It would be OP as hell unless it faces tanks it’s rank such as Abrams X and Leo 3 It has 1000mm kinetic protection and 1500mm chemical protection on the hull and the turret is a lil weak armor but there is no need for armor cuz the only thing in the turret is the gun and the rest is empty spaces (no ammo rack in the turret the ammo rack is under the turret) And it’s speed would be 80KMH forward and 80Kmh reverse it has a 1500HP engine and yes the reverse speed is equal to the forward one Also war thunder would struggle to add it as there’s a lot of stuff unknown about the tank such as one of them being 4th gen ERA Also the fire control system is very advanced with currently the most MBT AI capabilities also equipped with 3rd gen thermal for commander and gunner
Here’s why it wouldn’t be OP but annoying to merk. • You ammo rack it. Now it has no turret. But the crew still lives. So unless you can get to a capture point and repair plus reload ammo, you’re DONE. It’s already a pain in the rump to reload ammo after an ammo rack with blowouts. It rarely ever happens. You usually die before getting to cap or in the cap. • Then the fact the turret is weak asf only rated for auto cannon fire if that. Thats gonna lead to plenty of breeching, optics taken out, turret ring being damaged, etc very easily… It’ll be the easiest tank to breech so long as they don’t model the APS, and your APFSDS goes faster than 1700m/s, which at least the Chinese rods do. Overall: The things I worry about is mainly is its mobility (it’s so fast on paper. That to me would be my biggest concern as it would be first to many spots on the map getting the first beat), apparently also has 6 sec reload or so, & on top of all that has better penetration to the Object 292. Penetration isn’t everything, but pair it with good mobility, good traverse, and a good to great reload it is beyond… So those are the only things that would concern me a lot.
@@a.s2156 well we have seen functiona T-14's but im saying no functionality cause everything about it just sucks dont want to explain what sucks so search up any expert tank historian rant about the T-14
@@a.s2156 It seems youre insulting the least destroyed MBT ever to date only 2 have ever been destroyed so far one was from a friendly fire incident in Basra the other was a casualty in Ukraine. Also the Challenger 2 tanks came back battered from Basra but nonetheless functional cause they did just survive roads and roads of mines one Challenger was reported to be hit by 70 Soviet rocket launchers but still survived. The Challenger 2 is a well proven tank with also a very notably strong composite armour called Dorchester with armour reaching up to 1400mm equivalent of solid steel (of course not using steel) on the turret face
@@35SF least destroyed mbt because never fought in real battles, wouldnt be a surprise a modern mbt survives a 1960 rocket launcher. 1400mm only on the turret cheeks. Hull armor gets even to 160mm of solid steel. No surprise that some unexperienced dude from isis couldnt take down a modern mbt with a weapon that has 60+ years.
@@a.s2156 its been in 4 wars still also 160 equivalent of steel? You on drugs? Its also composite to an equivalent of around 600mm. Though it does have a weak spot which is the very exposed turret neck with only a 100 ish mm of armour the lower front plate is just metal but thats also the case for a few other tanks
@@35SF looks like youre on drugs, do you know the difference between wars and missions against some terrorist group? looks like you dont. also go look at the armor. when you done looking start talking
Maybe in the future for something like 14.0
Nah man this is bad it should be an reserve tank 😂
But like most late war german tanks and early T-34s who don't break down every 3 minutes we don't count those factores @@creygamer6870
It would be OP as hell unless it faces tanks it’s rank such as Abrams X and Leo 3
It has 1000mm kinetic protection and 1500mm chemical protection on the hull and the turret is a lil weak armor but there is no need for armor cuz the only thing in the turret is the gun and the rest is empty spaces (no ammo rack in the turret the ammo rack is under the turret)
And it’s speed would be 80KMH forward and 80Kmh reverse it has a 1500HP engine and yes the reverse speed is equal to the forward one
Also war thunder would struggle to add it as there’s a lot of stuff unknown about the tank such as one of them being 4th gen ERA
Also the fire control system is very advanced with currently the most MBT AI capabilities also equipped with 3rd gen thermal for commander and gunner
American main crybabies gonna get it nerfed anyways
My man, its just a T-90M with bulkier hull and turret
Here’s why it wouldn’t be OP but annoying to merk.
• You ammo rack it. Now it has no turret. But the crew still lives. So unless you can get to a capture point and repair plus reload ammo, you’re DONE. It’s already a pain in the rump to reload ammo after an ammo rack with blowouts. It rarely ever happens. You usually die before getting to cap or in the cap.
• Then the fact the turret is weak asf only rated for auto cannon fire if that. Thats gonna lead to plenty of breeching, optics taken out, turret ring being damaged, etc very easily… It’ll be the easiest tank to breech so long as they don’t model the APS, and your APFSDS goes faster than 1700m/s, which at least the Chinese rods do.
Overall: The things I worry about is mainly is its mobility (it’s so fast on paper. That to me would be my biggest concern as it would be first to many spots on the map getting the first beat), apparently also has 6 sec reload or so, & on top of all that has better penetration to the Object 292. Penetration isn’t everything, but pair it with good mobility, good traverse, and a good to great reload it is beyond… So those are the only things that would concern me a lot.
Stop yapping American boi
Bro got gaslit by Russia the T-14 doesn't exist 💀💀💀💀
It exists I saw it with my eyes not only one time
It exists, its just was not deployed yet
Doesn't mean its good also likely a mock up with no functionality
@@35SF any source of your statement?
@@a.s2156 well we have seen functiona T-14's but im saying no functionality cause everything about it just sucks dont want to explain what sucks so search up any expert tank historian rant about the T-14
the problem is that... it doesn't exist! (I'm not denying the online videos) It's pure Russian propaganda
It exists I saw it with my eyes not only one time
Russia officially abbandoned the project.
But it gets anmo racked in Ukraine😂😂😂
Like the challenger 2😂😂
@@a.s2156 It seems youre insulting the least destroyed MBT ever to date only 2 have ever been destroyed so far one was from a friendly fire incident in Basra the other was a casualty in Ukraine.
Also the Challenger 2 tanks came back battered from Basra but nonetheless functional cause they did just survive roads and roads of mines one Challenger was reported to be hit by 70 Soviet rocket launchers but still survived.
The Challenger 2 is a well proven tank with also a very notably strong composite armour called Dorchester with armour reaching up to 1400mm equivalent of solid steel (of course not using steel) on the turret face
@@35SF least destroyed mbt because never fought in real battles, wouldnt be a surprise a modern mbt survives a 1960 rocket launcher. 1400mm only on the turret cheeks. Hull armor gets even to 160mm of solid steel. No surprise that some unexperienced dude from isis couldnt take down a modern mbt with a weapon that has 60+ years.
@@a.s2156 its been in 4 wars still also 160 equivalent of steel? You on drugs? Its also composite to an equivalent of around 600mm.
Though it does have a weak spot which is the very exposed turret neck with only a 100 ish mm of armour the lower front plate is just metal but thats also the case for a few other tanks
@@35SF looks like youre on drugs, do you know the difference between wars and missions against some terrorist group? looks like you dont. also go look at the armor. when you done looking start talking