# Russian T 14



## RetPara (Apr 22, 2015)

A new age of tanks with more technology.. . It may be Russian; but there are a lot of new stuff in it.....


----------



## x SF med (Apr 22, 2015)

the only real issue is engine replacement every 1/2 hour....


----------



## pardus (Apr 22, 2015)

Never underestimate the Russians. 
That said, I'm looking forward to this tank running up against an Abrams/Challenger/Leopard and seeing the results.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 22, 2015)

I know nothing about tanks other than that the Soviets built good ones...and I rode on top of a few Marine tanks like a good leg and looked down into the hatch of one and was surprised to see automatic transmission and a steering wheel.


----------



## RetPara (Apr 22, 2015)

What I see as possible vulnerabilities.   

a.  How much maint is needed as opposed to what they get....  The May Day Parade tanks are separate polished show pieces.
b.  An auto loader.  Russian auto loaders are notoriously slow and high maintenance.  
c.  Few, if any direct vision  ports.  Mostly video camera....   How do video lenses deal with lasers or having mud a few inches thick slobbed over them?
d.  Only 32 rounds in the auto loader.  Only 12 more on board storage.
d.  Exposed tracks.
e.  Gas powered.
f.  Three man crew.... I bet the -10 and busting track on that behemoth is a bitch.


----------



## reed11b (Apr 22, 2015)

pardus said:


> Never underestimate the Russians.
> That said, I'm looking forward to this tank running up against an Abrams/Challenger/Leopard and seeing the results.


  It's very hard to under-estimate the Russians, as they continue to shoot far below my lowest of low expectations...
Reed


----------



## AWP (Apr 22, 2015)

RetPara said:


> c.  Few, if any direct vision  ports.  Mostly video camera....   How do video lenses deal with lasers or having mud a few inches thick slobbed over them?



WWII anecdotes are full of tanks firing anything at other tanks, if only to blind and disorient the other crew until yours could load an AP round. These guys would have to win every engagement at long range to avoid a similar fate from Bradleys and "below".


----------



## BloodStripe (May 11, 2015)

So who disappeared?


----------



## pardus (May 11, 2015)

*Stand aside bitches! *




*PFFT! Commie amateur! *


----------



## Centermass (May 12, 2015)

Another reason the A-10 should stick around.


----------



## Etype (May 13, 2015)

I wonder how they are getting 7-8,000 meters out of the main gun.

Are they talking high angle, or some Russian version of a LAHAT?


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 13, 2015)

max range, most likely... not max effective.


----------



## AWP (May 13, 2015)

I don't know enough to compare modern tank armament with WWII, but Tiger 1 and 2 tanks have several documented kills at 4km.


----------



## pardus (May 14, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I don't know enough to compare modern tank armament with WWII, but Tiger 1 and 2 tanks have several documented kills at 4km.



Really!? WOW!


----------



## AWP (May 14, 2015)

pardus said:


> Really!? WOW!



http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3722



> A few combat examples:
> 
> • 21Jul1944, area of Iwaczow (Poland): 1 Tiger I destroys 1 JS-1 at 4000m ! (Schneider)
> • 6Mar1945, area of Seregelyes (Hungary). 2 Tiger II’s destroy 6 JS-2’s at 2000m (Schneider)
> ...



I looked up a few of those and they seem to be legit.


----------



## pardus (May 14, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3722
> 
> 
> 
> I looked up a few of those and they seem to be legit.



Fucking amazing. If Germany had the resources of the USA, the whole would would be speaking German now. The Wehrmacht was an incredible Military force, second to none (Despite flaws).


----------



## AWP (May 14, 2015)

I vaguely recall some mention in...I think Beevor's _Berlin: The_ _Downfall_ where dug-in Tigers and the like at the Oder river scored repeated hits at distances of greater than 2km. The gun coupled with an excellent optical 5x sight arguably made that the best armored weapons system in WWII.

For all of Germany's engineering prowess their weapons still suffered from grave design flaws. That coupled with allied air attacks on factories and resources doomed their weapons programs. America had similar engineering issues (particularly on the B-29) but not across the board like Germany. I think they over thought their systems.

Ironically, many in the West talk about Germany's technological superiority, but forget/ ignore the West winning with many "good enough" systems. Today's military strategy in the West? Small programs with highly advanced systems. Quantity has a quality all it's own...


----------



## pardus (May 14, 2015)

I have to add this. This tank gives me a hard on like no other. Just fucking awesome.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 14, 2015)

I think the Panther was probably a better all-round tank. The gun was certainly better.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 14, 2015)

Just to add, than the Tiger I. The gun on the II was better.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 14, 2015)

Among other things that blew the fuck up during that same parade.... a Buk caught fire...


----------



## pardus (May 14, 2015)

SpitfireV said:


> I think the Panther was probably a better all-round tank. The gun was certainly better.





SpitfireV said:


> Just to add, than the Tiger I. The gun on the II was better.



Yes, the Panther was the tank that all modern tanks are based upon. The Tiger II was an excellent tank though. I just did some quick reading, the Tiger II 88mm gun had a max effective range of 10km/6.2 ml. Amazing!


----------



## SpitfireV (May 14, 2015)

pardus said:


> Yes, the Panther was the tank that all modern tanks are based upon. The Tiger II was an excellent tank though. I just did some quick reading, the Tiger II 88mm gun had a max effective range of 10km/6.2 ml. Amazing!



Can you imagine what would have happened if the Germans hadn't used all their resources on big and expensive wonder weapons that did nothing? But put them into proven designs? The mind boggles.


----------



## AWP (May 14, 2015)

The funny thing is German tanks were outclassed at the beginning of the war. They didn't start making the best tanks of the war until late 42/ 43. Planes were a different matter, but it's armored vehicles weren't that good until later in the war.


----------



## pardus (May 15, 2015)

SpitfireV said:


> Can you imagine what would have happened if the Germans hadn't used all their resources on big and expensive wonder weapons that did nothing? But put them into proven designs? The mind boggles.



Like Freefalling states, the tanks were a bit different, sure there were a couple of designs in there that may have seemed good on paper but not so much in practice, but the Panther and Tiger II (Tiger I was no slouch though) were superb tanks and well needed. There were no really good proven tanks until the MKIV Ausf G (with the 75mm KwK 40 L/43 gun (that was able to compete with Soviet T-34s armed with 76.2mm gun)) which came out in May '42.

German industry couldn't have produced enough MKIV's (for example) to match all the T34s/Sherman's etc... being produced. As it was one Panther/Tiger I or II accounted for at least 4 enemy tanks for everyone one of their own lost. Maybe this was their best use of limited resources.


----------



## AWP (May 16, 2015)

pardus said:


> Like Freefalling states, the tanks were a bit different, sure there were a couple of designs in there that may have seemed good on paper but not so much in practice, but the Panther and Tiger II (Tiger I was no slouch though) were superb tanks and well needed. There were no really good proven tanks until the MKIV Ausf G (with the 75mm KwK 40 L/43 gun (that was able to compete with Soviet T-34s armed with 76.2mm gun)) which came out in May '42.
> 
> German industry couldn't have produced enough MKIV's (for example) to match all the T34s/Sherman's etc... being produced. As it was one Panther/Tiger I or II accounted for at least 4 enemy tanks for everyone one of their own lost. Maybe this was their best use of limited resources.



Out of curiosity I looked up the different main guns of various PzIV models compared to the Panther and Tiger series. I doubt if mounting the Panther's 75mm on a Panzer 4 chassis would work due to the weight and balance of the Panther's gun. The Pz IV was pretty maxed out in weight and capability by the J model.

In other words, if you wanted a better gun then you needed a bigger tank.

I do wonder if more tank destroyers would make a difference. Sure, they'd still lose the war but Jagdpanther's were easier to build than Panther's and were more suited to Germany's defensive state. Of course, Hitler would never allow a defensive mindset, but that's a different topic.


----------



## pardus (May 16, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Out of curiosity I looked up the different main guns of various PzIV models compared to the Panther and Tiger series. I doubt if mounting the Panther's 75mm on a Panzer 4 chassis would work due to the weight and balance of the Panther's gun. The Pz IV was pretty maxed out in weight and capability by the J model.



Are you thinking that my post was supposing that this gun should be married with the PX IV?

Or that it was and was ineffectual? 

The gun WAS mounted on the MKIV AusfG , Which was my point.


----------



## AWP (May 16, 2015)

pardus said:


> Are you thinking that my post was supposing that this gun should be married with the PX IV?
> 
> Or that it was and was ineffectual?
> 
> The gun WAS mounted on the MKIV AusfG , Which was my point.



I was thinking out loud, what if the Pz IV had the Panther's gun?

The Panther and the Mk4 never had the same gun. A 75mm, yes, but not the same gun. The Panther had a KwK 42/ L70 while the Mk4 versions went through a number of main guns. A test version of the Panther II used an Ausf G turret, but there are no records of it seeing combat.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv.htm 

Ausf F1 Kwk 37 L/24
Ausf F2 KwK 40 L/43
Ausf G KwK 40 L/48
Ausf H KwK 40 L/48

42 L/70's were tried but too heavy for the chassis.

The Jagdpanzer IV initially used the PaK 39 L/48 but later models did indeed use the PaK 42 L/70.*
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/jagdpanzer-iv-sd-kfz-162-75mm-l48-1944.htm

The Panther used the KwK 42 L/70.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-v-panther-sd-kfz-171.htm

* - A tank cannon is a KwK and an anti-tank cannon is a PaK. I've only included this trivia for the one or two people who don't geek out like us and may not understand the "difference." That's assuming anyone's left in the thread at this point.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Panzer_IV.php
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Panzer-V_Panther.php


----------

