?
Proof for this statement? As for the T-14 it has nothing in common with the T-72 or T-90.
Yes it has, they are URALVAGONZAVOD products
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
?
Proof for this statement? As for the T-14 it has nothing in common with the T-72 or T-90.
Yes it has, they are URALVAGONZAVOD products
Yes it has what? You are claiming the T-14 is related to the T-72 just because it is made by the same manufacturer?
Nope, I am talking about the general mentality of Ural bureau bosses as they rarely think out of the box. Intact, the only time they did so when the t-95 was conceived which was a radical departure from the traditional Russian MBT philosophy but had its share of problems such as immature technology at the time etc.
you mean creating an unmanned turret with the crew separated in a armored capsule in the most protected part of the tank (glacis) is not a radical departure? The concept is not only a radical departure from Russian tanks but from all other tanks around the world. Besides that the general size, track layout (7 wheels) and protection level (look at the hatch thickness now compare it to any other tank) is radically different from any T-72 or T-90.you mean creating an unmanned turret with the crew separated in a armored capsule in the most protected part of the tank (glacis) is not a radical departure? The concept is not only a radical departure from Russian tanks but from all other tanks around the world. Besides that the general size, track layout (7 wheels) and protection level (look at the hatch thickness now compare it to any other tank) is radically different from any T-72 or T-90.
View attachment 218184
View attachment 218185

All Indians on the forum have a lesson to learn from your commentI've no problem with what he said, if our weapon is not up to international standard then it deserved to get critisized and served as wake up call for our Scientists to do more effort to improve it.![]()

Regarding ground pressure, its basic physics that a moving object has less psi whereas a stationary object has more exertion on the ground.
Ground pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I know the crew is separated from ammo and autoloader mate everyone does. The good thing is, Ural finally caught up to morozov's idea of crew in a hull![]()
That says nothing about a moving object having less ground pressure. The entire argument was you claiming that heavier tanks have horrible mobility in sandy terrain. That is not true, a lighter tank that has higher ground pressure will have more problems with bogging down and general mobility then a heavier tank that has less ground pressure. When two tanks are stationary the lighter tank with higher ground pressure will 'sink' in sandy terrain more then a heavier tank with less ground pressure. Basic science.
So then why are you claiming that that Uralvagonzavod can't think outside the box and that they still grasp on to old ideas? Clearly when Uralvagonzavod creates a clean slate design that is radically different from its predecessors then it can not be grasping to old ideas.
Hmm, severe comprehension problem. I clearly mentioned thar and rajhistan, not all deserts. Every desert has its own dynamics mate, read geography. In thar, the armour jocks had a joke for mbts that no tank could pass thar before it fails (get the humor?)
From type59 to type-90IIA, all tanks initially failed their trials. The M1 was a sheer fiasco really.
Regarding the UrAl, yes they eventually reached where Morozov was 50 years ago as he had given the proposal of Crew in a Hull concept.the revolutionary t-74 was meant to be the first CIH operational MBT in the world but ALAS!
And that was well over 50 years ago so your Ural is just over 50 years late. For originality, Ural was a lapdog to mkrozov design bureau always, improving over t-34 , 44 and 54 was what they did before jumping in with customizing 55s with 115mm gun and call it the t-62, only to be the trashed for morozov 64, again.
might as well claim that the Leo or Abrams or every tank for that matter is 100 years late based on early French tanks and no one can "innovate" anything because of the French 100 years prior or we can even go far back to Leonard da vinci's concepts. There was a concept long ago that involved an unmanned turret, so what? What are you trying to prove, are you trying to justify your original claim that Uralvagonzavod can not innovate thus the T-14 is just old technology?

The point for this history lesson is that Ural always lacked innovation and ingenuity that morozov enjoyed.
Just for your info, in case you don't know, the first prototype of t-72 was a modified t-64
