Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Is Russian Armor Design falling behind?" video.

@DIREWOLFx75 1)nice copypasta 2)pity that you're so obviously out of your field on most topics that in many cases you manage to loop around and make russian actions sound even dumber. Good job, I guess. 3)no, I didn't read it fully. Neither did you, let's admit it. But I got a good laugh and I thank you for that.
9
@Luftwaffe1O1 switch in turret design was forced by Russia losing ability to cast said turrets after the soviet split as the factory wasn't in Russia(Azovstal, heard of it?). Equipping FT-17 with thermals doesn't make it stop being FT-17. T-64 was a tank designed according to doctrine, threats and views of the time. T-90M is a final step in that long bloodline... of inheriting 1960 views on battlefield and war. T-14 is radically different specifically because it's first time in decades when they stopped to think for a moment.
6
@gabrielecavaleri7525 those upgrades exist, they were implemented a century ago and they're called proper training and maintenance. You don't see Israel panicking over T-14, do you? And 30% of population there know russian... or rather they don't panic specifically because many of them cam from our dear soviet circus, including many defense industry specialists:D
5
 @phunkracy well, at least you're being honest about doing so. Honesty is the first step to facing reality;)
5
On topic of "1970's(it wasn't) design being modernized"... care to tell me how you view T-72BU-M... T-90M, I mean?
4
@Luftwaffe1O1 what point? I asked you what you think about T-90M aka modernized T-90, itself rebranded T-72BU. This whole like goes back to Object 432 and it was 1960-1962 design, not even remotely a 1970's one. And what's the answer? "It proves my point..." What point?
4
Their design philosophy is outdated in the world where thermals, drones and modern fire control exists. Completely outdated. Even China realized that that can't be allowed to continue like that and fixed many issues in their ZTZ99A(aka another pretender for the name of last descendant of soviet tank design school) like transmission having no real rear gears. And with T-14 Russia tried to jump over the wall of the maze and once again fell down. They can't design a working engine-transmission group, they can't get a reliable camera view and worst of all, their unmanned turret and crew capsule are completely pointless since they still use old autoloader and NO blow out panels ie they made a giant pressure cooker. Capsule can't protect the crew if pressure has no easier way to escape. That's basics! You can't have blow out panels on the bottom as it'll make the tank very weak to mines, can't do them in the sides as it'll make sides weaker, capsule is up front, engine in the back and on top of that giant bomb called ammo is an unmanned turret without panels either. They took budget and time and made situation worse! Tbh T-14 was an improvement in one direction - it no longer tries to pointlessly minimize target profile at expense of crew comfort and overall design as if it's still 50's. It isn't, your tank would be seen and it can be hit. I'd say take T-14's hull, suspension(surprisingly no trouble there so at least something works as intended), beg chinese for help with getting a working engine/transmission unit and then go back to designing conventional turret with blow out panels for ammo and some breathing room for crew. Oh, wait, we've just reinvented Leopard II...
3
@Luftwaffe1O1 the thing is that western forces wouldn't have moved in so closely without full air dominance and proper logistic train. So no matter what tanks they would be using, they'd face far less ATGMs head on. Mostly due to better support and focus on keeping it alive. T-90M units so far haven't been seen without IFV support, drone cover and they are used by better crews. Something T-72B3 didn't get. So the question of how much difference remains between T-72B3 and T-90M outside of imported sight still stands. As far as I can see, 1)Russia bet on the wrong horse(T-72BU instead of T-80U) when choosing the tank that'll become the basis of their tank force in the future, but trying to cheap out decades ago; 2)tried to jump too high with T-14 and ruined the design. Yes, those answers ignore the fact that significant part of T-80U production remained in Ukraine after soviet split and russians getting themselves sanctioned many times over their wars. It's their political decisions that hardly matter in discussing design, nobody stopped them from choosing differently or thinking about consequences.
3
@KameradVonTurnip "MBT-70 is basically Abrams" Never before had Abrams been insulted so heavily:D
2
@REgamesplayer russians weren't designing completely new tanks since then and until T-14 either, Cap. But depending on how you treat rebranding of T-72BU into T-90 after catastrophic losses in Desert Storm just to get away from T-72 name and Black Eagle mockup on T-80 chassis, they did. Because they claim both were completely new vehicles so their design choices weren't inherited from T-72 and T-80 specifically;) So by russian's own marketing materials for their weapons exports, they did exactly what you claim they didn't. Or did they lie to us? How shocking would that be!:D
1
@REgamesplayer here is the thing, you have to choose. You can't claim that T-90 is both a completely new tank and a modification of old design. Same goes for Black Eagle. I know, it must be hard for someone like you to comprehend why you can't sit on both chairs, but you should try.
1
@REgamesplayer I'd rather still stick to the og context. Maybe I should explain it to you the fourth time? nah, I'd better give you a chance to read my comments for once, lol:D
1
@REgamesplayer and yet 1)T-14 remains the first and only new MBT design in Russia since "late cold war"; 2)modernized Object 432 descendants still remain its descendants with same design philosophy and flaws inherited for decades. Meaning even T-90M is still designed with the 1960 idea of low target profile... just because deep down it's still just a glorified T-64 produced because designing completely new tank was inconvenient. If you copy an integral feature over and over and over again, it DOESN'T vanish, sorry, Cap, seems you're not much of a Cap:D
1
Except that their design philosophy is outdated in the world where thermals, drones and modern fire control exists. Completely outdated. Even China realized that that can't be allowed to continue like that and fixed many issues in their ZTZ99A like transmission having no real rear gears. And with T-14 Russia tried to jump over the wall of the maze and once again fell down. They can't design a working engine-transmission group, they can't get a reliable camera view and worst of all, their unmanned turret and crew capsule are completely pointless since they still use old autoloader and NO blow out panels ie they made a giant pressure cooker. Capsule can't protect the crew if pressure has no easier way to escape. That's basics! You can't have blow out panels on the bottom as it'll make the tank very weak to mines, can't do them in the sides as it'll make sides weaker, capsule is up front, engine in the back and on top of that giant bomb called ammo is an unmanned turret without panels either. They took budget and time and made situation worse! Tbh T-14 was an improvement in one direction - it no longer tries to pointlessly minimize target profile at expense of crew comfort and overall design as if it's still 50's. It isn't, your tank would be seen and it can be hit. I'd say take T-14's hull, suspension(surprisingly no trouble there so at least something works as intended), beg chinese for help with getting a working engine/transmission unit and then go back to designing conventional turret with blow out panels for ammo and some breathing room for crew. Oh, wait, we've just reinvented Leopard II...
1
@peternystrom921 number of roadwheels and their diameter says otherwise. Stop being a mirror image of tankies and putinboos, we have a lot of info on the tank and laws of physics are equal to others so you can make a lot of conclusions just from knowing it's weight, dimensions and production processes used. Was it a mock up? Nope. Was it a failure on all stages from basic idea to final execution? Oh yes, yes it is:D
1
@phunkracy you know what? I agree that I've made up that T-14 wasn't a mock up. I was the one, who adjusted roadwheels on all the photos, adjusted the size, fooled everyone about the mass and even drew the fake production marks. Sure. Ok, I agree with that guy now, T-14 was a mock up 🤣
1
@dimarusanov6107 humor me:\
1
@phunkracy because I believe that 1)T-14 was a real tank and not a mock up; 2)laws of physics exist and are the same for everyone
1
@KameradVonTurnip then like KV-1S, it's all the good parts and no downsides;) As long as you don't treat it as heavy tank and forget that it came out a bit late. And that it was called after a complete moron, who disliked tanks just to get project approved. A smart person knows that they have to 1)do maintenance; 2)survive. For this part, I'd rather pick something that isn't using either Christie suspension or interleaved roadwheels and somethings that is SPG that should be kept away from frontline, preferably american so that I'd have lunch and friendly airforce in the skies... sorry, got carried away.
1
@KameradVonTurnip the simple takeaway is that Abrams was designed to hard counter late cold war soviet tanks before T-80U came out. It's bad in everything else as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan when it performs great in actual war, but is just a target during occupation since it's now Merkava. And it would have easily been obsolete by now 3 times over... had russians changed doctrine in past 30 years or at least mass produced tanks that were equal to modernized T-80U to be lowest common denominator in their tank force. But since majority of it is still made up by older vehicles and the thought process wasn't allowed to be changed... Abrams ends up in a world where greatest threat to it is exactly what it was designed to face. It's not ideal tank, it just happens to be very good and supposed opposition is stupid enough to face it on its terms. Tbh, knowing how many former soviet specialists found home in Israel and continued their work, I'd say there is an example one could point Russia at in terms of adapting and overcoming. But instead we'll see PRC learn and Russia decide not to.
1