Comments by "The Immortal" (@theimmortal4718) on "The Truth About Russia's T-14 Armata Tank" video.

@КумысМамбетов-й8ш I don't think so. It's already seen time in Syria
14
@Venator631 Autoloaders are slower
13
@spartanx9293 Doesn't the autoloader carry half as many ready rounds? On the T90 it's 22 rounds vs the 42 ready on the Abrams. I imagine that kind of endurance would matter more than physical endurance. The Armata has 32 rounds loaded, so that is an improvement
13
@Venator631 How does an autoloader give you more precision? An autoloader doesn't make it more accurate. It does, however make the tank lighter
12
All reports seem to be the the T14 won't be produced in large numbers. The US has universally been using the M1 Abrams as it's only tank for 30 years. We completely retired the M60 by the mid 90s. The advantage of having one tank, as opposed to several like the Russians, is maintenance. Tanks are maintenance intensive. Having the same parts and mechanics trained is important. Plus, having a crew of 4 rather than 3, means more guys who can work on the vehicle. Whether you're changing track, pulling a motor, or just pulling security in defense, the more the merrier.
11
@sevrent2811 The Russians have done that, as well. They have upgraded the T72 for decades, as well as the T80, and the T90. There's multiple variations and upgrades of each. The T14 isn't meant to replace current Russian tanks but to add additional capabilities to the force. They don't need thousands of them, but only a few hundred for spearhead forces.
10
@spartanx9293 I think the benefits of an autoloader are more taken advantage of in the T14, since it now allows added protection to the crew, as well. That is a big advantage, I think. I've never heard of the 125mm missiles being used in combat, bit that also seems to be an advantage. Do you know if the autoloader works with them or if they have to manually load those? I don't know much about them
7
Considering that the US economy is 14 times larger than Russian as, that's much more expensive than the 8 million dollar M1
5
@cptclonks7279 Considering that the Russian military is corrupt and lazy, I'd say that the maintenance aspect is vital. Having technology rotting in fields doesn't exactly build combat power. From the looks of it, Russian tanks can be killed by climbing on top of them and throwing a grenade into the turret.
4
@BilalAhmad-fs5rf No, you don't. I didn't say either was better or worse. I said manual is faster. That's it. And it's true. Autoloaders are used for other benefits, but speed isn't one of them.
3
@BilalAhmad-fs5rf No you have that Backwards
3
@spartanx9293 I could see that if it weren't that the main gun would probably be out of ammo before that
3
@Perserra Exactly. A prototype tank with maybe 10 copies is irrelevant
3
@ShivaTD420 And without armor, infantry can just be killed with machine guns and artillery. We go back to WW1
3
None of that matters if you can't afford to build or maintain them. It seems half of the Russian arsenal can't even make it down a road going 10 mph.
3
@Geth-vk I didn't say they deployed hundreds of them. I said that they have had experience with the T14 in combat in Syria. From what I read, it was a company.
2
@johntruman4397 No, I don't think so. Just a different way of doing things. There's advantages to them
2
@CharliMorganMusic That's not really the case. History doesn't really show what you're claiming at all
2
@CharliMorganMusic In fact, the Russian autoloaders can't even fire their best 125mm apfsds rounds because it's too long. The shorter penetrators that can be fired by the T90 can't reliably penetrate the Abrams at mid range. Manual loading allows for longer rounds.
2
@spartanx9293 How?
2
@ShivaTD420 Modern MBTs are designed to mostly fight other tanks. IFVs don't do well against tanks at all. If you try using an iFV to fight tanks, you'll die in large numbers Tanks and IFVs are used together in combined arms, along with dismounted infantry squads. It would be very foolish to describe heavy armor based on the performance of a poor, corrupt, mismanaged, and demoralized Eurasian army. Large losses don't necessarily mean a class of weapons is obsolete. It has more to do with poor execution. Compare this to the US Army in both Desert Storm and OIF1. Those armored assaults were highly skilled and effective.
2
@ShivaTD420 Maybe the same with Bradley. New turret and electronics
2
@TheRealBatCave I'm sure they can, in theory. I've spent half of the last 2 decades in heavy infantry brigades. Most tank loaders have pride in their speed and are a lot stronger than you think. Most of the loaders I've seen can load a 40 pound shell in less than 3 seconds. They might get slower if they had to load hundreds of rounds in a day, but the tank only holds 42 rounds of ammo. A fit guy can easily lift 40 pounds for 42 reps.
2
Facts
2
@КумысМамбетов-й8ш так грустно 😭
1
@DeadDrop6109 Just the Marines. The army gets those tanks
1
@ShivaTD420 In some capacities, yeah I can see that. Especially for armored recon ahead of formations. Tanks and IFVs will be receiving different types of drones, depending on the mission. In counter insurgency, you use mostly quad copters, and in more open terrain they will carry something like the Switchblade 600 loitering munitions in some of the TOW launchers.
1
@abas656thegodemperor9 Looks more like they help the turret get maximum altitude
1
@abas656thegodemperor9 And autoloaders weren't installed into Russian tanks for either speed or fatigue. Both answers are incorrect. The autoloaders main function is to allow the tank to be lighter and smaller.
1