Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
13 comments displayed.
#5
-
mrshrapnel (12/15/2015) [-] Just me or is T-72s seemingly quite prone to cook off when hit?
Somewhere an Ivan is crying into his pillow about glorious T-72 getting misused.
Somewhere an Ivan is crying into his pillow about glorious T-72 getting misused.
#98 to #5
-
widar (12/16/2015) [-]
They are. The armor on the export model T-72s is significantly downgraded compared to the "real" T-72, plus those are old tanks with an ERA kit slapped on if they're lucky. The armor's simply not good enough for modern RPGs and ATGMs anymore, and the ammunition is unfortunately stored in a way that makes these catastrophic cook-offs pretty common. A T-72B3 as it is currently in use with the Russian army would probably fare significantly better.
That said, all tanks today are vulnerable to ATGMs, even the ridiculously well-armored Abrams. The Saudis got a whole bunch of theirs destroyed in Yemen by Kornets, plus a lot of their M60s.
That said, all tanks today are vulnerable to ATGMs, even the ridiculously well-armored Abrams. The Saudis got a whole bunch of theirs destroyed in Yemen by Kornets, plus a lot of their M60s.
#10 to #9
-
mrshrapnel (12/15/2015) [-] Lets introduce ISIS to the T-14 Armata, WASWAS never knew what hit 'em.
#89 to #10
-
Airmanator (12/16/2015) [-] It'll break down a fifth-way down the first street it rumbles down.
This kind of stuff happens when Ivan tries to build fancy things that they can't afford to build and maintain properly.
This kind of stuff happens when Ivan tries to build fancy things that they can't afford to build and maintain properly.
#159 to #97
-
Airmanator (12/17/2015) [-] They can designator the systems they want but they can't afford to build them properly or maintain them to the level such a complex design deserves. T14 is way different than the T55.
#147 to #97
-
captanyonomus (12/16/2015) [-] The technical complexity of the T-14 and the T-55, even in the T-55M6 Functionally a 2000 era upgrade to the tank, Arena APS, modern ERA, extra drive wheels to support the added armor and it's been upgunned to a variant of the 125mm 2A46 , is still decades behind the Armata. To say that an as of yet, uncombat-tested vehicle is going to stand up fine in the field and not have anything break down is premature at best.
Also Soviet armor has certainly seen it's share of troubles historically, the issues surrounding the T-62 and especially the issues surrounding initial variants of the T-80 and the teething issues it had with it's turbine engine.
That said I assume the Armata won't perform as badly as that other dude was saying, but if it has issues it wouldn't be a surprise.
Also Soviet armor has certainly seen it's share of troubles historically, the issues surrounding the T-62 and especially the issues surrounding initial variants of the T-80 and the teething issues it had with it's turbine engine.
That said I assume the Armata won't perform as badly as that other dude was saying, but if it has issues it wouldn't be a surprise.
#101 to #97
-
anon (12/16/2015) [-]
Yeah but the Russians are about to find out why the US abandoned the similar XM1200 Future Combat Vehicle concept about a decade earlier: mechanical complexity and expense.
The T-14 takes everything good about Russian armor, mostly reliability from tried and tested technology, and throws it out the window for the sake of claiming that they have something more advanced than the West. Furthermore, Russia's economy isn't exactly in a state to support a large scale procurement program for such advanced weapon.
The T-14 takes everything good about Russian armor, mostly reliability from tried and tested technology, and throws it out the window for the sake of claiming that they have something more advanced than the West. Furthermore, Russia's economy isn't exactly in a state to support a large scale procurement program for such advanced weapon.
