T-14 Armata

[Husar]

What is it with you guys and tanks?

They have a long vertical rod with lots of penetration power, a thick skin, usually make very manly noises and generally represent the archaic picture of manliness and the idea of having power over your fellow man/woman with the help of a long stick or whatever else serves the purpose. Since we're all sexist conservative monkeys/lizards at heart, why would we not drool when we see one? Or in other words, what's wrong with you that you have to ask?

[Kadagar_AV]

They have a long vertical rod with lots of penetration power, a thick skin, usually make very manly noises and generally represent the archaic picture of manliness and the idea of having power over your fellow man/woman with the help of a long stick or whatever else serves the purpose. Since we're all sexist conservative monkeys/lizards at heart, why would we not drool when we see one? Or in other words, what's wrong with you that you have to ask?

That is sig worthy material right there...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Because it's TANKS... And we are MEN!!!

Hold on to your vagina mate :p

They have a long vertical rod with lots of penetration power, a thick skin, usually make very manly noises and generally represent the archaic picture of manliness and the idea of having power over your fellow man/woman with the help of a long stick or whatever else serves the purpose. Since we're all sexist conservative monkeys/lizards at heart, why would we not drool when we see one? Or in other words, what's wrong with you that you have to ask?

I guess I am the only one here that's perfectly comfortable with my penis size.

[Brenus]

"Dating back to the highly vaunted yet completely terrible T-34," So terrible than the German Engineers wanted to copy it, and did in fact, with the Panther...

[PanzerJaeger]

"Dating back to the highly vaunted yet completely terrible T-34," So terrible than the German Engineers wanted to copy it, and did in fact, with the Panther...

Myth. MAN's Panther design was an evolution of existing German tank design principles, and was in no way a copy of the T-34. The only similarity was the sloped armor, I suppose, but the idea of sloped armor was well known and was to be incorporated into future AFV designs long before the Germans encountered the T-34. It is true that encountering the T-34 did greatly fast track the Panther's design and acceptance. Interestingly, during the sourcing competition, Daimler put forward a prototype that was much closer to the T-34, but it was rejected.

Of course, everything surrounding the T-34 is myth. It's quite amazing how possibly the worst tank of the war has become known as the best. It was not reliable, it was not fast, the armor was brittle, the gun had low velocity and subpar penetration, was far more prone to catastrophic burnout than its piers, and it's awful design and layout led to such a poor showing in the "soft factors" (visibility, optics, communication, etc) that are just as important as the armor/speed/gun combo that is traditionally used to compare tanks that it was virtually unusable against enemy tanks, or really anything other than infantry without adequate AT systems. Like I said... junk.

[Husar]

Myth. MAN's Panther design was an evolution of existing German tank design principles, and was in no way a copy of the T-34. The only similarity was the sloped armor, I suppose, but the idea of sloped armor was well known and was to be incorporated into future AFV designs long before the Germans encountered the T-34. It is true that encountering the T-34 did greatly fast track the Panther's design and acceptance. Interestingly, during the sourcing competition, Daimler put forward a prototype that was much closer to the T-34, but it was rejected.

Of course, everything surrounding the T-34 is myth. It's quite amazing how possibly the worst tank of the war has become known as the best. It was not reliable, it was not fast, the armor was brittle, the gun had low velocity and subpar penetration, was far more prone to catastrophic burnout than its piers, and it's awful design and layout led to such a poor showing in the "soft factors" (visibility, optics, communication, etc) that are just as important as the armor/speed/gun combo that is traditionally used to compare tanks that it was virtually unusable against enemy tanks, or really anything other than infantry without adequate AT systems. Like I said... junk.

This guy actually agrees with you and his explanations make sense if his numbers are correct:
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/t...e-performance/

However, the Armata seems to represent a big shift in Russian tank design so I'm not sure how we can use the T-34 as an indication of how well the Armata works unless we imply certain unchanging stereotypes about Russians.

[Greyblades]

Huh, I was under the impression that the T34 was like the Sherman; a fairly medeocre tank that was cheap and easily replaced. A quantity response to the German quality.

[Husar]

The german quality is also heavily overrated, possibly because the soviet tanks apparently hardly hit them. But the german steel quality varied wildly and the armor often cracked or began to dislodge, especially when hit by the bigger soviet shells. The problem was apparently that the soviets could hardly place their shells and so the inferiority only became obvious on the Western front where the Sherman outperformed the Panther.

[Husar]

I guess I am the only one here that's perfectly comfortable with my penis size.

I was always comfortable with it until I heard people praising Putin's size. Let's face it, it's not an issue that is only decided by your own size, it also depends on the size the other side can take, and if it bounces or glances off then you may be in trouble....wait, what were we talking about again?

As for the T-34, it had pros and cons, but the armor was better than that of similar german tanks, the gun and crew comfort were not so great, at least early on. But that says about as much about the Armata as the Sherman says about the M1A2 or the Panzer III about the Leopard 2. Otherwise I'm going to claim that the French made the first real tank with the Renault FT, inventing the design with a main gun in a turret, and therefore the Leclerc is proof that autoloaders are the future.

Oh and the Germans already knew about the advantages of sloped armor as employed by the T-34, it was apparently not used partially because it makes the interior of the tank more cramped and leaves less space for equipment and the crew. The Panther only had a sloped front as well so a lot was about compromises or whether you favored armor or a faster rate of fire due to a crew that can move and more convenient ammunition storage and so on.

[GenosseGeneral]

According to Der Spiegel, the German Ministry of Defence is pushing for the development of a new generation of MBTs. Source is unfortunately in German.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...a-1035063.html

[Husar]

According to Der Spiegel, the German Ministry of Defence is pushing for the development of a new generation of MBTs. Source is unfortunately in German.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...a-1035063.html

Not so unfortunate for me. What's interesting is that it also mentions a potential fusion betwen KMW (Leopard 2 manufacturer) and Nexter (Leclerc manufacturer) that may still happen this year. The new bigger corporation would then develop a new MBT for France and Germany apparently. It says the end of the Leopard 2's lifecycle is scheduled for 2030 and they would like the new MBT to be ready to replace it then.

[Brenus]

"and therefore the Leclerc is proof that autoloaders are the future."! AMX 13 Canon before them

[Husar]

"and therefore the Leclerc is proof that autoloaders are the future."! AMX 13 Canon before them

An old tank that is not in service anymore can hardly be used to prove that some technology it used is future-proof though.