Maybe fuel economy. Which is almost completely irrelevant, due to militaries operating Abrams, above all the US, having logistical capabilities that aren't even in the same galaxy as that of "near-peer competitors".
Yeah, "our tanks don't need as much fuel" is very nearly a "Don't leave me for that guy, the condoms he needs to buy are more expensive"-tier of argument.
Dude, there are no tankies on BlueSky, you can't make a good argument on the "supremacy" of Eastern Bloc tanks without a crowd behind you cheering you on and throwing homophobic slurs at your opponent.
People on Bluesky are all either cheering for twitter dying, creating endless follow/block lists, or posting queer hentai. Its great, but we need more tank discourse.
If where talking seriously yes not the best but pretty good armor nice engine bit heavy sadly from what i have heard nice for the crew mainly because they don't have to pull a straw to know who is going to be the loader one of the biggest downside is the price cus no export potential
I would like to express my love for the funni lil vehicles the swedes were inventing during & just after ww2, if the pig does not mind. The tank destroyers & artillery implements, specifically, were rather silly.
As I'm sure you know better than anyone else, the best bait is explaining why the T-14 is a stupendous piece of crap with humor and exhaustive detail...
We could always test it..... Just say something like "The Challenger 2 is better than the T-90" Or "The T-14 will never see combat"
That normally finds em pretty fast.
Comments
Now we wait.
Churchill, Matilda, the firefly, amd lastly the AAT.
It's just a goofy little thing
One of my favorite American/British joint ventures to an extent...the Firefly, U.S. Sherman, British 17-pounder...sweet.
Like 120 with soft and hard kill and maybe a crows
I just wanna see it
That normally finds em pretty fast.