T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

The next best thing to an invisibility cloak: Russian State News Agency claims they have deployed.

www.reuters.com

Russia's new T-14 Armata battle tank debuts in Ukraine - RIA

Russia has begun using its new T-14 Armata battle tanks to fire on Ukrainian positions "but they have not yet participated in direct assault operations," the RIA state news agency reported on Tuesday, quoting a source close the matter.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Cannonfodder43 said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyWAd1pQiwU&ab_channel=RedEffect

The number of errors and blatant falsehoods LazerPig promotes would be less depressing if it weren't for the fact that he is so popular. And sadly The Tank Museum's video's on Soviet and Russian armor are not much better.
Click to expand...
Many intentional-or unintentional- misleading statements, spending nearly half of the video explaining points that could be done in 2-3 minutes, and then the "A-85 is a copy of a war-era German engine". Did they just pulled that off Lazerpig's video?

In many ways this highlights the quality of general Western media on Russian equipment, post-February 2022. I'd have expected more from the Tank Museum. Even redeffect ( who is a Serbian nationalistic fanboy and criticizer of Russian tanks) has a better video than this.
 

T-14 Armata tank reaches last development stage before mass production | Defense News August 2023 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2023 | Archive News year

Russian sources within the military-industrial complex confirmed that the T-14 Armata tank will finally enter into its finalization phase, which is the process of completing or perfecting the development, design, and production of a vehicle to render it prepared for operational deployment.
www.armyrecognition.com www.armyrecognition.com
 
Ahh the lazerpig drama. His fans and him legit accused chieftain of "clout chasing". LP angerly asked why chieftain didnt privately message him and went on a tangent. Then he said he was drunk when he posted and said he wouldn't delete his post.

He deleted his post.
 
TMA1 said:
Ahh the lazerpig drama. His fans and him legit accused chieftain of "clout chasing". LP angerly asked why chieftain didnt privately message him and went on a tangent. Then he said he was drunk when he posted and said he wouldn't delete his post.

He deleted his post.
Click to expand...
Pathetic
 

Russia successfully tests active protection system Afganit on T-14 Armata tank | Defense News August 2023 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2023 | Archive News year

Russian Ministry of Defense had successfully carried out tests on its Afganit Active Protection System (APS) using the T-14 Armata tank. These tests occurred as the tank entered in its final stages before its mass production. The credibility of this information is confirmed by images presented...
www.armyrecognition.com www.armyrecognition.com
 
Forest Green said:
Now why would they do that?
Click to expand...
So that the super-duper stealth system of the T-14 which provides complete invisibility at all electromagnetic wavelegnths, levitation and completely sound-free operation were not captured by those pesky little genetically manipulated Ukrainian combat mosquitoes...

On a more serious note, actually deploying a token force of essentially hand-built prototype machines whose early defects are years from rectification and for which no production line exists at the present would be more a show of absolute desparation than strength.
 
Either they were doing more tests and the battlefield tests were completed or there were dangers of Ukrainians guided by western intel to score a sorely needed propaganda win by knocking a t-14 out and Russia decided to pull them out.

Those are two not very educated guesses. As always I am also excited to read ever more posts by the resident nafo members.
 
They did deploy their much vaunted Terminators operationally which had several casualties before being pulled out.
 
In contrast to the Terminators which have been shown by both sides engaging in combat, there's not been any verified footage of T-14 anywhere along an actual line of contact, from Russian or Ukrainian sources. The "battlefield tests" footage published by Russian media seemed to consist of driving around the backwoods of Bilhorod or Rostov and shooting once in awhile. I don't think there's even been comments from Russian combat bloggers about seeing them in action. None of this is to say they weren't testing the vehicles or that the conditions weren't like those of the actual battlefield, but I don't think there's much evidence they were exposed to Ukrainian fire in a way that posed a danger. Well, not anymore than the Il-76s in Pskov anyway.
 
I agree. I've been following the war fairly closely, and I have not seen a single video of a T-14 anywhere near the front.
 
Being reported on Telegram a week after TASS announced the Armata had been pulled out of Ukraine that the T-14 company has now been disbanded and that all ground forces armament programs and the under development 2035 armament program are being axed and refocused on improving the T14, T15 and 2S35 to a state that they can enter service rather than relying on modernising old armoured vehicles, in addition procurement for the airforce and Naval infantry forces is to be slashed to prioritise rebuilding the army. Essentially they are trying to rationalise into only procuring a limited number of new vehicle types, they are having their Entwicklung moment.
 
Last edited:
Good. I have only heard rumors about issues with the engine and APS in particular. Undoubtedly other problems have cropped up as well and this war is probably causing their mod and MIC to rethink a lot of things.

One thing is for sure. It is the most polarizing and controversial weapon programs to have ever existed.
 
WatcherZero said:
Being reported on Telegram a week after TASS announced the Armata had been pulled out of Ukraine that the T-14 company has now been disbanded and that all ground forces armament programs and the under development 2035 armament program are being axed and refocused on improving the T14, T15 and 2S35 to a state that they can enter service rather than relying on modernising old armoured vehicles, in addition procurement for the airforce and Naval infantry forces is to be slashed to prioritise rebuilding the army. Essentially they are trying to rationalise into only procuring a limited number of new vehicle types, they are having their Entwicklung moment.
Click to expand...

which company has been disbanded? the one that produced the T-14?
if so, wouldnt you need that company to do the focus on improving the T-14?
 
helmutkohl said:
which company has been disbanded? the one that produced the T-14?
if so, wouldnt you need that company to do the focus on improving the T-14?
Click to expand...

I assume they mean the combat formation to which the T-14s were assigned, not Uralvagonzavod, the business.
 
May be it's worth to read an original source?

Виктор Мураховский

Все предыдущие программы вооружения слиты в утиль. Равно как и разрабатываемая в настоящее время госпрограмма вооружений на период до 2035 года. Приоритеты программ, нацеленных на выполнение задач в сфере Воздушно-космических сил, Военно-морского флота ушли в прошлое. Сейчас на первый план...
t.me t.me
 
flateric said:
May be it's worth to read an original source?

Виктор Мураховский

Все предыдущие программы вооружения слиты в утиль. Равно как и разрабатываемая в настоящее время госпрограмма вооружений на период до 2035 года. Приоритеты программ, нацеленных на выполнение задач в сфере Воздушно-космических сил, Военно-морского флота ушли в прошлое. Сейчас на первый план...
t.me t.me
Click to expand...

Thanks. For various reasons, it's difficult for me to hunt around in Russian Telegram.

The relevant paragraph for the "company" question, translated via Google.

Unfortunately, the company of Armata tanks in the army has been disbanded; their further path follows from the desire to improve it. When will he appear in the troops? Not until next year.
Click to expand...

As I suspected, this means they've disbanded the combat formation for trials and (probably) sent the tanks back to the manufacturer for further development.
 
That's a weird thing as Omsk tank plant who manufactured the T-80 still exist. Uralvagonzavod has been historically make the T-72 family tank. unless of course if it's been acquired by UVZ.
 
apparition13 said:
Does anyone else get the impression that Armata-Kurganets-Bumerang is the US Army's 1980s era "Armored Family of Vehicles Program", with heavy, medium, and light chassis vehicles, put into effect?
Click to expand...
Yes. And they're copying the TTB as the headline design while they're at it.
 
Considering what Ukrainian troops are saying of the Challenger 2 in combat, it seems that a tank is not a ground-based jet fighter (yes, you may assume that there is some irony in my tone).

On one hand, the serious recruitment problems that face modern armed forces are an incentive to design tanks for three or less crew but on the other hand, the realities of combat push towards a crew of four. Let's call the fourth crew member the 'tactician' rather than 'loader.' Their job is to, as before, to load the gun, but now it is also to assist the commander, control the drones associated with the tank, make the tea, and help with the repairs that are inevitably required.

As has been shown, a damaged F-15 can fly back to base with a missing tail fin and and a wing and a half but a tank is stuck where it is if it isn't fixed. Someone needs to do the fixing.
 
Last edited:
Rhinocrates said:
As has been shown, a damaged F-15 can fly back to base with a missing tail fin and and a wing and a half but a tank is stuck where it is if it isn't fixed. Someone needs to do the fixing.
Click to expand...

Well this problem is irrelevant with number of crews tbh. Also tank comes in Platoon, so when it got stuck then one must radio for help. The stuck tank is likely cannot be fixed by just a loader or even the crew of a single tank.

Rhinocrates said:
On one hand, the serious recruitment problems that face modern armed forces are an incentive to design tanks for three or less crew
Click to expand...

No. It's based on weight/bulk reduction. as every additional crew members needs a working volume which can add size (e.g turret height) and this has to be armored, this armor add weight -greatly- Especially that a tank e.g Challenger expend 50% of its weight budget on armor protection.

The Armata and TTB seek to reduce this weight of armor by dispensing the 4th crew member and then focus protection on all crew members within the hull. Therefore you can prioritze protection in that area, and thus weight, and with lower weight comes lower logistical footprints, more options in mobility and numbers as you can ship more tanks with available logistic chain. and more growth margin. Your tanks can be upgraded with add on armor while still keeping below or just about 55-60 Metric tonne margin.
 
stealthflanker said:
Well this problem is irrelevant with number of crews tbh. Also tank comes in Platoon, so when it got stuck then one must radio for help. The stuck tank is likely cannot be fixed by just a loader or even the crew of a single tank.
Click to expand...
Well, I was relying on Matsimus, who in one video explained his preference to four crew over three. Certainly one crewmember can't be relegated to doing the repairs alone, but a fourth pair of hands - and back - is invaluable in combat conditions when it comes to lifting heavy stuff when you can't wait for help to arrive. The man's a real former British, now Canadian, soldier, so I'll take his word for it. I can't find the exact video, but this gives a flavour:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_KM57Ovx5o

Recruitment is definitely a problem with the British armed forces, and in response to this, Babcock is trying to find ways to build Type 32 frigates that can operate with as few as 50 crew.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Babcock plans next-gen frigates with crews as small as 50

"We're doing a crew of about 105 on Type 31, so realistically we should be aiming to half that number for batch two."
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

That's also why one (fortunately unlikely) concept for the Type 83 destroyer might have even fewer on board.

www.navylookout.com

Options for the Royal Navy’s Future Air Dominance System and the Type 83 destroyer | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom