

@@josh-029 most of the knock outs are not catastrophic and the crew abandon the tanks, and despite the low numbers of Western MBTs we've already had at least 1 Leo and Chally toss their turret, and an Abrams cook-off into the fighting compartment (presumably mid-reload). The Da soviet engineering comrade part is the fact that Russia can pump out over 3000 tanks and then some. The Challenger 2 also turned out to be the worst of them all, breaking down and sinking in the mud constantly, so much so that Banderastan stopped fielding them.

[@josh-029]

@sting2death2 Russian didn't produce the vast majority of the tanks it's lost in Ukraine - the USSR did. The fact of the matter is that their tank production is not able to keep up with their losses. Hence why so many old relics from the 60s and before have to pulled out of mothball and sent to the front. That's not to say that Western countries would be able to keep up either, but NATO generally focuses on quality rather than quantity.

[@Mk21818]

​@@josh-029 the fact of the matter is Russia is getting rid of old tech

[@antoniozeros]

They never existed past the prototype rofl

[@ACR909]

I guess you've not seem them in parades?

[@grovsmed4347]

@@ACR909 weve seen the prototype yea. or would you send a extremly expensive tank to the front which even breaks down on a parade?

[@BillyBurnsfield]

@@grovsmed4347 it didnt break down, can people stop repeating this lie its so stupid

[@Finngolian]

But it does make sense for general oligarchkov to build himself a nice multi million dollar mansion.

[@syaro5077]

I think the answer is pretty easy because the Russians don't want to spend a staggering amount of money on a vehicle that we could easily refer to as a Russian "Abrams" (even though they look nothing alike) and have to deal with all the problems that come with it. . a tank of such size and weight, vehicles that are clearly not very appropriate for the geography of the country. On the contrary, they prefer to continue with the standards they are accustomed to in medium-weight, easily adaptable and cheap tanks like the T-80 and T-90. Regarding these tanks, I believe that sooner or later Russia will unify them into a single platform to which they will be able to adapt the type of armament and engine necessary with minimal factory modifications, a cheap universal chassis that they will be able to mass produce on a unified production line. , or at least that is the impression I get from the development of practically all Russian vehicles today.

[@phoenix211245]

You are assuming that Russia will exist 10 years from now, which is a rather major requirement in building new tank models. Regardless of how the war in Ukraine goes, it's a second Afghanistan, and we all know what happened to USSR after. It's simply economically unsustainable, but we do get to watch them spew out nuclear threats every month or so, here's some fun to be had.

[@taxult]

​@phoenix211245 Your delusional if you think Russia is done for after this war lmao

[@phoenix211245]

@@taxult I thought I was delusional to think that USSR would collapse in 1990, yet it happened. I'm living through the beginning of Russia's collapse right now. There is A LOT of internal tension. You are delusional if you think that the country will exist in 10 years. It's rather silly to believe a country that disintegrates every 50-60 years will last.

[@phoenix211245]

@@taxult same could have been said about the USSR, and where is in now?

[@SanarySeggnete]

For Russia, even if they lose, it would be just another Crimean War... (They lost the Crimean War as the whole Europe sided with Ottoman, but they in the end won by tired out the European countries, that none cares if they broke the war treaty, invaded Ottoman some years later and achieved their goal). But they are winning in the battlefield, and the situation in their home ground is not as bad as 1942 (when Soviet almost bankrupted due to corruption and the fragmentation inside their Party after the Great Purge), Russia is still in their comfortable zone (not your normal standard comfortable zone, of course...)

[@ilovehihats]

if designing a new tank, it would need to adjust to the new paradigm of drone warfare.The T-14 (and no new western prototype for that matter) does not posses any clear coutermeasures or protection against FPV drones. An old T-72 with some thermal optics and "turtle" add-on armor and a fuckton of EW is proving itself a lot more effective in the battlefield and any new designs will probably go about that design philosophy, at least in terms of protection. ukrobots tweaking because their armchair general predictions are getting glide FAB'd as we speak.

[@Eder-bk5mm]

Soviet and Western tanks survivability after getting hit are not comparable though, FPV drones or not. When it comes to Russia designs: - "turtle" armor cope are ridiculous. They turn tanks into self propelled guns with no visibility for the crew and don't seem to even work. - The T14 is a perfect analogy of the whole Russian army: a nice looking paper tiger that doesn't really work.

[@Diicikhadja]

@@Eder-bk5mmthe turtle armor has worked thus far though lol. How can you say the Russian army is completely ineffective, it’s currently advancing in ukraine.

[@cyber8000]

@@Diicikhadja Bro is knee deep in Ukro propaganda, anyone with a brain could of predicted that Russia was going to win since before the war even began

[@foundones]

@@Eder-bk5mm Yet it has proved effective but you ridicule the novel idea. Maybe Western military observers will be taking ideas on how to spend billions to find something more sophisticated so that the Russians can capture it and parade it in Moscow.

[@Eder-bk5mm]

@@Diicikhadja The Russian army is slowly advancing in Ukraine with basic meat wave attacks with absurdly high losses. I'm not saying it can't get any result, the Russian army might produce result, but so far those results weren't great, and costed a lot. Any army can work when they can throw an absurd amount of troops at an underequipped enemy. As a reminder, the Russian army was supposed to win the conventional war in Ukraine in a few days / weeks with minimal casualties, just like the US did in Afghanistan or Iraq. This is how modern and effective army are supposed to operate when facing a much poorer enemy.

[@Ghent_Halcyon]

So it’s exactly as everyone has been saying, they can’t afford it, just like the SU-57.

[@FreeRojava2025]

Bro I’ve just argued with a rusky for 72 hours on the Su57. He tried to claim russia had 50 of them along with 20 Su75😂

[@kiabtoomlauj6249]

A nation with a GDP 50%, at the most optimistic estimate, of the GDP of the lazy, uneducated state of California can't afford to buy hundreds of high-end tanks, EVEN if it had the technologies & all components required, for mass production. And that's really the crux of the matter. While all these 6th-grade operated KZbin channel trotted out this or that silly arguments, the fact of the matter is, Russia simply isn't capable of mass producing high-end military and consumer products. They could produce a few to a dozen or so, of these very sophisticated things (T-14, Su-57, etc).... very similar to what the US did with its SR-71 program back in the 1960s, when it didn't have enough high quality titanium. The US Pentagon/CIA used shell companies to import titanium from Russua/the USSR. But that kind of scheme, again, could only get you so far. Mass production is NEVER going to work. China is able to produce seemingly anything it needs, from a technology stand-point; but even China can't produce high-end semi-conductors/high-end chips (e.g., 5nm, 3nm, 2nm, and next generation kinds of chips that ALL AI COMPUTATION must have). China's scientists said, recently, they've been able to by-pass a certain man-made processes, when it comes to chip fabrication, etc. But, still, that's BARELY published in peer reviewed papers; that means the actual engineering part of such an approach is 10 or 15 years away.... assuming advances on THAT IDEA keep continuing.... In the mean time, China is stuck with largely 10nm & 7nm chips, the only ones she has the TOOLS to fabricate, with the most advanced laser tools and other essential electronic components from the US, Western Europe, etc. being restricted recently..... China likely has some reserves of 5nm for its own use; but Russia ian't getting none of it. BTW, Russia is a northern European country, just as highly literate and educated as its other northern European neighbors (Estonians, Fins, Swedes, Norwegians et al), and with 145M people, Russia has ZERO TECH COMPANY on the list of "The Top 100 biggest tech companies in the world." You simply can't mass produce high end products if you are THAT bad in the ENGENDERING and NURTURING of technologies and companies that deal with high-end tech. Russians are, again, IMMENSELY creative, due to their high education; but ZERO of them --- if they live in Russia ---- is going to come up with Google, IBM, Qualcomm, GoPro, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Toyota, Samsung, Apple, FB, KZbin, TSMC, Intel, Nvidia, ASML, KlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Sanofi, Johnson-Johnson, Tesla, Merck, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Roche, Novartis, Apple, Amazon, Broadcom, etc. 100% of the individual Russian Americans and Russians who've found giant tech companies like Google... they've gotten the phuc out of Russia. Or their parents did. Russia, as a society, is mired in primitive authoritarianism... from the Tsar to Stalin to Comrade GKB Col. Putin.... individuals inside Russia, again, simply can't fully express themselves and their ideas. There also is little to no finance. A dozen to a few hundred Oligarchs and Putin horded all the wealth dug up or sucked out of Russia's lands; and most of such wealth --- when they're converted to currencies ---- are stashed away in offshore accounts, invested in physical properties ("great arts," lands, super yachts, sporting teams, mansions & other real estates).... or buried back in the ground or kept in vaults.

[@sujitbala1492]

At least they are actually getting Su-57s, slow but steadily. 22 and counting, excluding prototypes. T-14 as far as I know isn't really ramping up production.

[@sujitbala1492]

​@@FreeRojava2025 Haha. That's not true. Su-75 is still in testing. But this Su-57 drama isn't really that bad as the T-14. Its a pretty good aircraft, definitely. And they've finally gotten the anticipated AL-51 engines and claimed to equip their R-37M Hypersonics in the internal weapons bay. That's a good achievement if you ask me. People saying its a trash aircraft are probably younger than 12 years old, or politically biased internet users. Its stealth may not be as good as an F-22, but the Su-57 still counts as a low observable RCS airframe. All those "exposed rivets and screws, fan blades" are from the prototype models for promotion. You cant find those in the serial production models. Even then, I myself have serious doubts on the F-22's stealth which apparently nobody is talking about. Rust have started to form on some of the airframes, and some of those older models have rust that look really really bad. Besides that, the F-22 is very notorious in maintenance. I've heard the RAM coating easily gets removed and 1 hour of flying time requires 17 hours of maintenance. I don't know how the F-22 is going to fare well in an active wartime scenario where resources would be scarce and the economy would take hits but hey, that's why we have the F-35, which is a less of a pain than the F-22.

[@FreeRojava2025]

@@sujitbala1492 4

[@ycplum7062]

There is another advantage to older and cheaper. Russia can no long produce some ofthe more advanced electro/optical components. I don't think the term "obsolete" is approriate. The tanks is presently less effective. Historically, being less effective does not make an item obsolete. Almost always, an item becomes obsolte when something(s) else can do the same job more effectively.

[@Vlad_-_-_]

Older and cheaper also means more crew that needs to be trained, more logistics involved for more vehicles, its not only advantages

[@WRAAAMmh]

Military tech might be an exemption to that rule. Advancements in firepower has made stuff like armor and fortifications (as they were) obsolete many times.

[@Vlad_-_-_]

@@WRAAAMmh Tech rules nowadays.

[@HairLessBush]

All the technology that Russia cannot produce now comes from china. That lack of technology talking point is old and debunked now. T14 just doesn't make strategic sense to mass produce when t90 is cheaper faster/easier to produce and is Battle tested and can do the job just as good if not better. Making a new tank puts strain on the logictis and production line because for menufacturing new tanks new supply chain / process's are needed to be established. So Russia just goes with t90 mass-producing since everything is already established and calibrated Russia just needs to ramp up production when russia needs more of it and looks like russia is doing just that.

[@springbloom5940]

Probably because they're smarter than everyone thats just plowing ahead with tanks and other systems they started before the Ukraine proving ground proved them wrong.

[@Achmedsander]

Thanks since their inception tanks have been imagined as some kind of invincible dominating power and tanks fighting other tanks. At the start they sure were a force to be reckoned with if they had adequate infantry support, but this has become less and less true. Intelligence is the true king of war and nowadays you have detection platforms (drones, satellites) that can detect pretty much anything and achieving surprise is almost impossible. Combined with the fact that if you can detect a threat you can most likely hit and disable it. Investing in big expensive tanks doesn't make that much sense when they can so easily be disabled.

[@fuckoff4705]

as opposed to any other war in history, in which knowing anything about your enemy wasn't valued????

[@sichere]

Russia decides to cancel building the invincible T14 and concentrate on reintroducing T55's for year 3 of their 3 day SMO

[@cruise_missile8387]

When javelins will take out ANY of them equally well you use tanks primarily for things other than MBT on MMBT combat you might as well just slap some cheap upgrades on old ones and save money.

[@Nottotti-eg9nf]

3 day SMO? Said by who exactly? Cause I can't recall any Russian Officials saying such a line. It's almost as if that statement was made by an American General called General Milley. Cut it with the bs propaganda, it doesn't look good on you and plus it won't work on people who have 2 braincells that they can use to connect the dots.

[@alienmorality]

😁

[@SnowmanTF2]

Eh, AbramX moving to three crew in the hull was a development concept by the company, that does not necessarily mean the US Army is planning on doing the same with their M1A3.

[@honkhonk8009]

That wasnt the US Army or any state contracted thing. It was mostly a company making a few upgrades to sell to other countries.

[@avarion9538]

2 reasons: 1. The engine is terrible and can't get fixed 2. It doesn't exist. Just hilariously bad prototypes

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

You probably think it uses the Tiger P engine right?

[@BackyardDogPark9862]

Lazerpig did a great episode on this, really shows the effects of brain drain.

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@BackyardDogPark9862His video was full of errors, it absolutely is not good.

[@BackyardDogPark9862]

@@voidtempering8700 Settle down, Scott Ritter.

[@voidtempering8700]

@@BackyardDogPark9862 ?

[@kevenmendez6918]

Cost 5-20 million for one gen 5 tank just imagine how many 50$ drones u could buy with that kind of money… you could fill the sky with drones

[@davout5775]

The problem with that is $50 drones can easily be defeated by some more serious nation like the US that knows a thing or 2 about EW

[@gaborrajnai6213]

If that would be the case we would see it in Ukraine dont you think...@@davout5775

[@someboi4535]

​@@davout5775Russia literally has better EW than the US

[@davout5775]

@@someboi4535 Is that the reason why Russia is now making "tutel tanks"? Because they can't jam even basic, consumer-grade drones?

[@GhostScout42]

@@davout5775 the turtle tanks have a drone jammer on it Ignoramous, and yes, Russia has always had better EW because that is how they decided to defend against US

[@oleopathic]

Wonderwaffe failed to materialize in light of Blyat-Tank's introduction.

[@Vandelberger]

It is a cryptid of a tank. T-14 seems like a shell concept with no combat reports to take from. They appear then disappear.

[@Vandelberger]

@@foundones That is a foolish comparison. The Bradley is from the early 80s and simply troop transports with TOW missiles, but two quickly took out a T-95 pretty quickly due to the essential technology allowing them to drive and shoot at the same time. This is something most Russian tanks can’t due, at least not at any speed.the Bradley also have had few to no casualties when disabled. None have been full wipe outs crew and all.

[@BladeTheWatcher]

Russia's tank doctrine was always building tens of thousands of medium tanks. Cheap enough to mass-produce, strong enough not to be totally owned by something heavier. The T-14 fits the doctrine. The T-14 wasn't meant to be expensive. The real question is - why is it. Is it the need for western components? Or is it overengineered? Or is it the sorry state of the factories? At this point it is possible to simplify the tank to speed up production. Maybe replace the engine to something simpler. Replace the electronics to a cheaper Chinese product. That still doesn't make the T-14 outdated - it still has more than adequate armament, can still hit its targets, it is still fast enough, it still has an autoloader, and the crew can still survive even if the tank is destroyed. Unmanned vehicles have their own vulnerabilities. 3 soldiers per tank is still a good exchange.

[@greenling.]

Actually the T14 was never intended as a tank for a mass army in the millions with tank swarms. Around 2010s Russia tried to reform the military to a professional smaller scale army that replaces to some extent men with more capable equipment - modelled a bit more along western forces. However, this never worked es intended and so T14, even if it was well engineered, if it was as capable as propganda says, even if it didn't require western components, even if it could have been exported to cross finance domestic procurment and even if there was a factory that was capable to produce north of 20 per year it still would not fit into the state of the Russian army pre 2022. And even less to the one that fights are war that ruins the country right now.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

"Is it the need for western components?" *sigh* Seriously, when are people going to realise that Russia became 100% selfsufficient militarily by 2018? Same year they quit using ANY IMPORTED components in the military. And even more importantly, as has been proven in the last 2 years, Russian components are BETTER than western ones, so why ever would they even WANT to use western crap? Russian thermal imaging has proven capable of spotting and accurately targeting infantry inside a building at 4 km range. Currently used on western tanks can do that at HALF the range. Next generation western TI can do it at 2.5km. That's just ONE example of many possible. Why can't people remember that Russia inherited USSRs ability to build their own chipfabs? Doesn't matter that they're mostly using chips made from 65nm to 150nm, they work as intended and Russia is making LOTS of them. And they should recently or soon be in the middle of ramping up their first 28nm node at a chipfab. But as this has become military secrets, such information is no longer PUBLIC, like it was in 2018, when they openly talked about finally catching up with production needed for the military thanks to ramping up their then first BIG 65nm node along with a having massively expanded the capacity of an older 90nm node by switching from 100mm wafers to 300mm wafers. "The real question is - why is it." Because there's parts that cannot be reliably automated in production. "Or is it the sorry state of the factories?" You mean the factories that are currently outproducing the entire EU and Nato combined for military equipment and supplies, by roughly a magnitude? Oh yes, VERY sorry state indeed. In the west that is. "Replace the electronics to a cheaper Chinese product." Not going to happen. Russia isn't going to let ANYONE else produce anything vital for the military EVER again. "Cheap enough to mass-produce, strong enough not to be totally owned by something heavier." *lol* Except for the tiny little fact that Russian tanks are owning western tanks. Seeing an old T-72 outspot an Abrams and then destroy it with the first shot, that's outright funny when you listen to all the western ubermensch propaganda. Oh but wait, why don't you go look up the Nato evaluation of Soviet equipment from the 90s? From when they got unlimited access due to German reunification. The single most common evaluation was roughly "better than Nato equivalent in all ways but ergonomics". And that's at a time when EVERYBODY KNEW that the west's equipment was SOOO SUPERIOR! Nope. Essentially everything Soviet was better. That report caused the panicky development of the -9X model of the Sidewinder as well as many upgrades for tanks and IFVs among other things.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

​@DIREWOLFx75 bro what are you about Taiwanese chips were found in russian drones, along with cannon cameras If russia is soo good with chips why arent they selling it for a lot of money ? Becose that sector collapsed in the 90s Edit: also where have you seen a t72 oneshot a m1 ? Link or it didnt happen

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@nikolaideianov5092 "Taiwanese chips were found in russian drones, along with cannon cameras" Just because they stopped using them or buying additional ones doesn't mean they would be stupid enough to just throw them away after they replaced them. What they're finding is Russia clearing out their old stocks of chips that was removed from active service. "If russia is soo good with chips why arent they selling it for a lot of money ?" Russia's primary chipfabs are running 65nm and 90nm nodes. Samsung and TMC have production nodes running at 7nm. While their majority of manufacturing is in the 10s, 20s or 30s nm range, those can be produced much cheaper, in theory at least. There's absolutely no chance that Russia would compete commercially outside its domestic market. And even more importantly, they don't NEED to, because they're still building up so that they can cover the entire DOMESTIC market. When they get their 24nm node running, that will help a lot, but once their 14nm node starts up probably around 2028, at that point, Russia might be able to cover all the important part of the civillian demand for chips in Russia. When they reach probably 10nm node after that, sometime around 2031 or so, THEN, they MIGHT start to export a little. Until then, the Russian civillian market will want it all. Aside from cars, that's the big trade increase with China. "Becose that sector collapsed in the 90s" So what? The company didn't disappear. The employees didn't disappear. So, when Russia found itself wanting to become selfsufficient around 2003, the former Soviet chipfab tools manufacturer was economically in poor shape and they had not been able to upgrade what tools they had for sales much, but 5 years of heavy investment and then continued investment and scoring some commerical contracts as well, and now they're solvent. "Link or it didnt happen" If i add a link, the post gets censored away. Just search youtube for it, it was here i saw it. And at least one of the warmappers i follow showed a partially censored version of it. Probably Military Summary channel. But it happened several weeks ago. Seriously, just google it, it was a real embarassment to USA so there was plenty of talk about it even if USA tried to sweep it under the carpet.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

@@DIREWOLFx75 your point was that russian chips are better then western chips And now your og comment is missing ,i wonder why

[@2IDSGT]

The loitering/top-attack munitions problem needs to be mitigated before any more tanks are designed… 🙄

[@AprezaRenaldy]

Drone is problem. T14 & t90It's no different when fighting drones

[@Somewhat_Unknown]

Not versed in this topic at all but having a hell of a time reading the comments.

[@MaxiosMB]

Seems difficult to change lines of productions for a tank that still a new platform now that they're fighting a war. Plus tanks are at a dead end right now, as far as their combat role etc... So yeah modernizing relible current tanks seems to be more sensible

[@onedot6674]

Russia has tanks?! Thought all they had were shovels!

[@Maxfr8]

☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️

[@Vlad_-_-_]

Greetings komrad, how is the 3 day special military operation going ?

[@animaniac2618]

@@Vlad_-_-_ greetings nazi, hows the counteroffensive going?

[@HairLessBush]

​@@Vlad_-_-_u mean the offensive that the USA general said?

[@Vlad_-_-_]

@@HairLessBush No, I mean the failed russian one that was supposed to take 3 days

[@gaborrajnai6213]

The main selling point of the Armata was, that that they will use its chassis up to basically everything from self propelled howitzers to IFVs to toop transports, so its kindof a real technical challenge however if they get it right that would mean a significant cost reduction for the whole project. Russians kindof always go for these interoperable systems, and where they achieve it like with the Kalibr, they can massproduce it dirt cheap. It was never about "the tank" itself.

[@eddgar-ce3md]

There was never meant to be an Armata series of vehicles. The whole thing was meant for propaganda and as a marketing tool for the russian arms industry. It's called a "halo product".

[@ryansauchuk7290]

Why would you want troop transports that are meant to be fast based on a tank? Why do you need artillery to be tank armored? You're making a heavy expensive fuel heavy force. If your artillery needs to withstand direct ground fire from vehicles something has gone horribly wrong.

[@ДимаВеселов-в8и]

​​@@ryansauchuk7290 1. The economy of scale 2. Unification of logistics chains. Russia has very few people, not very strong industry, few reliable allies to outsource stuff and a very long border to protect, so in order to stay a relevant military power their best bet is to minimize the amount of people and resources involved in developing, producing, shipping, maintaining&repairing and learning to use some niche specific stuff and create a unified platform for everything with parts including some crew members that can be swapped on the run between different vehicles and their types like Lego pieces. Having 30, say, engines that can be fitted on either a tank, or an IFV or an artillery piece and having one crew of mechanics do all the job is way better than having 10 engines of each type and 3 different designated crews/1 that underwent extensive training, as well as being able to cannibalize virtually any thing in your arsenal for your needs instead of needing to find a specific type of vehicle. 3. Modern tank chassis can be quite fast, especially when you strip them down a bit, so the difference between a designated slightly faster, but less armoured IFV and a tank-platform IFV isn't critical. And artillery may use tank armour to protect itself from counter-battery fire and potential ambushes that would be a problem for lightly armored vehicles

[@rbartig]

Always amused when a picture of any Russian authority figure is shown, they always look like a James Bond villain.

[@RoyPep1]

Russia lacks innovation, same tank designs, aging navy and air force. They gave up on the T-14 to focus on "Hypersonic" missiles and "Stealth" aircraft, Russia is only just doing what the US did nearly 30 years + ago. Yeah the west doesn't have a production Hypersonic missile but it doesn't need one. Just like BVR Missiles they are not exactly worth the cost of production and are not any better than a stealth cruise missile, not to mention very expensive to make. The SU-57 is barely on the production line, with non-stealth vectoring and a RADAR signature 1,000x bigger than the F-22 and F-35. about 13 SU-57`s exist whereas the US has about 120 F-22 (being replaced with 6th Gen within the next 5 year) And as a whole NATO and Allied nations host over 1,200 f-35`s. Russia's war doctrine has essentially ruined the Russian military. Most of their vehicles are soviet era or upgraded soviet era. Lets face it, if the world didn't have Nukes, it would look very different right now.

Hypersonic missiles and stealth? Which?

[@jettrd_utilitychnl4230]

29% of F35 fleet is mission ready. West does not have 1200. But It has 800 very expencieve paperweights

@@jettrd_utilitychnl4230 As you are clearly a spanner, I will give you some actual numbers. The 29% you dribble about is actually 48%. The number for the F15D is 68%, the F18 is 80%, the F16 around 70% and the F22 50%. Clearly you think 0% of the time and have no idea what maintenance is.

[@izak.barnes]

​@@jettrd_utilitychnl4230 whats your source? That seems very unrealistic especially with how heated things are at the moment. We have 2 wars going on i think countries would prepare their most capable platforms.

[@jettrd_utilitychnl4230]

@@izak.barnes my source is congressional hearings involving gen Lloyd Austin earlier this week where he was mumbling some schoolboy level of answers to a senator who was just torturing him with official report on exactly F35 program. It is a biblical scale failure of an aircraft

[@chrisblack6258]

Probably because it's a bad tank for Russia since Russian can't build it for a sensible cost

[@WestValleyTransparency]

In essence, when a country's MOD/DoD reduces the quantity of serial production, the more expensive a single unit becomes.

[@ic7481]

My thoughts are that the focus will be on modifying it to effectively counter drones, and, if that can be done, they then have a highly desirable product. If drones can be reliably countered, that is a major advantage.

[@tiagodagostini]

They can. It is not so hard to make an automated small .50 scale turret that shot incomming drones. Problem is.. a constant radar emission would make it target of anti radiation missiles. Expensive tanks are not in a great position right now. Even the High end NATO tanks die as easily as the T72 (on side of ukraine) in this war.

[@ic7481]

@tiagodagostini don't necessarily need radar - optical detection methods can be used. Anti-radar missiles seem overkill for a tank anyway.

[@macfly6237]

@@tiagodagostiniThe Abrams still a wonderful tank and far surpasses anything Russia has in their armory and their production is so good that they can be made just as fast as the T-34

[@tiagostein4057]

@@macfly6237 Way to miss the point. Ukraine losses of tanks be them T64 T72 LEopard , AMX or Abrams have been EXACTLY proportional to the quantity of these tanks they have. That measn that the amazing super advanced tanks die as easily as CRAP tanks in the modern battlefield.

[@AMOUREDD]

The drones are a lot more movable than the gun, and the size of it🤏@@tiagodagostini

[@off_grid_javelin]

Outdated ? Nope. Costlier for the work already been done by cheaper elements ? Definitely. Applies for all new gen tanks.

[@historyisawesome6399]

Yeah there not going to make another soviet mistake if t-72b3 is good enough for now there no need to destroy the economy making super tanks