What does that have to do with the tanks they have being blown up so easily?

Evidently you're having trouble with the concept of something being in development. Try applying the same logic to F-35, how long has that turd been in development now with only 30% of them being functional?

They’ve been “testing” it for more than a decade at this point and even if Russia is able to actually bring the T-14 into service, they won’t be able to produce any significant number of them for the same reason their tank corps isn’t using many T-90M right now.

Uh yeah, developing new weapons platforms takes a long time. Look at how long US has been fumbling trying to make F-35 work. Also, if you still think that Russia doesn't have industrial capacity to mass produce these, then you might want to read what people with a clue have to say https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine

Go look up Operation Desert Storm and rethink what you wrote there.

LMFAO yeah, Abrams is great at blowing up tanks from the 70s with barely trained crews. Not so good at modern warfare against a peer competitor.

If there’s anything here that’s garbage, it’s your notions about tank design.

Any tank where electronics start to break down when it rains is very obviously a giant piece of shit.

One, parked under a tree, was almost immobile during CNN’s visit, due to an engine problem, the crew say, despite the vehicle having just been shipped in from Poland. They also complain of how, in rain or fog, condensation can fry the electronics inside the vehicle.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/europe/ukraine-war-us-tanks-intl/index.html

Or you know a tank that will be used in actual battle conditions where you're not going to have guaranteed support. The whole NATO strategy has been to invade small defenceless countries and brutalize people there. You don't need to worry about stuff like logistics in these situations. A real war is a different animal.

ah the copes 😂