T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

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...
If you're stuck because of a broken or thrown track, a crew of 4 absolutely can reattach a thrown track. It just sucks to do because each link is heavy.
 
Those figures sound a bit too high. New abrams tracks weigh 5.3 tons combined. And abrams is a heavier tank, so you would expect t14 would need lighter tracks. Older abrams tracks weighed just 4 tons combined. But they were replaced because they wore out quicker.
Old abrams tracks were good for 850 miles on initial M1, but dropped to just 710 miles on M1A1. New tracks got the m1A1 to 2100 miles bEfore track replacement.
 
paralay said:
There are 100 trucks in one caterpillar of the Armata tank, weighing 20-40 kg each
Click to expand...
100 links per side? that makes total track weight easy.

totoro said:
Those figures sound a bit too high. New abrams tracks weigh 5.3 tons combined. And abrams is a heavier tank, so you would expect t14 would need lighter tracks. Older abrams tracks weighed just 4 tons combined. But they were replaced because they wore out quicker.
Old abrams tracks were good for 850 miles on initial M1, but dropped to just 710 miles on M1A1. New tracks got the m1A1 to 2100 miles bEfore track replacement.
Click to expand...
20kg per link times 100 links per side makes a 2 tonne track (4 tonnes total), so I don't think that's out of line. 40kg does sound high, however.
 
totoro said:
Those figures sound a bit too high. New abrams tracks weigh 5.3 tons combined. And abrams is a heavier tank, so you would expect t14 would need lighter tracks. Older abrams tracks weighed just 4 tons combined. But they were replaced because they wore out quicker.
Old abrams tracks were good for 850 miles on initial M1, but dropped to just 710 miles on M1A1. New tracks got the m1A1 to 2100 miles bEfore track replacement.
Click to expand...

Sometimes stuff surprises you, for example when the Germans tried switching to steel wheels with a rubber insert to conserve rubber as opposed to rubber on the running face of the track wheels, the weight ended up doubling!
 
I take it you saw Chieftain's recent panther 2 prototype vehicle overview. Very nice. B-)
 
You mean like absolutely every other tank that has seen combat in this conflict, including all of the much vaunted Western MBTs? Perhaps the Russians are indeed leery of that sort of bad publicity, but it's not like Armata wouldn't be in good company, right? Not that you could expect people to be sufficiently discerning as to recognize this fact.

It's also remarkable how articles to the effect of "Russia abandons Armata tank" (with or without a reason being cited...) crop up year after year after year with monotonous regularity, yet it's still here. Funnily enough, this particular piece even flatly contradicts its own click-bait title by stating point blank that "Despite this, Chemezov confirmed that the T-14 “Armata” remains part of the Russian Army’s arsenal.".

Maybe we all need to countenance that this tank is going to enter service, and probably even hit substantial numbers at some point down the road. And that perhaps the hysterically embroidered accounts of its various failings and delays are actually no more than the typical teething troubles encountered by virtually any major new weapons system...
 
Tbh I wonder why the adoption of the Armata has been so incredibly slow going - sure it's a complex weapons system, but I doubt it's anywhere as complex as the Su-57 and despite both projects beginning at the same time, in the early 2010s, at least they managed to put the Su-57 into serial production, where the Armata is nowhere in sight.
 
Trident said:
Funnily enough, this particular piece even flatly contradicts its own click-bait title by stating point blank that "Despite this, Chemezov confirmed that the T-14 “Armata” remains part of the Russian Army’s arsenal.".
Click to expand...

Yeah, but then apparently T-55's and even T-34's are part of the Russian Army's arsenal.
 
Trident said:
You mean like absolutely every other tank that has seen combat in this conflict, including all of the much vaunted Western MBTs? Perhaps the Russians are indeed leery of that sort of bad publicity, but it's not like Armata wouldn't be in good company, right? Not that you could expect people to be sufficiently discerning as to recognize this fact.

It's also remarkable how articles to the effect of "Russia abandons Armata tank" (with or without a reason being cited...) crop up year after year after year with monotonous regularity, yet it's still here. Funnily enough, this particular piece even flatly contradicts its own click-bait title by stating point blank that "Despite this, Chemezov confirmed that the T-14 “Armata” remains part of the Russian Army’s arsenal.".

Maybe we all need to countenance that this tank is going to enter service, and probably even hit substantial numbers at some point down the road. And that perhaps the hysterically embroidered accounts of its various failings and delays are actually no more than the typical teething troubles encountered by virtually any major new weapons system...
Click to expand...

So despite Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov telling Russian media on July 30 2023 plans to mass produce the T-14 had been cancelled, the production line having been shut down in Feb 2023 and now the head of Rostec Sergey Chemezov saying the T-14 is too expensive to deploy and funding is required to develop a more cost-effective alternative you still believe they will build more than the 100 or so completed so far out of the revised plan to complete 2,300 by 2025?
 
Given the checkered history of the project, I won't be stupid enough to predict hard production numbers and dates, which is why you don't find any of that in my quote. But for a project to survive a supposed shut-down of the production line in early 2023 to have its mass production cancelled 6 months later (how is that even possible, if the original report was true?) and then survive that to be still around in early 2024 for a decision to not deploy it in Ukraine (implying that there was a real debate to be had on this issue), tells me loud and clear it's more likely to endure than not endure. I mean, the one common thread in all of this is - at the end of the day, Armata was NOT in fact cancelled, despite dozens of reports to the effect over the years.
 
The plans were announced to the Russian Media as cancelled after the line had already been shutdown because they had already switched new tank assembly lines to reconditioning old stored tanks to try and replenish the huge losses in Ukraine. Yes there is a chance it may come back, the 2,300 tanks by 2025 in the 2027 armament plan was already a pushed back delivery date on the 2,300 between 2015-2020 deadline which had been abandoned in 2018 due to lack of funds. But as it stands when the company that makes it is saying they need to design a cheaper replacement for it, it doesn't look like its going to enter mass production.
 
paralay said:
During these two years, all tanks have become obsolete.
Click to expand...

But yeah, until "defense" picks up the pace, tanks seem to be a bit pointless when facing opponents able to rustle up modern weapons in large numbers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WatcherZero said:
So despite Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov telling Russian media on July 30 2023 plans to mass produce the T-14 had been cancelled, the production line having been shut down in Feb 2023
Click to expand...
Can you give me a link to the July 30th Borisov statement? Tried to google it, but I'm having no luck.
 
paralay said:
During these two years, all tanks have become obsolete. The story of battleships and aircraft carriers repeats itself
Click to expand...
Nowhere even close. Battleships were completely replaced by carriers.
Tanks face another new weapon that dangerous for them. Just like they faced HEAT rounds in 50es, ATGMS in 60-es and 70-es, tank hunter helicopters. And yet, tanks are still here. Because there is no other weapon system invented to replace them yet. They just adapt (already doing so).
As for T-14 in particluar, it's situation is like T-44 and T-34. Even better, as T-90M i nowhere near that obsolete against it's current threats bar drones, like T-34 was against German threats in 1944.
Both are not fully ready against FPV threat (though no current tank is).
Orionblamblam said:
But yeah, until "defense" picks up the pace, tanks seem to be a bit pointless when facing opponents able to rustle up modern weapons in large numbers.
Click to expand...
They are not pointless even as is. For the many 1hit kill videos from both sides there are significantly more cases (ususaly not filmed, because it's not sensational at all) when tanks survive hits (or multiple ones) from ATGMS and other veapons and do their work.
Plus, we yet to see massive tank formations in battle.
 
Anduriel said:
They are not pointless even as is. For the many 1hit kill videos from both sides there are significantly more cases (ususaly not filmed, because it's not sensational at all) when tanks survive hits (or multiple ones) from ATGMS and other veapons and do their work.
Plus, we yet to see massive tank formations in battle.
Click to expand...
If someone were to send waves of tanks against a properly armed NATO country (or similar), those tanks wouldn't get hit with one ATGM each. They'd be shotgun-blasted with them, along with LGBs falling like rain. In short order, the sun shining down on armored columns will be blotted out by clouds of slaughterbots. Even if the bots carry little more than bags of black paint to splatter the windows and optics, they will get the job done.
 
That's so gross oversimplification of matters that I'm not sure where to begin with.
 
Tanks are still useful cause they force the enemy infranty to choose.


Should they Bring tge Cal Gustav for General Purposes? The Javelin for Anti Tank? Or fifty drones? All of which are heavy, going to slow you down and like.

Tanks are mobike armor pillboxes that require you to bring out big heavy gear to take care of. Which limits the mobility and ability of forces to engage.

And that not even considering the EWAR side.

While Russia been having issues with their jammers...

Ukraine really hasn't. Everytime russia manages to circumvent them, Ukraines counters it and the circle repeats The old war of the black boxes is fully in effect there.

That before adding in the hardkill stuff like tge US DEWS systems.


The Tank is very much not dead and going to stay around for a hot minute. Likely going to regress from 50 plus ton beasts to 30 tons max pre WW2 land ships looking deals cover in MGs and Jammers, but its still going to be a thing.

Edit: heck a great way to blunt a FPV drone attack be basically the US Army Precision Grenadier or the 20/25mm grenedes of tge OICW programs and mate it to the GEC-Marconi Dynamics TAMs system to give tanks a flak turret.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the tank will adapt, it will be an infantry fighting vehicle with SAMs against drones. 600 mm steel is no longer needed
 
paralay said:
Yes, the tank will adapt, it will be an infantry fighting vehicle with SAMs against drones. 600 mm steel is no longer needed
Click to expand...
I suspect it's *possible* that the armored vehicle of the future might actually be more akin to a "land ship:" Instead of a maximally armored chunk of steel, it will be modesty armor but festooned with systems... guns and missiles off offense, multiple defensive systems including small SAMs, electronic warfare, CIWS systems including small-caliber, rapid fire guns, lasers, masers, who knows what all else.
 
has the armata ever been combat tested if so what is its combat record I would like to know.
and also thank you all for letting me be a member of this great website!
 
quinn whitsitt said:
has the armata ever been combat tested if so what is its combat record I would like to know.
and also thank you all for letting me be a member of this great website!
Click to expand...
No, no one has shot at it for the record yet.

I suspect it won't happen as long as there is a war on in Ukraine.
 
Orionblamblam said:
If someone were to send waves of tanks against a properly armed NATO country (or similar), those tanks wouldn't get hit with one ATGM each. They'd be shotgun-blasted with them, along with LGBs falling like rain. In short order, the sun shining down on armored columns will be blotted out by clouds of slaughterbots. Even if the bots carry little more than bags of black paint to splatter the windows and optics, they will get the job done.
Click to expand...
I don't know Orionblamblam, US/NATO sent the vast majority of its ultra modern ATGM's to Ukraine before and during the initial Russian SMO and didn't kill every Russian tank. Also your analogy of "those tanks wouldn't get hit with one ATGM each. They'd be shotgun-blastered with them, along with LGB's falling like rain", seems a little optimistic, given tthatUS/NATO has not just exhausted it's ATGM stocks, but you also overlook the failure rate of ATGM's. Also, I think this Russian-Ukraine conflict has once again emphasised the over optimistic hubris of US/NATO notion of underestimating Russia's air defence systems and capabilities. On the contrary, if anything, I think this conflict has yet once again highlighted the neglect that US/NATO has for it's own battlefield air defence capabilities.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
I don't know Orionblamblam, US/NATO sent the vast majority of its ultra modern ATGM's to Ukraine
Click to expand...
NATO largely sent the old stock. And since the Russian war, production contracts for new runs of missiles such as Javelin have been released. Everybody and their brother is acquiring newly made anti-tank weapons of all kinds.
 
quinn whitsitt said:
why would they not put a t14 armata in to the war if they really wanted to win?
Click to expand...
Because it was not ready for combat, not necessarily supportable and losses would be a big blow to the myth of this being a super tank…oh, and because the cost of development.
 
I note that my post was deleted supposedly due to it being too off topic . I respectfully disagree.
Apparently I am guilty of having a sense of humor.
For future reference would it help if I had the offending portion of my personality surgically removed ?
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
Because it was not ready for combat, not necessarily supportable and losses would be a big blow to the myth of this being a super tank…oh, and because the cost of development.
Click to expand...
so its kinda like a propaganda tank like the abrambs x?
 
That and theres a max of 20 T14 hulls, likely closer to 10.

And we only know for sure that 3 work and thats by the Victory Parade last Year.

And that down by 2 of the previous year which been dropping from the max showing of 7 in 2015 when it was first shown off. Which had one of them breaking down at the time.

The tank was never made in numbers with it failing to met every production start since 2016 til now. Like that 1500 order was to start by 2017, and it got pushed back every year til it gotten cancel.

And EVERY SINGLE VIDEO of the T14 we see which has it running?

The engine sounds sick as hell. There was something fundamentally wrong with that engine that likely what killed it.
 
than its only purpose is as propaganda like the armata cant you see general dynamics wants money so they used the tank as a bragging sorta so they can get more buyers.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom