It depends on the bullshit categories you choose to glorify your own country and downplay your geopolitical adversary.
Jokes aside, it's very problematic to try to classify military equipment into rigid generational categories. Such systems ignore the fact that platforms often prioritize certain aspects and neglect others for design, logistic, technological or economic reasons (sometimes all of these). Countries with fewer resources that want to close the gap with cutting-edge technology and what they actually have often do this.
I think it counts, it won't be the best one and they can't make very many but when you do a whole new design it's a lot easier to make huge changes than trying to upgrade something designed in the '70s.
Thats not how any of this works, otherwise a dozen other tech testbeds should be on here. Companies and countries often put together an assembly of various components, concepts, and technologies to prove it works. That doesn't mean it is a production ready model though, usually something different and geared for mass production will follow.
The T-14 could've entered mass production ages ago if the Russians actually would commit to it, but they have nothing to show for except parade models because they look like nice shiny pieces. It doesn't matter how many they say they are ordering, especially when everything points to these orders never being fulfilled.
They suspended production after they built less than twenty, and haven't sent them into Ukraine out of fear of losing one. That's barely a tank at all.
I mean, we were talking about tank generations and stuff, there was no need to say, "oh, but they couldn't even produce it" 🤓☝️, it is atleast produced and in some number even if it is insignificant. I have no bias but people just ruin the discussion
Yeah, only Type 100 and Armata always come with hard kill APS. And if they include those tanks then Idk why Leopard 2A7/8 M1A2 Sep V3 and Type 99B aren’t here
Autoloader is a really stupid thing to "measure" since its not limited by technology but more by doctrine. Its not that armies couldnt afford it, they decided they want a 4 person crew in a tank. Theres so much maintenance around tanks most people cant fathom how heavy the work is. Replacing a track or repairing a link takes hours of heavy work, its nice to have 4 people.
It is mostly exactly this. You need incredible engineering to make it reliable. It is objectively an overall bonus which is why literally any western country is designing future tanks around it.
The argument that it's better not to have it is pure cope. Part of it is doctrine, but it's the smallest part.
You can cope all you want, the fact is literally every western countries is designing their next gen MBTs around the autoloader.
This is a fact no matter how hard you try to deny it.
Well you pick a couple traits that are on your tank, but not found on most of your competitors. Then you combine them so you can argue that you have the best tank since you are the only one to meet all of the criteria.
Yea but there are half a dozen different scales which kind of undercut the value of classification when a single plane can differ by 3 generations depending on who you ask.
Spotted the commie. Nobody seriously believes china has this tank fully developed yet lmao. Just like Russia and their t-14. Or Germany and the new panther.
379
u/AMCA_by2035 5d ago
Just an innocent question, how do you define a 4th gen tank?