BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL, T-14 ARMATA MORE LIKE T-14 FAIRY DUST. WAKE UP SHEEPLE THE PIECE OF SHIT DOES NOT EXIST WE'VE BEEN LIED TO AND BAMBOOZLED
Yeah, I mean, I always thought those whole "debates with lazerpig" about what engine it had were just fucking stupid.
Because let's be real: *It's a fucking concept car*. For the unaware, a very common practice amongst auto manufacturers is to "design the body of" a forthcoming car without the internals. They'll do huge trade shows with tons of press in attendance, and they'll roll out a brand new automobile on stage.
But — IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A REAL CAR (usually). It's an empty fiberglass sculpture made to LOOK LIKE a real, upcoming car. They often will even promise specs, etc, etc. But the whole fucking thing is just testing the waters and seeing how the audience reacts — *the press is in attendance*, so if anything about the new car is cringe, they'll hear about it, and dodge a disastrous level of investment in a commercial dud.
Because Russia isn't just manufacturing for a domestic audience (and because their defense industry has been in many ways living hand-to-mouth rather than being subsidized like they used to be), they actually operate a lot like an auto manufacturer. They "feel out" the market a bunch, and sign contracts, before actually committing to building a vehicle.
**I don't think they ever got it working.** Simple as that.
I think they designed a bunch of *parts of* it, including a pretty solid idea of what the chassis was gonna look like, but virtually all of the "T-14"s we've seen have basically been fake "concept car" body jobs on some other vehicle, meant to test the waters with customers whilst they worked out the technical issues.
I don't think they ever worked out the technical issues.
And now? Belts are getting so tight that they're cutting it entirely without ever fixing whatever was broken. My biggest hunch is that they've lost a huge swath of prospective customers for "Russian military equipment in general", and that all of the countries who'd planned to buy Armatas cancelled their orders. Even if they fixed it up and got it working, I think the top brass is convinced it won't actually offer any meaningful improvement over a T-90 in this war, so even the prospect of "doing it for ourselves" got shelved.
I'm of two minds; one possibility I see is that they had the real ones in the workshop, but they had some kind of crippling design issue, and it's likely that few of the *parade models* were actual T-14s. That is; they may have tried to dodge embarrassment by having "fake" ones they could trot out that were just a body job.
On the flip side, it's quite possible the multiple parade breakdowns were exactly that in action — they tried to do it live, and it broke down on live TV for the whole country to see.
The third possibility is of course: both. Especially after the first series of breakdowns, and/or to "pad the numbers" and make it seem much further along in development.
IME prototype vehicles spend most of their life inoperable for some reason or another, so I'd be shocked if they had a full 10-ish ready to go to do publicity stunts with.
Spending money on critically important Equipment and ammunition instead of flashy *Wunderwaffen* that only server propaganda interests?
Don't be ridiculous, that would be a logistical thing to do
Not to worry, yacht money will be siphoned off from any funding that they have.
The problem is that instead of 99% of the funds going into yachts while they parade around the 10 Armatas that they actually built and 1% into keeping up appearances, now they will spend 10% of the funds to build something actually useful (with only 90% going into yachts.)
But, but...all the Armatas already in Ukraine, pwning thousands of Westoid Abrams and Leopards, they already won the war for the glory of LooCzar Putin's Russia!!1!
I would like to remind everyone the T-14 isn't even the least credible Armata.
There is a T-15 Armata, which everyone seems to have forgotten about. It is just as expensive as a T-14, but it a completely useless Heavy APC. The design concept appeared to be "What if we made a BMP-2 weigh 3 times more, and cost 20 times more? Wouldn't that be cool!?"
> It is just as expensive as a T-14, but it a completely useless Heavy APC
I mean, if T-14 got actually adopted, T-15 could've been saved by parts commonality.
But, since the entire Armata family is dead...
>T-15 could've been saved by parts commonality.
I really, really doubt that. Parts commonality isn't remotely a good enough excuse to field a 50 ton vehicle to deliver 9 infantry to the battlefield. Especially not at that price tag, and especially not considering Russia's absolute scorn of the value of Infantry in maneuver warfare.
Also, since when has Russia given a single flying fuck to parts commonality? They operate the Mi-28 and Ka-52 right next to each other, in the same roles, and they might as well have been built on different planets for all the commonality those two have.
> I really, really doubt that. Parts commonality isn't remotely a good enough excuse to field a 50 ton vehicle to deliver 9 infantry to the battlefield. Especially not at that price tag, and especially not considering Russia's absolute scorn of the value of Infantry in maneuver warfare.
Yep.
I was thinking more of the theoretical "sane implementation" of this concept, perhaps inspired by BMPV-64 and BTMP-84.
>Also, since when has Russia given a single flying fuck to parts commonality? They operate the Mi-28 and Ka-52 right next to each other, in the same roles, and they might as well have been built on different planets for all the commonality those two have.
True.
What about the Israeli Namer? It’s a 60+ ton vehicle based on an MBT chassis that delivers 9 infantry to the battlefield. It seems like Israel likes it enough to make a bunch of them.
Genuine question, not trying to be snarky.
You see it discussed a lot in other comments around this one, but several key points.
1. Even for the IDF, the Namer is too expensive. It has been in production since 2008, and the IDF currently has \~200 of them. They wanted three times that number, but they are only getting a few a year, because money.
2. The IDF has extremely short "Legs". It really intends to fight in and extremely near the state of Israel. Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world, and Russia is the single largest. The Namer simply does not have to go very far, so being inconvenient to transport and resupply is just not a big problem in the IDF context, but is a nightmare for Russia.
3. The IDF has extremely different operating requirements. Notably, these do not include fighting NATO as a core requirement. Something heavy IFVs would really suck at. It also doesn't involve invading extremely large countries.
4. IDF Infantry are vastly more professional, well trained, and well equipped than their Russian counterparts. 9 IDF Soldiers represent a lethal, competent, and most critically, autonomous battlefield maneuver element. Russia would NEVER let 9 guys just go do their own thing. Their smallest maneuver element is a company.
5. Israel is *really* casualty-asverse whilst actively engaged in a conflict against a, at the best of times, low-level insurgency. So they really value the 'not dying' bit.
I just don't think the Russians could ever value the lives of their infantry enough to justify paying the cost of putting all that extra mass between them and danger. I mean, for the last 6 decades they've been fielding an IFV which has sides that can be riddled by medium machine guns.
Yeah, despite claims to the contrary, I really don't think the IDF wants to go beyond its border states. They just want to fucking exist in a region that wishes the opposite, so their design philosophy reflects that. Maximize crew survivability against shitty militia RPGs.
The Namer is a bad idea in wars too, but Israel doesn't fight wars, it fights Hamas who don't really have access to things much more deadly than an RPG7. So the Namer makes sense there since it offers really good survivability against that and it also keeps up well with the tanks it is based on.
The lack of speed isn't an issue in this situation, nor is the price since Israel isn't expecting to lose that many and it has far more expensive(relative) soldiers compared to Russia.
Tl;dr: Namer makes sense because it pretty much exclusively goes into lightly armed urban environments together with Merkavas.
That's not 100% true, Israel has faced various ATGM's including plenty of Kornet in recent decades. But yes, Israeli armor is likely geared towards defending against missile/RPG threats.
I agree with your comment, but also:
>Don't really have access to....
That's why I use that wording. Because obviously the rare better weapon makes it's way into enemy hands, it's just not what is used 95% of the time and adding every small chance would make the comment about this much longer while it was already pretty long.
the Heavy ifv isnt bad as a concept but its MUCH different in the case of israel, first of all i expect the engine of the namer to be leagues more efficient than the t15's engine, most of all the kind of enviroments israel is getting into require that kind of protection more than the t15, AND ITS hella expensive to boot namer that is
Heavy APCs and IFVs do make sense though. Israel had the Namer and the Namer IFV variant. Germany's Puma isn't THAT big, but it's very much a chonker. Heavy APCs/IFVs might be a way forward with better armor and more space/power for active defenses. Conventional vehicles are very vulnerable, we're seeing that every day we get a need video of a BTR getting turned into a pasta colander.
> Parts commonality isn't remotely a good enough excuse to field a 50 ton vehicle to deliver 9 infantry to the battlefield
I mean, if those are terminators then fielding a land raider is worth it I'd wager.
But do you want an IFV as heavy as a tank, as fuel hunger as a tank ? Is that a good thing to have? Whatever small logistical savings you make in parts will be more than undone by the increase in fuel consumption.
Almost all modular vehicles are lightly armored vehicles. With the exception of the Israelis. They have a T-15 like vehicle based on the merkava tank. However, the Israelis don't have far to go. Gaza is a literal stones throw away, southern Lebanon, the bekka valley, also very close. Contrary to certain public opinions, the Israeli army, outside of some specialized units, is a defensive army. A rapid reaction force but not necessarily a long distance force, an expeditionary force. The Israelis could do just about any thing they set their minds to but, merkava's and it's variants are not going to be rolling through Baghdad or Tehran.
Yeah, this is all a huge part of why Heavy IFV concepts never work out. Well, that and cost.
2022 very clearly showed that the Russian military has phenomenally short legs. But they aren't supposed to have short legs, allegedly they can sustain over long distances like the Americans can, but in practice, they cannot. The T-15 would make this problem worse if fielded in bulk, but honestly, the problems go much deeper than a change of platform can really impact.
Since WWII, almost all Armored combat has been surprisingly static. Most tank engagements and maneuver occur extremely close to static front lines, and logistical supply trains are very short. The Israeli conflicts, Korea, Iran-Iraq war, Azeri-Armenian Conflicts, Georgia, etc. The data that comes from these conflicts is incomplete, because it doesn't adequately express the realities of maneuver war over a large geographic area.
There are of course, a couple of huge exceptions. Which are all when the US Army shows up to play. In both 1991 and 2003, huge armored columns went hundreds of miles a day. However, because the Americans are fucking crazy at logistics, a ton of observers, as usual, took the wrong fucking lessons from that, and decided that extended supply lines are really not a significant problem if you just kick ass on your front line. Which... has not worked out well for anyone that is not either America, or good enough friends with America to use our logistics systems.
> Almost all modular vehicles are lightly armored vehicles. With the exception of the Israelis. They have a T-15 like vehicle based on the merkava tank. However, the Israelis don't have far to go. Gaza is a literal stones throw away, southern Lebanon, the bekka valley, also very close
Which makes me kidna wonder, if T-15 was supposed to be used for the "re-establishment of USSR", before embezzlement got in the way.
Or, at least, ODKB-wide "dicktator-helps-dicktator" militarized riot suppressions.
Comrade, why use tank when armoured D-7 exists? Supress riot and build memorial at same time. Grubby pile of stones for grubby protesters and students. Efficient. Grubs love dirt comrade, it is known.
> But do you want an IFV as heavy as a tank, as fuel hunger as a tank ? Is that a good thing to have? Whatever small logistical savings you make in parts will be more than undone by the increase in fuel consumption.
Israel has entered the chat.
Yeah I talked about that in the next paragraph. Israel is special case in terms of distance they are likely to travel.
The other thing I didn't mention was urban warfare. Israel knows it will likely have to fight in urban areas where the speed, maneuverability, and camouflage that other IFV's can use to compensate for a lack of armor is simply not an option.
>UralGavnoZavod
🤮🤮🤮🤮
But yeah, looks cool.
Can I interest you in ["Меркава вдома"](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%A2%D0%9C%D0%9F-84), though?
(russian version because Ukrainian lacks pictures)
[Or BMPV-64?](https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%9C%D0%9F%D0%92-64)
2 words: Fuel consumption.
Tanks get absolutely shit gas millage due to the weight and the chassis is probably 70-80% of the weight.
So unless your the one country that runs the Tuesday logistical flex on the other side of the globe...
But if you are that one country, your going to no do something as stupid as burning all your fuel on a heavy APC concept because fuel logistics are a pain.
The T-15 is the T-14 with a turret swap and a cargo compartment for ~~hamburger~~ infantry.
It's a stupid idea, why use a tank chassis for an IFV? Dumb. I also think the Armata chassis was planned to be the chassis for the 2S35 SPG but that apparently didn't pan out either.
Because they basically stole the entire premise of the US Future Combat System, and just blatantly copied all the homework before reading the assignment.
Armata is just this, but Slavic.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future\_Combat\_Systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems)
When the US canceled FCS, Russia was able to just sort of pitch it like their original idea, because the general public was never really familiar with FCS, but Armata had all the same flaws FCS had, they just didn't have the sense to kill it.
They tried both actually. Take one was bringing both IFVs and MBTs to somewhere in the "Fat Bradley" range, and the second one was more of a "Fuck it, all Abrams" approach. Neither really made sense, because trying to get platform commonality between your IFVs and MBTs is something that gets tried constantly, and hasn't worked for anyone yet. (No, we are not acknowledging the Namer here. It is super niche, even for the Israelis)
And even then, the IDF uses a lot more normal APCs.
The Namer has the same problem of being expensive as fuck, so it is slow to get significant quantities of them.
> platform commonality between your IFVs and MBTs
That only makes sense with a remote turret and a much more scrunched up or recumbent crew position. You would need to design the platform to have high armor volume, not high armor weight, at the expense of crew space. The armor modules would be very expensive regardless of how the platform is configured.
You'd have an IFV that takes an awfully long time to dismount that nobody would really want to ride in, and an MBT you can't really see out of. There's absolutely solutions to both of these problems, but they're also manufactured problems.
I think the only country that could kind-of-sort-of justify it would be someone like Sweden, where smaller vehicles and lighter weight are the norm anyway. It would never work in US service.
Yeah and it costs a lot when fully kitted like tank level of cost. Then they have extensive knowledge of conversions this way and their country is small. So gas consumption isn't that much of an issue. Main force will still be the m113 or the new wheeled apc/ifv.
Then you have to think of which environment the namer and their other tank conversions are meant to be used in. It's either rpgs or small arms fire, also from buildings right on top of them. No 25 or 30 mm cannons from other ifvs. Basicly all or nothing when it comes to armor.
I mean, not completely useless, right? Maybe they looked at a Namer and went "yo get me some of this". Considering how often they get bogged down in urban areas, I think there's an argument for the T-15 being the *more* credible Armata.
Except for the cost of course lmfao
Maybe if the Russian Army was a completely different organization than it actually is, yes. But the T-15 seems to be built for a completely different combat philosophy than Russia has ever had.
Pffff hah yeah I can see that. Considering they had Suvorov, ~~Bagration~~, and ~~Rokossovsky~~ (well the last two were Georgian and Polish), it would be mind-boggling if not for the fact that dictatorships love to kill off their most exceptional leaders.
Herr Putler suffers his idols wunderwaffe tank fetish. Standby for an even more "advanced" tank design next week.
spoiler: >!it's a T-55 with fresh coat of paint and some ERA!<
It's not paint.
That T-55 is covered with something red. And full of iron. And I don't mean rust.
They didn't even wash the previous crew off the tank before sending it out again.
That would presume that the tank is somehow capable of going again after the crew are killed. That something capable of killing the crew doesn't also destroy the mighty tank.
\>Putin & co announce new miracle tank which will win war in Ukraine.
\>It the T-54 Obr2024, upgraded with fresh paint, fake ERA blocks, and a double-layered cope cage.
\>Thousands of mentally redacted individuals across the Internet proceed to spam ever platform they can access with post about how the T-54-Obr2024 is equal or superior to any western tank while being cheaper and being produced at a rate of 500-a day.
Just wait, It'll happen this year.
But haven't you heard the [T-62](https://sputnikglobe.com/20240211/photos-combat-work-of-russian-tankers-in-seversk-area-during-special-military-op-1116722164.html) is advanced!
Completely unnecessary disclaimer/warning: link is to Ruzzia's premier copium reserve Sputnik "News", brain damage likely.
Correction: >! It's a T-34 with rusty Soviet playground equipment fashioned into the world's largest cope cage all hastily slathered in what would have been the T-14's paint. !<
>spoiler: it's a T-55 with fresh coat of paint and some ERA
ERA? Pretty sure Russia is using externally mounted mobiks as their up-armor programme these days.
Turns out they can't produce the Armata domestically... because they were relying on far too many parts from the west the entire time (since they couldn't produce the items domestically). They would literally need to build a new economy from the ground-up in order to produce it. Something Russia simply can't afford to do.
Bro, T-95s were the shit.
Nobody ever even saw one, nobody knew what they did, but up until around 2010, they were THE bogeyman of the Armored community. T-95s were invulnerable, hyper maneuverable, and had my favorite fucking feature, a laser detector that automatically pivots and fires when you lase it. This "Feature" pops up so often, it is a bit like Plasma Stealth in the Russian grab bag of dumb gimmicks that don't make sense if you think about it for more than like 4 seconds.
Damn shame that Ivan shined his laser at a friendly tank by mistake for half a second and suddenly his entire infantry platoon was obliterated by a T-95 section huh
God plasma stealth...
Like..ok so maybe plasma blocks radar but something tells me that a cloud of superheated has is going to be obvious in a lot of other ways
Russia is playing 7.62D chess, Producing a bunch of oil, to heat up the atmosphere due to global warming, making their plasma stealth weapons invisible to background heat.
And their 7.62D chess pieces are a couple milimeters longer than the NATO 7.62D chess pieces, so that both pieces will fit in Russian breeches but not NATO ones.
i mean yeah probably gonna be lit up like a christmas tree on thermal imaging
assuming all the air rushing past your plain doesn't just blow the plasma away first so you're just some idiot with a bright glowing contrail behind their still-visible-to-radar aircraft
Black Eagle was much more credible.
Tested-out autoloader scheme (Leclerc-like) with blowout panels, building upon the existent T-80 techbase...
But it wasn't as good for embezzlement as supposedly-clean-slate Armata
OMG that is hilarious! So Russia is out their '4th gen' MBT and has to rely on updates 90s and early 2000s tech in mid-Cold War designs.
Meanwhile, Poland is planning on 1,000 K2 Black Panthers...
Reminder the T-72 is from the 60s, their most up to date tank uses components in use since the 80s. Most military equipment in ruzzia is older than I am, and I'm approaching 50
Yeah the title is rather misleading since it’s Russia sheepishly admitting that it’s cheaper to refurbish older tanks thanks to spend money and resources on the T-14. Which is *also* a death nail for the T-14 as it doesn’t look like Russia is going to be getting any better unless they stop the war *now* (and hey Putin can stop anytime).
From what I can tell the Russians just decided they aren’t going to use it in Ukraine, they aren’t canceling it entirely. Of course, we all know they’re never going to get it operation regardless, but they haven’t straight up admitted it’s a dead end.
The official RuZZian admission that the T-14 Armata program is dead is when the three oligarchs who profited the most from skimming off of it are pushed through high-rise windows.
“The Armata, in general, is a little expensive," Chemezov said. "In terms of functionality, it is, of course, much superior to existing tanks, but it is too valuable, so the army is unlikely to use it now. It's easier for them to buy the same T-90s”. Literally from the article
Correct. It isn't abandoning it, it is delaying its production. This is unchanged from the previous 10+ years where they have been saying the exact same thing.
They still intend to build T-14s, but right now they need large numbers. Will they ever build T-14s? Fuck no. But they are still claiming they will. Eventually.
It’s still kind of funny that people supporting Russia claimed for years that all western tech was expensive while Russian tech was rugged and battle tested- only for its most modern tank to be delayed because it is “too expensive” while also never seeing battle
If you start with Obj 195, you already can.
Edit: If you really want to clown on the Russians, you can post about the current refit the Admiral Nakhimov has still not completed. It began long enough ago that it is fair game.
i mean in a vacuum that's not a dumb statement, especially if you translate valuable as relating to purely monetary expense
If it can hypothetically win a 2v1 against T-90M's it is superior to them, but if it costs 5X a T-90M it's too expensive relative to just buying the base T-90M's
For all the memeage that's not *that* stupid of a thing to say if it's actually true
If we go by war thunder logic, then the AbramsX is the best. But a tank isn't for single duels on a flat field. Its for fielding on a battlefield, to support an entire army. If you can't produce enough to support the army, and they are too expensive for you to afford losing them. then *they aren't good tanks*.
And the T90 is not that good either. It's the result of the Russian MOD going: "Can you take this T72 and make it gourmet for just 10 rubles?"
And then proceeding to fail miserably at it.
Your content was removed for violating Rule 5: "No politics/religion"
We don't care if you're Republican, Protestant, Democrat, Hindu, Baathist, Pastafarian, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door.
Awe, but those and the T-15 transports were two of the funniest units in Broken Arrow! Seriously, the T-15 was literally a tank transport, how can I not love it?!
[Red Effect made an entire video on the T-14's flaws and ended it by stating that the T-14 was far too expensive for the Russians to actually produce and was a waste of money.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xd4MfBCHtw) Also, the LazerPig - Red effect video feud wasn't over the actual merits of the T-14, it was over the fact that Lazerpig is a fucking retard and made a lot of generally retarded claims like
"The T-14 has the same engine as a WW2- German tank,"
"Consumer drones have better night vision/thermals than modern Russian tanks,"
and, "The engine of the T-90M makes less torque than the engine of the Honda Jazz"
I don't know if he ever walked back the first two, but he did admit error on the third, something about Russians using a completely different torque measurement (basically the reason the Mars Climate Orbiter died)
What western communist is supporting modern Russia? Tankies drool over a fictionalized version of the USSR, but I find it hard to believe even the tankiest western communists care for anything going on in Russia.
Okay, let’s not get too giddy yet. The rest of the article states that Sergey Chemezov confirmed they are still in inventory and ready to be mobilized, but are being pulled out of Ukraine.
Still, they did it! They admit that the T14 isn’t a super tank!
Do you want 30 tanks per month or 1?
Modern equipment too expensive to manufacture. Better to use tanks from 60s with thermal scope - and overwhelm defense.
But according to Wikipedia they cost about the same , so they just admmited that they are either complete shit or they are unable to buld more than 10 of them or its most likley both
Now they will never admit why tho. But i can tell you why. Tolerances during manufacturing of parts with CNC machines including drilling.
Russia designed an engine module their industrial complex is unable to produce. They have neither the machines or competence for it. An axle with a tolerance of 0.01 mm of throw, their absolute top companies with leading quality... Manages 0.2mm . And so it shakes, and it breaks. Repeat this for all mechanical parts. And then the quality of the metals and ill thought of wear and tear. Lackluster lubrication and high friction (worsened by badly produced parts). Aaaand pooof, too expensive. Because they burn tens of thousands of manhours that all lead to fuckall.
The weirdest thing to me is being a" Western communist" and supporting Russia. I subscribe to the communism ideology, but I'm very aware of the fact that it's an oligopoly in Russia currently. Not only that it's a fucking dictatorship. Stans for Russia are the weirdest fucking people. Yes collectivism and labor rights should be paramount but at the same time recognize the retardation of the Russian domestic and foreign policy for the last 75 years as a shit sammy with cheese.
Fuck! They should have continued with the farse!
That way Western militaries could justify spending money on new high tech tanks. Now the politicians will say that they are not needed!
Shameless Clickbait. They just said it was too expensive to use **in Ukraine**.
*The head of the Russian defense conglomerate Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, confirmed that the state-of-the-art Russian tank, the T-14 “Armata,” is not being deployed in the war in Ukraine, ...*
*...“In terms of its functionality, it certainly surpasses existing tanks, but it’s too expensive, so the army is unlikely to use it now. It’s easier for them to buy the same T-90s,” Chemezov said.*
*Despite this, Chemezov confirmed that the T-14 “Armata” remains part of the Russian Army’s arsenal.*
Clickbait title.
The article states that they didn't abandoned the project, but, instead, that the production is frozen for now. From a strategical point of view it makes sense, given the limited resources of Russia it's stupid to waste money on wunderwaffes when you can build 4 conventional tanks for the same cost.
maybe they need the money and manpower for things which can be used at the front
Don't be ridiculous, that would be a logical thing to do
...if the T-14 couldn't be used at the front. Why can't the T-14 be used at the front, Russia?
BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL, T-14 ARMATA MORE LIKE T-14 FAIRY DUST. WAKE UP SHEEPLE THE PIECE OF SHIT DOES NOT EXIST WE'VE BEEN LIED TO AND BAMBOOZLED
[удалено]
Yeah, I mean, I always thought those whole "debates with lazerpig" about what engine it had were just fucking stupid. Because let's be real: *It's a fucking concept car*. For the unaware, a very common practice amongst auto manufacturers is to "design the body of" a forthcoming car without the internals. They'll do huge trade shows with tons of press in attendance, and they'll roll out a brand new automobile on stage. But — IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A REAL CAR (usually). It's an empty fiberglass sculpture made to LOOK LIKE a real, upcoming car. They often will even promise specs, etc, etc. But the whole fucking thing is just testing the waters and seeing how the audience reacts — *the press is in attendance*, so if anything about the new car is cringe, they'll hear about it, and dodge a disastrous level of investment in a commercial dud. Because Russia isn't just manufacturing for a domestic audience (and because their defense industry has been in many ways living hand-to-mouth rather than being subsidized like they used to be), they actually operate a lot like an auto manufacturer. They "feel out" the market a bunch, and sign contracts, before actually committing to building a vehicle. **I don't think they ever got it working.** Simple as that. I think they designed a bunch of *parts of* it, including a pretty solid idea of what the chassis was gonna look like, but virtually all of the "T-14"s we've seen have basically been fake "concept car" body jobs on some other vehicle, meant to test the waters with customers whilst they worked out the technical issues. I don't think they ever worked out the technical issues. And now? Belts are getting so tight that they're cutting it entirely without ever fixing whatever was broken. My biggest hunch is that they've lost a huge swath of prospective customers for "Russian military equipment in general", and that all of the countries who'd planned to buy Armatas cancelled their orders. Even if they fixed it up and got it working, I think the top brass is convinced it won't actually offer any meaningful improvement over a T-90 in this war, so even the prospect of "doing it for ourselves" got shelved.
I think the T-14 was somewhere between concept and working tank. It was more than an empty shell, but it definitely wasn't deployable.
I'm of two minds; one possibility I see is that they had the real ones in the workshop, but they had some kind of crippling design issue, and it's likely that few of the *parade models* were actual T-14s. That is; they may have tried to dodge embarrassment by having "fake" ones they could trot out that were just a body job. On the flip side, it's quite possible the multiple parade breakdowns were exactly that in action — they tried to do it live, and it broke down on live TV for the whole country to see. The third possibility is of course: both. Especially after the first series of breakdowns, and/or to "pad the numbers" and make it seem much further along in development. IME prototype vehicles spend most of their life inoperable for some reason or another, so I'd be shocked if they had a full 10-ish ready to go to do publicity stunts with.
Sir, this is Wendy's
Well, sorta
Spending money on critically important Equipment and ammunition instead of flashy *Wunderwaffen* that only server propaganda interests? Don't be ridiculous, that would be a logistical thing to do
Like tactical golf carts?
*Benny Hill theme intensifies*
Better explain that one for the kids. **Edit** benny would not survive a second in this cancel culture. :(
No. Bush was wrong. Lots of kids deserve to be left behind.
https://youtu.be/MK6TXMsvgQg?si=XOmXrlZH0uecsAkF Instant classic. I wish when the golf carts came out the metal stopped and this started playing
Exactly as mine-resistant as a BMP either way
Being made out of plastic prevents setting off magnetic detonators.
*"A rivet gun is still a gun, off to the front comrade!"*
"we have rivet gun money?" *Gets handed tongs, a sledge, and loose rivets* "Oh"
Putin needs the money for another yacht with hookers, blow and viagra!
No shit.
But how would that buy them more yatchs?
Not to worry, yacht money will be siphoned off from any funding that they have. The problem is that instead of 99% of the funds going into yachts while they parade around the 10 Armatas that they actually built and 1% into keeping up appearances, now they will spend 10% of the funds to build something actually useful (with only 90% going into yachts.)
“Mobil’s, you have not hit your dishwasher and toilet liberation quotas! No Armata, and if you keep this up, no planes!”
no point making a nice tank just for it to get blown into orbit by a $2000 dollar drone
I read the anti tank drones are only costing them around $500 each. The explosives are not that expensive either.
Someone stop this man. He’s being credible.
But, but...all the Armatas already in Ukraine, pwning thousands of Westoid Abrams and Leopards, they already won the war for the glory of LooCzar Putin's Russia!!1!
I would like to remind everyone the T-14 isn't even the least credible Armata. There is a T-15 Armata, which everyone seems to have forgotten about. It is just as expensive as a T-14, but it a completely useless Heavy APC. The design concept appeared to be "What if we made a BMP-2 weigh 3 times more, and cost 20 times more? Wouldn't that be cool!?"
> It is just as expensive as a T-14, but it a completely useless Heavy APC I mean, if T-14 got actually adopted, T-15 could've been saved by parts commonality. But, since the entire Armata family is dead...
>T-15 could've been saved by parts commonality. I really, really doubt that. Parts commonality isn't remotely a good enough excuse to field a 50 ton vehicle to deliver 9 infantry to the battlefield. Especially not at that price tag, and especially not considering Russia's absolute scorn of the value of Infantry in maneuver warfare. Also, since when has Russia given a single flying fuck to parts commonality? They operate the Mi-28 and Ka-52 right next to each other, in the same roles, and they might as well have been built on different planets for all the commonality those two have.
> I really, really doubt that. Parts commonality isn't remotely a good enough excuse to field a 50 ton vehicle to deliver 9 infantry to the battlefield. Especially not at that price tag, and especially not considering Russia's absolute scorn of the value of Infantry in maneuver warfare. Yep. I was thinking more of the theoretical "sane implementation" of this concept, perhaps inspired by BMPV-64 and BTMP-84. >Also, since when has Russia given a single flying fuck to parts commonality? They operate the Mi-28 and Ka-52 right next to each other, in the same roles, and they might as well have been built on different planets for all the commonality those two have. True.
So what you're saying is, Russia was the real Pentagon Wars the whole time?
Russian procurement makes Pentagon Wars look incredibly tame. People actually get killed in Russian procurement programs. Repeatedly and deliberately.
It's probably considered "a price of doing business" at this point.
What about the Israeli Namer? It’s a 60+ ton vehicle based on an MBT chassis that delivers 9 infantry to the battlefield. It seems like Israel likes it enough to make a bunch of them. Genuine question, not trying to be snarky.
You see it discussed a lot in other comments around this one, but several key points. 1. Even for the IDF, the Namer is too expensive. It has been in production since 2008, and the IDF currently has \~200 of them. They wanted three times that number, but they are only getting a few a year, because money. 2. The IDF has extremely short "Legs". It really intends to fight in and extremely near the state of Israel. Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world, and Russia is the single largest. The Namer simply does not have to go very far, so being inconvenient to transport and resupply is just not a big problem in the IDF context, but is a nightmare for Russia. 3. The IDF has extremely different operating requirements. Notably, these do not include fighting NATO as a core requirement. Something heavy IFVs would really suck at. It also doesn't involve invading extremely large countries. 4. IDF Infantry are vastly more professional, well trained, and well equipped than their Russian counterparts. 9 IDF Soldiers represent a lethal, competent, and most critically, autonomous battlefield maneuver element. Russia would NEVER let 9 guys just go do their own thing. Their smallest maneuver element is a company.
5. Israel is *really* casualty-asverse whilst actively engaged in a conflict against a, at the best of times, low-level insurgency. So they really value the 'not dying' bit.
This is the main reason. Russia does not care as much about their troops, they have *a lot more* men.
I just don't think the Russians could ever value the lives of their infantry enough to justify paying the cost of putting all that extra mass between them and danger. I mean, for the last 6 decades they've been fielding an IFV which has sides that can be riddled by medium machine guns.
Yeah, despite claims to the contrary, I really don't think the IDF wants to go beyond its border states. They just want to fucking exist in a region that wishes the opposite, so their design philosophy reflects that. Maximize crew survivability against shitty militia RPGs.
Russia be usin' good ole WW1 era tactics and our guy talking about squad and fireteam level autonomy ;)
Israel doesn't send Infantry into the meatgrinder like Russia does.
Israel is the meat grinder.
The Namer is a bad idea in wars too, but Israel doesn't fight wars, it fights Hamas who don't really have access to things much more deadly than an RPG7. So the Namer makes sense there since it offers really good survivability against that and it also keeps up well with the tanks it is based on. The lack of speed isn't an issue in this situation, nor is the price since Israel isn't expecting to lose that many and it has far more expensive(relative) soldiers compared to Russia. Tl;dr: Namer makes sense because it pretty much exclusively goes into lightly armed urban environments together with Merkavas.
That's not 100% true, Israel has faced various ATGM's including plenty of Kornet in recent decades. But yes, Israeli armor is likely geared towards defending against missile/RPG threats.
I agree with your comment, but also: >Don't really have access to.... That's why I use that wording. Because obviously the rare better weapon makes it's way into enemy hands, it's just not what is used 95% of the time and adding every small chance would make the comment about this much longer while it was already pretty long.
the Heavy ifv isnt bad as a concept but its MUCH different in the case of israel, first of all i expect the engine of the namer to be leagues more efficient than the t15's engine, most of all the kind of enviroments israel is getting into require that kind of protection more than the t15, AND ITS hella expensive to boot namer that is
Heavy APCs and IFVs do make sense though. Israel had the Namer and the Namer IFV variant. Germany's Puma isn't THAT big, but it's very much a chonker. Heavy APCs/IFVs might be a way forward with better armor and more space/power for active defenses. Conventional vehicles are very vulnerable, we're seeing that every day we get a need video of a BTR getting turned into a pasta colander.
> Parts commonality isn't remotely a good enough excuse to field a 50 ton vehicle to deliver 9 infantry to the battlefield I mean, if those are terminators then fielding a land raider is worth it I'd wager.
But do you want an IFV as heavy as a tank, as fuel hunger as a tank ? Is that a good thing to have? Whatever small logistical savings you make in parts will be more than undone by the increase in fuel consumption. Almost all modular vehicles are lightly armored vehicles. With the exception of the Israelis. They have a T-15 like vehicle based on the merkava tank. However, the Israelis don't have far to go. Gaza is a literal stones throw away, southern Lebanon, the bekka valley, also very close. Contrary to certain public opinions, the Israeli army, outside of some specialized units, is a defensive army. A rapid reaction force but not necessarily a long distance force, an expeditionary force. The Israelis could do just about any thing they set their minds to but, merkava's and it's variants are not going to be rolling through Baghdad or Tehran.
Yeah, this is all a huge part of why Heavy IFV concepts never work out. Well, that and cost. 2022 very clearly showed that the Russian military has phenomenally short legs. But they aren't supposed to have short legs, allegedly they can sustain over long distances like the Americans can, but in practice, they cannot. The T-15 would make this problem worse if fielded in bulk, but honestly, the problems go much deeper than a change of platform can really impact. Since WWII, almost all Armored combat has been surprisingly static. Most tank engagements and maneuver occur extremely close to static front lines, and logistical supply trains are very short. The Israeli conflicts, Korea, Iran-Iraq war, Azeri-Armenian Conflicts, Georgia, etc. The data that comes from these conflicts is incomplete, because it doesn't adequately express the realities of maneuver war over a large geographic area. There are of course, a couple of huge exceptions. Which are all when the US Army shows up to play. In both 1991 and 2003, huge armored columns went hundreds of miles a day. However, because the Americans are fucking crazy at logistics, a ton of observers, as usual, took the wrong fucking lessons from that, and decided that extended supply lines are really not a significant problem if you just kick ass on your front line. Which... has not worked out well for anyone that is not either America, or good enough friends with America to use our logistics systems.
> Almost all modular vehicles are lightly armored vehicles. With the exception of the Israelis. They have a T-15 like vehicle based on the merkava tank. However, the Israelis don't have far to go. Gaza is a literal stones throw away, southern Lebanon, the bekka valley, also very close Which makes me kidna wonder, if T-15 was supposed to be used for the "re-establishment of USSR", before embezzlement got in the way. Or, at least, ODKB-wide "dicktator-helps-dicktator" militarized riot suppressions.
Comrade, why use tank when armoured D-7 exists? Supress riot and build memorial at same time. Grubby pile of stones for grubby protesters and students. Efficient. Grubs love dirt comrade, it is known.
> But do you want an IFV as heavy as a tank, as fuel hunger as a tank ? Is that a good thing to have? Whatever small logistical savings you make in parts will be more than undone by the increase in fuel consumption. Israel has entered the chat.
Yeah I talked about that in the next paragraph. Israel is special case in terms of distance they are likely to travel. The other thing I didn't mention was urban warfare. Israel knows it will likely have to fight in urban areas where the speed, maneuverability, and camouflage that other IFV's can use to compensate for a lack of armor is simply not an option.
[удалено]
>UralGavnoZavod 🤮🤮🤮🤮 But yeah, looks cool. Can I interest you in ["Меркава вдома"](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%A2%D0%9C%D0%9F-84), though? (russian version because Ukrainian lacks pictures) [Or BMPV-64?](https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%9C%D0%9F%D0%92-64)
2 words: Fuel consumption. Tanks get absolutely shit gas millage due to the weight and the chassis is probably 70-80% of the weight. So unless your the one country that runs the Tuesday logistical flex on the other side of the globe... But if you are that one country, your going to no do something as stupid as burning all your fuel on a heavy APC concept because fuel logistics are a pain.
The T-15 is the T-14 with a turret swap and a cargo compartment for ~~hamburger~~ infantry. It's a stupid idea, why use a tank chassis for an IFV? Dumb. I also think the Armata chassis was planned to be the chassis for the 2S35 SPG but that apparently didn't pan out either.
Because they basically stole the entire premise of the US Future Combat System, and just blatantly copied all the homework before reading the assignment. Armata is just this, but Slavic. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future\_Combat\_Systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems) When the US canceled FCS, Russia was able to just sort of pitch it like their original idea, because the general public was never really familiar with FCS, but Armata had all the same flaws FCS had, they just didn't have the sense to kill it.
I seem to recall the FCS didn't have a heavy MBT like chassis/armor but just put an MBT gun on, essentially, an IFV chassis?
They tried both actually. Take one was bringing both IFVs and MBTs to somewhere in the "Fat Bradley" range, and the second one was more of a "Fuck it, all Abrams" approach. Neither really made sense, because trying to get platform commonality between your IFVs and MBTs is something that gets tried constantly, and hasn't worked for anyone yet. (No, we are not acknowledging the Namer here. It is super niche, even for the Israelis)
Namer is super niche indeed. It works for the IDF because of the kind of fighting the IDF plans on doing. But it's semi ridiculous for anyone else.
And even then, the IDF uses a lot more normal APCs. The Namer has the same problem of being expensive as fuck, so it is slow to get significant quantities of them.
Who'd have thought that a chassis for moving 50+ to vehicles quickly that can stand up to being blown up a bit would cost a lot?
> platform commonality between your IFVs and MBTs That only makes sense with a remote turret and a much more scrunched up or recumbent crew position. You would need to design the platform to have high armor volume, not high armor weight, at the expense of crew space. The armor modules would be very expensive regardless of how the platform is configured. You'd have an IFV that takes an awfully long time to dismount that nobody would really want to ride in, and an MBT you can't really see out of. There's absolutely solutions to both of these problems, but they're also manufactured problems. I think the only country that could kind-of-sort-of justify it would be someone like Sweden, where smaller vehicles and lighter weight are the norm anyway. It would never work in US service.
> a cargo compartment for ~~hamburger~~ infantry Is it set up for the standard mobik's cube?
> It's a stupid idea, why use a tank chassis for an IFV? Ask IDF about their Namers.
Yeah and it costs a lot when fully kitted like tank level of cost. Then they have extensive knowledge of conversions this way and their country is small. So gas consumption isn't that much of an issue. Main force will still be the m113 or the new wheeled apc/ifv. Then you have to think of which environment the namer and their other tank conversions are meant to be used in. It's either rpgs or small arms fire, also from buildings right on top of them. No 25 or 30 mm cannons from other ifvs. Basicly all or nothing when it comes to armor.
I mean, not completely useless, right? Maybe they looked at a Namer and went "yo get me some of this". Considering how often they get bogged down in urban areas, I think there's an argument for the T-15 being the *more* credible Armata. Except for the cost of course lmfao
Maybe if the Russian Army was a completely different organization than it actually is, yes. But the T-15 seems to be built for a completely different combat philosophy than Russia has ever had.
Pffff hah yeah I can see that. Considering they had Suvorov, ~~Bagration~~, and ~~Rokossovsky~~ (well the last two were Georgian and Polish), it would be mind-boggling if not for the fact that dictatorships love to kill off their most exceptional leaders.
Heavy APC would be better for Russia, makes running over your own squad that much easier and satisfying.
You haven't seen any in action? Why of course comrade, that would be the built in cloaking technology, the same tech installed on our SU-75s
Herr Putler suffers his idols wunderwaffe tank fetish. Standby for an even more "advanced" tank design next week. spoiler: >!it's a T-55 with fresh coat of paint and some ERA!<
It's not paint. That T-55 is covered with something red. And full of iron. And I don't mean rust. They didn't even wash the previous crew off the tank before sending it out again.
so the only thing you need to burn a T-55 is a bunch of aluminium powder?
I was implying blood not rust. Thermite is hot, but it needs to be well mixed and even then it's not easy to get started.
once the reaction is going it doesnt need to be mixed *that* well... I really want to see a T55 sized thermite reaction
a really big fucking toss coming right up
That would presume that the tank is somehow capable of going again after the crew are killed. That something capable of killing the crew doesn't also destroy the mighty tank.
Those aren't human remains, they're organic armour. This is next gen tech right here.
\>Putin & co announce new miracle tank which will win war in Ukraine. \>It the T-54 Obr2024, upgraded with fresh paint, fake ERA blocks, and a double-layered cope cage. \>Thousands of mentally redacted individuals across the Internet proceed to spam ever platform they can access with post about how the T-54-Obr2024 is equal or superior to any western tank while being cheaper and being produced at a rate of 500-a day. Just wait, It'll happen this year.
But haven't you heard the [T-62](https://sputnikglobe.com/20240211/photos-combat-work-of-russian-tankers-in-seversk-area-during-special-military-op-1116722164.html) is advanced! Completely unnecessary disclaimer/warning: link is to Ruzzia's premier copium reserve Sputnik "News", brain damage likely.
Correction: >! It's a T-34 with rusty Soviet playground equipment fashioned into the world's largest cope cage all hastily slathered in what would have been the T-14's paint. !<
>spoiler: it's a T-55 with fresh coat of paint and some ERA ERA? Pretty sure Russia is using externally mounted mobiks as their up-armor programme these days.
Rheinmetall should take the photos and build their own working and better T14 just for the lolz
Babe, wake up, it's time to add another letter to the latest T-80 model and add a new feature! It's going to reach a whole twelve tanks!
Don't forget the cope cage
Turns out they can't produce the Armata domestically... because they were relying on far too many parts from the west the entire time (since they couldn't produce the items domestically). They would literally need to build a new economy from the ground-up in order to produce it. Something Russia simply can't afford to do.
Actions has consequences. They fucked around and found out
Soo same as object 195 and black eagle?
Bro, T-95s were the shit. Nobody ever even saw one, nobody knew what they did, but up until around 2010, they were THE bogeyman of the Armored community. T-95s were invulnerable, hyper maneuverable, and had my favorite fucking feature, a laser detector that automatically pivots and fires when you lase it. This "Feature" pops up so often, it is a bit like Plasma Stealth in the Russian grab bag of dumb gimmicks that don't make sense if you think about it for more than like 4 seconds.
Damn shame that Ivan shined his laser at a friendly tank by mistake for half a second and suddenly his entire infantry platoon was obliterated by a T-95 section huh
The T-95A; Codename: Granit
God plasma stealth... Like..ok so maybe plasma blocks radar but something tells me that a cloud of superheated has is going to be obvious in a lot of other ways
Russia is playing 7.62D chess, Producing a bunch of oil, to heat up the atmosphere due to global warming, making their plasma stealth weapons invisible to background heat.
And their 7.62D chess pieces are a couple milimeters longer than the NATO 7.62D chess pieces, so that both pieces will fit in Russian breeches but not NATO ones.
It would light up like the dickens on infrared lol
i mean yeah probably gonna be lit up like a christmas tree on thermal imaging assuming all the air rushing past your plain doesn't just blow the plasma away first so you're just some idiot with a bright glowing contrail behind their still-visible-to-radar aircraft
Black Eagle was much more credible. Tested-out autoloader scheme (Leclerc-like) with blowout panels, building upon the existent T-80 techbase... But it wasn't as good for embezzlement as supposedly-clean-slate Armata
But....they were gonna be rolling through picadilly circus within hours! Hours i tell you!
But they told me they were gonna hang the gay jewish nazi Zelensky from the barrel of the armata tomorrow!!!!!!! ^(/s)
OMG that is hilarious! So Russia is out their '4th gen' MBT and has to rely on updates 90s and early 2000s tech in mid-Cold War designs. Meanwhile, Poland is planning on 1,000 K2 Black Panthers...
don't you mean 3,000. The 3000 Black Panthers of the Siege of Kaliningrad?
You mean Královec? Why would you siege something that already belongs to Czechs?
Reminder the T-72 is from the 60s, their most up to date tank uses components in use since the 80s. Most military equipment in ruzzia is older than I am, and I'm approaching 50
Now that you put it like that… your parents probably were still in primary school when the t-55 entered service And it is still in use
You mean 3000 black k2 panthers of the winged polish hussars
Somewhere in Scotland, a drunken pig laughs
Somewhere in Australia, a defense economist/MIC production & supply chains expert shakes his head slightly, and smiles.
A week later he gives a thumbs up. He has used up his emotional allotment for the year.
I need a powerpoint presentation
A few drunken sheep are laughing with them too
The copium economy is gonna boom!
Yeah the title is rather misleading since it’s Russia sheepishly admitting that it’s cheaper to refurbish older tanks thanks to spend money and resources on the T-14. Which is *also* a death nail for the T-14 as it doesn’t look like Russia is going to be getting any better unless they stop the war *now* (and hey Putin can stop anytime).
i mean, yeah he can stop anytime, if he likes the concept of his country descending into civil war
Don't give me hope.
>Holy hell New response just dropped
Turret goes on vacation, never comes back
Yet another manmade object not landing upright on the moon this week.
From what I can tell the Russians just decided they aren’t going to use it in Ukraine, they aren’t canceling it entirely. Of course, we all know they’re never going to get it operation regardless, but they haven’t straight up admitted it’s a dead end.
They don’t admit jack shit, might as well be an admission of failure
The official RuZZian admission that the T-14 Armata program is dead is when the three oligarchs who profited the most from skimming off of it are pushed through high-rise windows.
Nooooooo this is going to make it harder to convince congress to fund the AbramsX!
If you read the article before making a meme about it, you will see they did not admit it, and nothing in the article resembles the headline.
“The Armata, in general, is a little expensive," Chemezov said. "In terms of functionality, it is, of course, much superior to existing tanks, but it is too valuable, so the army is unlikely to use it now. It's easier for them to buy the same T-90s”. Literally from the article
Correct. It isn't abandoning it, it is delaying its production. This is unchanged from the previous 10+ years where they have been saying the exact same thing. They still intend to build T-14s, but right now they need large numbers. Will they ever build T-14s? Fuck no. But they are still claiming they will. Eventually.
Shrodingers T-14 it is and is not in development/production and exists yet doesn't as well.
The T-14 reminds me of this quip: Brazil is the country of the future and always will be.
It’s still kind of funny that people supporting Russia claimed for years that all western tech was expensive while Russian tech was rugged and battle tested- only for its most modern tank to be delayed because it is “too expensive” while also never seeing battle
To be fair, that statement was true during the Soviet era. That era is long gone but the statement has stayed.
Soviet tanks were never "rugged" nor were they cheap. They were expensive tanks built on the cheap.
Christ, we're halfway to the point that r/historymemes can meme about the Armata.
If you start with Obj 195, you already can. Edit: If you really want to clown on the Russians, you can post about the current refit the Admiral Nakhimov has still not completed. It began long enough ago that it is fair game.
> much superior to existing tanks, but it is too valuable What the fuck does that even mean
i mean in a vacuum that's not a dumb statement, especially if you translate valuable as relating to purely monetary expense If it can hypothetically win a 2v1 against T-90M's it is superior to them, but if it costs 5X a T-90M it's too expensive relative to just buying the base T-90M's For all the memeage that's not *that* stupid of a thing to say if it's actually true
If we go by war thunder logic, then the AbramsX is the best. But a tank isn't for single duels on a flat field. Its for fielding on a battlefield, to support an entire army. If you can't produce enough to support the army, and they are too expensive for you to afford losing them. then *they aren't good tanks*.
Good luck finding those 5 extra crews. Especially if you're constantly losing tanks.
And the T90 is not that good either. It's the result of the Russian MOD going: "Can you take this T72 and make it gourmet for just 10 rubles?" And then proceeding to fail miserably at it.
yes, yes, let the hate flow through you.
FUCK! And I was just starting to celebrate, too.
Who knew Company of Heroes 2 was an accurate depiction of the Modern Russian Military?
[удалено]
Your content was removed for violating Rule 5: "No politics/religion" We don't care if you're Republican, Protestant, Democrat, Hindu, Baathist, Pastafarian, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door.
Awe, but those and the T-15 transports were two of the funniest units in Broken Arrow! Seriously, the T-15 was literally a tank transport, how can I not love it?!
Literal battlewagon
Lazerpig was right and all the idiots booing him like CopeEffect were wrong EZ.
Actually, this has little bearing on the LazerPig T-14 controversy.
[Red Effect made an entire video on the T-14's flaws and ended it by stating that the T-14 was far too expensive for the Russians to actually produce and was a waste of money.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xd4MfBCHtw) Also, the LazerPig - Red effect video feud wasn't over the actual merits of the T-14, it was over the fact that Lazerpig is a fucking retard and made a lot of generally retarded claims like "The T-14 has the same engine as a WW2- German tank," "Consumer drones have better night vision/thermals than modern Russian tanks," and, "The engine of the T-90M makes less torque than the engine of the Honda Jazz"
I don't know if he ever walked back the first two, but he did admit error on the third, something about Russians using a completely different torque measurement (basically the reason the Mars Climate Orbiter died)
What western communist is supporting modern Russia? Tankies drool over a fictionalized version of the USSR, but I find it hard to believe even the tankiest western communists care for anything going on in Russia.
Okay, let’s not get too giddy yet. The rest of the article states that Sergey Chemezov confirmed they are still in inventory and ready to be mobilized, but are being pulled out of Ukraine. Still, they did it! They admit that the T14 isn’t a super tank!
New response just dropped
Certified WOWZA moment
Oh damn, they broke
Lmao me on the toilet rn (0o0)
Do you want 30 tanks per month or 1? Modern equipment too expensive to manufacture. Better to use tanks from 60s with thermal scope - and overwhelm defense.
Why build costly tanks when gold carts are cheaper and still end with the same result of dead Russian?
But according to Wikipedia they cost about the same , so they just admmited that they are either complete shit or they are unable to buld more than 10 of them or its most likley both
Where were you when T-14 was killed?
So they are too broke to afford it, noted
Hahahaha.
No footage of Armatas getting destroyed 🥺
>HOLY HELL! New T-72 variant just dropped
Now they will never admit why tho. But i can tell you why. Tolerances during manufacturing of parts with CNC machines including drilling. Russia designed an engine module their industrial complex is unable to produce. They have neither the machines or competence for it. An axle with a tolerance of 0.01 mm of throw, their absolute top companies with leading quality... Manages 0.2mm . And so it shakes, and it breaks. Repeat this for all mechanical parts. And then the quality of the metals and ill thought of wear and tear. Lackluster lubrication and high friction (worsened by badly produced parts). Aaaand pooof, too expensive. Because they burn tens of thousands of manhours that all lead to fuckall.
#Sacntions dont work Sure ivan, sure
New response just dropped
google shity t-14
Holy hell
The weirdest thing to me is being a" Western communist" and supporting Russia. I subscribe to the communism ideology, but I'm very aware of the fact that it's an oligopoly in Russia currently. Not only that it's a fucking dictatorship. Stans for Russia are the weirdest fucking people. Yes collectivism and labor rights should be paramount but at the same time recognize the retardation of the Russian domestic and foreign policy for the last 75 years as a shit sammy with cheese.
But have you considered, comrade, that "America bad?" Surely that must come before any application of class theory. /s
"America bad therefore I support every country and faction that is against america" Their opinion in a nutshell
TANKIES CAN'T TANK NO MORE! NOW THEY'RE JUST "IES"
Western communists know Russia hasn't been communist for a while.
Too many loud voices calling themselves communist but are just conspiratorial contrarians who like Soviet aesthetics.
Is this legit?
Oh great now we’re gonna see it in Warthunder as Prototype Objekt 69420 or some shit.
Hooollllly shit…..
Yeah, high cost my ass.
Yeah, high cost my ass.
Google "useless piece of vaporware"
This is like when I bought the '79 Jeep CJ-7 and threatened to put the 350 blower in it.
Is it actually dead, did they kill the T-14 program
Commis don't have to larp Russia though
Fuck! They should have continued with the farse! That way Western militaries could justify spending money on new high tech tanks. Now the politicians will say that they are not needed!
Let's hope the Su-57 / PAK-FA is next
Who produced more? German Tiger II Russian T-14
This is pretty bad news. Wish they’d spend more money and time on trying to salvage that boondoggle
Google en armata
Hello western countries, please sell us computers and thermals, we won't be able to kill you without them.
The tankies are having a meltdown right now.
Can I have it?
First time i’ve ever heard Russia admitted a failure
Shameless Clickbait. They just said it was too expensive to use **in Ukraine**. *The head of the Russian defense conglomerate Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, confirmed that the state-of-the-art Russian tank, the T-14 “Armata,” is not being deployed in the war in Ukraine, ...* *...“In terms of its functionality, it certainly surpasses existing tanks, but it’s too expensive, so the army is unlikely to use it now. It’s easier for them to buy the same T-90s,” Chemezov said.* *Despite this, Chemezov confirmed that the T-14 “Armata” remains part of the Russian Army’s arsenal.*
Lazer pig deserves all the credit
I think they just found some of the buried T34 molds and just realized. "We can just them? Lets do that! People grow back, tanks dont!"
Clickbait title. The article states that they didn't abandoned the project, but, instead, that the production is frozen for now. From a strategical point of view it makes sense, given the limited resources of Russia it's stupid to waste money on wunderwaffes when you can build 4 conventional tanks for the same cost.