(As you know) The whole point of having an unmanned turret is to move all the vulnerable bits down under the heaviest armour in the front of the hull.
In computer games and in real war the location of the ammo or fuel or the crew are the places you aim for depending on the gun and ammo you are using, so having ammo in an exposed turret is stupid because exploding ammo destroys a tank and makes it not recoverable.
It is like they are going for an unmanned turret because they think it is cool.
The implementation sucks because NATO tacticians are wedded to the idea of the mad minute. They really think their enemies are subhumans orcs that would rush their positions by the hundreds, hence the need to have as fast a rate of fire as possible. And the best way to do that is with a bustle autoloader which rams rounds into the breech in one smooth movement.
Isos wrote:Unmanned turret is the same turret but with the crew moved on the front.
Even on previous tanks the turret was unmanned. It was just the gunner that controled it with a joystick. Now he uses the same joystick but from a different place. It's not like they were in the turret to move it with their hands.
Some may see it as a more expensive solution but it isn't. It's totally the same turret as on previous tanks. That's why price of t-14 should be very close to t-90M, afghanit and more modern materials making it a bid more expensive but all the other systems are found in t-90M as well.
The challenge with unmanned turrets is that with no crew in the fighting compartment to troubleshoot problems, the standard of reliability for the subsystems would have to be much higher. Beyond minimizing failure per cycles, you would need to design redundant parallel systems wherever applicable, and of course integration of the vast number of equipment onboard for control and monitoring, etc.