• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
stealthflanker said:
Scatter gun ? Well i see shotgun like working there. no differences to Arena except perhaps like you said it use EFP instead of blast-frag.


Shotguns and blast frag are very different to EFPs. They produce randomised patterns of shot and splinters with the later having varying velocities and mass. A multi slug EFP produces a precisely determined pattern of slugs each with the pre-derermined size and velocity. The difference between such clusters of scattered projectiles is very important for achieving a hard kill on an incoming threat.

[/size]
stealthflanker said:
where i can read about this upgraded sensor suite and that xtra large sized slug ? [/size]



Briefings by RAFAEL over the past seven years no doubt reported in several publications. And I didn't say the sensor suite had been upgraded or that it was extra large sized slug. Just that the improvements to the fire control system has enabled the EFP to customised so it can defeat long rod penetrators and still defeat RPGs.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
Dragon029 said:
Minor side-note, but apparently this is the turret looks like without the armour, active protection, sensors, etc:


I doubt it. The turret as seen has features that would not imply such a layout under the armour.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,707
Reaction score
82
The new Russian T-14 Armata tank makes its way to Red Square during a rehearsal for the Victory Day military parade in Moscow
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Impressive knowledge as always [/size]Abraham Gubler. I didnt know Trophy could yaw [/size]APFSDS rounds using EFPS. So now that we have better pictures can we assume the two top shotgun like canisters are the Russian "trophy" APS and the phased array radars below in the facets the targeting system? Does this mean that the large radius tubes are indeed just smoke dischargers or possible DROZD as well? Im not sure the first cylinder is not blocked by part of the turret. Opinions?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
579
What's even more impressive is the accuracy required to hit a KE round with an EFP.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
ubiquitous08 said:
So now that we have better pictures can we assume the two top shotgun like canisters are the Russian "trophy" APS and the phased array radars below in the facets the targeting system?


[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]No chance. The two turret roof mounted trainable boxes each with 12 canisters, labelled KA3 in some of those pictures, lack the design for the kind of launching accuracy needed for an unguided projectile to directly hit an incoming missile not to mention a long rod penetrator. The launching boxes don't even appear to have an elevating mechanism. Whatever those "KA3" things are they are not something that is launched with great accuracy. They could be an area blast active protection system like Drozd. The large number of shots plus the 24 on the roof either shooting upwards or for quick reload would indicate such a barrage weapon.[/font]


[/size]
ubiquitous08 said:
Does this mean that the large radius tubes are indeed just smoke dischargers or possible DROZD as well? Im not sure the first cylinder is not blocked by part of the turret. Opinions?

They look like smoke grenade launchers to me. Their large size would indicate a large and "heavy" cloud (for IR and radar obscuration). Which makes sense if you want to go up against an enemy with a LOT of precision guided weapons.


Looking at the bird's eye view picture of the T-14 it looks like the third crewman (gunner) is located behind the right hand crewman. There is also probably internal access to the turret under armour. Which would justify the large, non-tactical, hatch on the turret roof.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
So I guess the logical question is "will this tank have a defence against long rod penetrators?". This barrage system would suggest no? or could a barrage conceivable yaw the penetrator? Iam bit disappointed with Armata now.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
341
Reaction score
44
sferrin said:
What's even more impressive is the accuracy required to hit a KE round with an EFP.
This is what i'm kinda disbelieve. I have seen proposals on APS based on "Plate launcher" or Explosive charge like Iron fist. But with EFP hmmmm would love to hear some more on this.

--------------
Back to Armata. Anyway i believe the "large tubes" around the turret is the hardkill APS.. the Afghanistan or Afghanit whatever one wish to call it. The only thing i wonder is of course whether it has the ability to kill APFSDS.

Some grams of TNT exploded in few centimeters above KEP will induce both yaw and change the flight direction of the Longrods.

The smoke grenade "turret" Above will fire smoke+obsocurant for softkill.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
38
The other interesting thing is that I'm not seeing any coaxial armament. The only secondary weapon seems to be the commander's machine gun!
This is a far cry from previous Russian trends that had autocannons, automatic grenade launchers, in addition to the anti-tank weapons e.g. BTR-90, BMP-3, 'Terminator', Object 195, the Armata ?concept/disinformation? model.

Any other recent MBT proposals without a coaxial gun?


Abraham Gubler said:
The large number of shots plus the 24 on the roof either shooting upwards or for quick reload would indicate such a barrage weapon.
Probably to defeat top attack missiles? Javelin, Hellfire and Brimstone.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,355
Reaction score
221
Abraham Gubler said:
They look like smoke grenade launchers to me. Their large size would indicate a large and "heavy" cloud (for IR and radar obscuration). Which makes sense if you want to go up against an enemy with a LOT of precision guided weapons.
The large tubes around the turret ring are reminiscent of Drodz. It was also fixed in train, relying on the turret to point them, and quite big. Folks on other forums seem to be saying this is the Afghanit APS.

The smaller tubes look similar to the anti-IR grenades associated with Shtora. That would be my guess -- obscurants in trainable and vertical launchers to generate cover from top-attack and side-attack sensors. Large numbers woudl also fit with that -- you'd want to keep firing them to maintain continuous coverage.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Ok so we have broad agreement large tubes are hardkill APS? In which case if canisters above are indeed smoke softkill then the question must be how does Afghanit ? drozd defeat top attacks?
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
TomS said:
The large tubes around the turret ring are reminiscent of Drodz. It was also fixed in train, relying on the turret to point them
Why would the Russian's go back to the Drozd concept and its clearly limited zone of defence? Providing active protection only to the frontal arc is a retrograde step. Even if they were using a Drozd launcher concept they could mount the system in their new blank page tank and IFVs to provide 360 degree, high angle and zenith coverage. But they haven't. They are only providing coverage to the forward arc a hallmark of an obscurant launcher. And the horizontal launch angle is reminiscent of some quick response obscurant systems that sacrifice the efficiency of a lobbed smoke bomb for the time saving.

TomS said:
Folks on other forums seem to be saying this is the Afghanit APS.
TECHINT isn't a democracy.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
38
Also, it would leave the question: Where are the smoke dispensers?
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
341
Reaction score
44
ubiquitous08 said:
Ok so we have broad agreement large tubes are hardkill APS? In which case if canisters above are indeed smoke softkill then the question must be how does Afghanit ? drozd defeat top attacks?
Those smoke softkills will interfere with seeker's attempt in finding proper target. Most if not all top attack munitions today except BILL perhaps (Which not a "true" Top attack as it only overfly the tank) use terminal seeker, be it IR, TV or Semi-active laser.

The smoke grenades can be filled with obscurant that work in their operating band.
 

Dragon029

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
709
Reaction score
46
So there's some claiming:
Code:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ecb_1430849196
that the turrets on the T-14s shown are fake / are placeholders, due to the presence of gaps in the outer plating, etc.

I'm not very knowledgeable on tanks and armour, but my first thought was that it's simply meant to disperse projectile energy, HEAT / EFP rounds, small arms fire, etc. Some however are saying in response that it's still too thin and too close to whatever is under it, to act as that sort of defence.

Anyone with a bit more expertise able to give some insight? The turrets look real enough to me, but this is the May Day parade; if the T-14 wasn't ready, I could see them doing up placeholders.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
38
I see four things: Two sensor housings, one anti-grenade screen (metal yes, thick armour know), and one conspiracy theory.
 

Dragon029

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
709
Reaction score
46
When you say anti-grenade screen, are you talking about the outer plating that I am, or something else?

What I'm asking is why these outer plates appear so thin, or rather, what their purpose is, considering that they appear to be constructed of sheets ~5mm thick and when even 5.56 can penetrate 1/4" perpendicular steel?



 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
Dragon029 said:
When you say anti-grenade screen, are you talking about the outer plating that I am, or something else?

What I'm asking is why these outer plates appear so thin, or rather, what their purpose is, considering that they appear to be constructed of sheets ~5mm thick and when even 5.56 can penetrate 1/4" perpendicular steel?

Potemkin Tank?


The outer shell of the turret is still quite useful even if it is made of thin steel. If it is high hardness steel or composite material of 6mm thickness with its obliquity it will still provide some protection against small arms and arty splinters. 10mm thickness even better. But even if is is soft metal or light fibreglass it protects the turret from snagging on tree branches and the like and reduces the tank's signature. Under these sheets are going to be several armoured boxes of things for the gunner and commander's sensors, the MG, the APS, radios, jammers, etc. If just bolted onto the outside the actual turret around the main gun these boxes will provide a multitude of surfaces to catch branches, wires, etc as the tank moves through the battlefield. Also they will reflect waves from their corners and cast a large number of shadows which will make the tank easier to detect with various sensors.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,405
Reaction score
436
Was it a 'breakdown' OR as PRAVDA might say "Ingenious chance to test the recovery vehicle". Don't let this happen with Putin present :eek:

http://www.special-ops.org/russias-new-tank-breaks-down-not-so-dangerous-as-it-looks/#4343sesf
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,499
Reaction score
402
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,797
Reaction score
559
To be fair, it looks like it might have been driver error.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
Grey Havoc said:
To be fair, it looks like it might have been driver error.

Building a tank that can be stalled is designer error. Lots of surprisingly vintage features on the T-14. Like the clutching transmission and the external fuel tanks on the sponsons.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
671
Reaction score
24
Website
www.hisutton.com
Overall the tank seems decent enough and a logical arrangement for a current state MBT. But I am struggling to see it as revolutionary or a game changer. Ultimately it presents the same threat as a regular tank with the same active defense, sensors etc (which are about equipment fit, not fundamental to the layout).

The only thing that would change my mind is if it can slew the turret and reload considerably faster than current tanks. Or if all the ammo is below the turret ring, like on some western uncrewed turret designs.
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
843
Reaction score
47
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Abraham Gubler said:
No chance. The two turret roof mounted trainable boxes each with 12 canisters, labelled KA3 in some of those pictures, lack the design for the kind of launching accuracy needed for an unguided projectile to directly hit an incoming missile not to mention a long rod penetrator. The launching boxes don't even appear to have an elevating mechanism. Whatever those "KA3" things are they are not something that is launched with great accuracy. They could be an area blast active protection system like Drozd. The large number of shots plus the 24 on the roof either shooting upwards or for quick reload would indicate such a barrage weapon.

I read them as guided active protection missiles launched from a VLS style system. short reaction times and extreme accuracy are possible for such guided weapons; the US demonstrated it was possible with SPRINT/HIBEX decades ago; and the IDF has been working on this as IRON FIST since 2009.
 

Void

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
132
Reaction score
6
covert_shores said:
Overall the tank seems decent enough and a logical arrangement for a current state MBT. But I am struggling to see it as revolutionary or a game changer. Ultimately it presents the same threat as a regular tank with the same active defense, sensors etc (which are about equipment fit, not fundamental to the layout).

The only thing that would change my mind is if it can slew the turret and reload considerably faster than current tanks. Or if all the ammo is below the turret ring, like on some western uncrewed turret designs.
There is no need for a faster firing tank gun.

1. It solves the fundamental defect with Soviet tanks designs: Penetration, ammo fire, everyone dies. The T-14 it is safe to say provides the highest level of protection for the the crew of any tank in the world.
2. It probably has more armor on the front than any other tank and a more powerful gun.
3. It has significant capacity for future weight and capability growth. This probably the real "game changer" as aging western tank designs are already struggling under the weight (literally and figuratively) of decades of upgrades and do not have much potential left for even more upgrades without major structural revisions. The T-14 on the other hand will be improving for decades to come.

The Russians have produced a tank which can credibly go head-to-head with any western tank despite weighing significantly less. Russia's position in the AFV export market has been secured, Russian industry's reputation has been burnished and Russia will be able to relish as NATO armies are left playing catch up for at least a decade. Investing heavily in conventional ground forces represents a highly effective asymmetric strategy for Russia because it was basically the one contingency no one in NATO took seriously; now NATO is being challenged in an area that has been deliberately starved for decades and the light/medium weight "expeditionary" forces that they have been building up at great expense are being rendered superfluous.

Whatever way you slice it it's a coup for Russia.
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
843
Reaction score
47
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Void; the way I read it is:


According to propaganda from TASS, the T-14 is 48 tonnes.


Current weight of T-90A Vladimir is about 47 to 49 tonnes depending on what source.


Basically, as you said; they solved the problem of 125mm gun armed tanks exploding when hit; while keeping combat weight to the same level -- an important consideration when it comes to strategic mobility, still a KPP in Russia; as it's much easier to move a 49 tonne tank than a 64 tonne one.


They also likely solved the persistent problem of firepower with 125mm gun armed tanks with the T-14; likely with a new design of autoloader allowing for penetrator lengths comparable to western designs -- this was a huge stumbling block of the old 125mm tank guns -- due to autoloader, the length of penetrator, and thus penetration was limited compared to western 120mm guns.


The big problem is -- nobody's really sure how well all these virtual views and sensors will work in combat -- the US tried this out with the Abrams with the TTB (see attached image); and remained with a conventional layout for the M1.
 

Attachments

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
I'm deeply amused by the lack of analysis in Western Media for this tank. Lets be honest, it is a a game changer. Consider its potential capabilities... If Drozd 3 (Afganit) can indeed defeat sabot rounds as well as RPG AGTM, then this tank will be very hard to kill. Wasting enemy ordance itself helps mission kill. Consider also that with phased array radars that reportedly can be used for targeting vehicles (as well as for active protection) and you have a tank that can lay obscurant (note multiple arrays topside) denying western tanks valid firecontrol solutions (yes im sorry but Leopard / Challenger / Abrams are all laser / optical primary fire control) whilst itself facing no such problems using its radar channel instead or in conjunction with optical channels. By simply going dual band for firecontrol this tank qualifys as revolutionary even if it has the fault of not being made in the West...p This tank will waste a great deal or ordance to kill and with T15 can deploy troops quickly without wasting tanks as escorts since both share same MBT level protection. The bustle autoloader clearly supports long rod penetrators so that the WESTERN advantage (really exploiting the Soviet autloader limitation) is now gone so western tanks have no easy avenue to out kinematic Soviet shells.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
Void said:
1. It solves the fundamental defect with Soviet tanks designs: Penetration, ammo fire, everyone dies.
You don’t need a crew in hull tank design to achieve this. Compartmentalise the ammunition or use less sensitive propellant and you get rid of the “Bunsen Burner” effect.

Void said:
The T-14 it is safe to say provides the highest level of protection for the the crew of any tank in the world.
I wouldn’t be so sure of this. Contemporary armour arrays can’t be benchmarked by thickness like they could when everyone was using high hardness steels (even though there will quite considerable differences between different types of steel armour). Thickness is important but what’s inside the box is far more. Having the crew in the hull does take them out of the line of fire which is mostly directed towards the turret and places them behind the thickest armour in this tank. But the T-14’s lack of protection to the powerpack makes it comparatively vulnerable to mobility kills compared to a Merkava. Which often quickly leads to crew casualties.

Void said:
2. It probably has more armor on the front than any other tank and a more powerful gun
Again this question can only be answered by the performance figures than by x and y number of mm in bow armour and gun calibre.

Void said:
3. It has significant capacity for future weight and capability growth. This probably the real "game changer" as aging western tank designs are already struggling under the weight (literally and figuratively) of decades of upgrades and do not have much potential left for even more upgrades without major structural revisions. The T-14 on the other hand will be improving for decades to come.
It depends on the nature of the upgrade. Bolting on new stuff obviously leads to weight gains as in the Leopard 2, M1, Challenger 2 etc. But replacing of components with new addresses this problem. Like the Merkava Mk 3 to Mk 4 or various M1 and Leopard 2 proposals that include new turrets or major changes.

The T-14 will face this problem in the same way.

Void said:
The Russians have produced a tank which can credibly go head-to-head with any western tank despite weighing significantly less.
The T-14 achieves a 10-15 tonne (claimed) weight saving by using a remote turret. But one thing the T-14 lacks in its move to crew in hull is a reduction in the size of the turret. Even without crew inside it the turret is the key fighting element of the tank. It has the weapons and the sensors. Without a significant reduction in its signature it is going to be collecting hits like a conventional turret. But it doesn’t have the armour of a conventional tank turret. It is possible (again depending on the actual figures) that the T-14 turret can be taken out by medium calibre guns firing APFSDS ammunition. The 35mm and 40mm guns that are being fitted to western IFVs these days have very good armour penetration at range. If a gun like this can disable the T-14’s turret (which by looking at it I would say is likely) then it is vulnerable to mission kills by weapons other tanks can laugh off. Sure the crew will be alive and the gun can motor back to the workshop, swap out the busted stuff for new and then return to the fight. But it will not have remained in the fight at the crucial time.

Void said:
Russia's position in the AFV export market has been secured,
Their market position is based on being able to sell cheap tanks to people the west won’t. Between that and the western nations the market is very small. And I don’t think the poor dictatorships around the world are going to be able to payout for a tank loaded with high cost subsystems. Especially when all they need is something with armour to keep their people in line. Unless Russia is aiming for a big sale to China or India both of which require full tech transfer and the virtual end of any further large scale local work for the seller.

Void said:
Russian industry's reputation has been burnished and Russia will be able to relish as NATO armies are left playing catch up for at least a decade.
Not likely. The west/NATO has had the tech developed for decades to upgrade armoured forces. A handful of pre-production prototypes is not going to turn into an invincible Russian armoured division overnight. Russian recapitalisation provides motivation to the west to do the same and thanks to the technology gap the “Leopard 3” or “M10 Schwarzkopf” is going to put the Russia back into the T-72 boat again.

Void said:
Investing heavily in conventional ground forces represents a highly effective asymmetric strategy for Russia because it was basically the one contingency no one in NATO took seriously;
Land warfare is not just about land forces. The F-35 trumps the T-14 any day of the week.

Void said:
now NATO is being challenged in an area that has been deliberately starved for decades and the light/medium weight "expeditionary" forces that they have been building up at great expense are being rendered superfluous.
Those expeditionary forces still would have had lots of trouble up against T-90 armoured divisions. And they are still good for expedition which is kind of the point of raising them. Further their protected mobility provide high resilience to statistical artillery fires and their integrated battle management systems enable unprecedented force movement, force concentration and application of joint fires. All they need is more anti-tank weapons to be a very lethal force in open terrain manoeuvre warfare. So they are far from superfluous.

Void said:
Whatever way you slice it it's a coup for Russia.
It’s far from a coup. Just a slight attempt at catch up in a race they are well behind on.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
ubiquitous08 said:
I'm deeply amused by the lack of analysis in Western Media for this tank.
Western media don’t do independent analysis of military developments. They will only report on this if someone else like a think tank or military service puts out a compelling media strategy about it.

ubiquitous08 said:
Lets be honest, it is a a game changer.
See my post above for what I think of this hyperbole.

ubiquitous08 said:
Consider its potential capabilities... If Drozd 3 (Afganit) can indeed defeat sabot rounds as well as RPG AGTM, then this tank will be very hard to kill. Wasting enemy ordance itself helps mission kill. Consider also that with phased array radars that reportedly can be used for targeting vehicles (as well as for active protection) and you have a tank that can lay obscurant (note multiple arrays topside) denying western tanks valid firecontrol solutions (yes im sorry but Leopard / Challenger / Abrams are all laser / optical primary fire control) whilst itself facing no such problems using its radar channel instead or in conjunction with optical channels. By simply going dual band for firecontrol this tank qualifys as revolutionary even if it has the fault of not being made in the West...p This tank will waste a great deal or ordance to kill and with T15 can deploy troops quickly without wasting tanks as escorts since both share same MBT level protection. The bustle autoloader clearly supports long rod penetrators so that the WESTERN advantage (really exploiting the Soviet autloader limitation) is now gone so western tanks have no easy avenue to out kinematic Soviet shells.
It’s not as if western tanks can’t have APS fitted that does the same. There are quite a few western APS systems on the market that have all of the above capabilities. And there is one western tank that has actually used its APS in battle doing these things!

For Russia trying to leverage battlefield sensors against the west is a no win approach. Who do you think is the world leader in battlefield sensors and stealth? Ain’t Russia. I have little doubt that if needed the entire operational fleet of Abramses and friends in leading NATO nations can have APS and radar sensors fitted before the Russian’s can deploy a division or two of the T-14 or similar upgrade to the T-80 and T-90.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Merkava has used Trophy several times against both rpg7 and I believe Kornet. In reply to Abraham Gublrer I again repeat that by virtue of having 2 channels (ir / optical and radar) this tank is a game changer. Until I see western tanks similarily outfitted it remains at an advantage. As regards fire control yes Western sensors are better but they are not fielded and with engagements at 2-4 kms is western fire-control truly a decisive advantage here? Any phased array radar will be able to form a firing solution at 2-4 kms which is basically point blank for the radar. I call diminishing returns here. We can say Western technology is better at this and that all day but with the exception of the Merkava I don't see a fielded western APS and lets not forget the U.S's attempt at this hasn't exactly gone anywhere has it (Quick kill is still not operational despite being evaluated against Trophy in 2011!).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
579
ubiquitous08 said:
I'm deeply amused by the lack of analysis in Western Media for this tank. Lets be honest, it is a a game changer.
A term that is way, WAY overused. It remains to be seen if this is the miracle tank Russia claims it to be.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
582
Reaction score
9
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
The APS and all-round cameras may be very helpful against dismounted troops with portable AT equipment, but other than that the tank doesn't promise much difference to normal MBTs.
The gun may be better, the effect of a penetration may be less catastrophic (still mission kill), the crew may be a bit more daring...

But basic issues such as poor abilities against high targets (air power, rooftop, hilltop) due to very limited main gun elevation seem to persist. I read a claim about 500 km (road) range, which is not overwhelming for a new design, especially if this includes external drums.
The battlefield mobility won't be matched by most (all) legacy battlefield vehicles, so T-14 will be slowed down in mixed formations.


It's furthermore a BIG question whether maintenance and repair friendliness, fuel efficiency and component durability have been improved to or beyond Western standards. It may be a tank built to impress with superficialities (albeit its gun doesn't), instead of a thoroughly optimized design (and right now those are mere prototypes anyway).
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,405
Reaction score
436
http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t15_analysis.html#.VU4Oomd0ysc

http://defense-update.com/20150509_kurganets-25bmp-btr.html#.VU4Zfmd0ysc

First analysis part 1&2 from Defense Update.

AG - thanks for the thoughtful/sober/reasonable analysis

Others - a few prototypes rolled out of a factory (one stalled on a parade march) can we hold off on the game-changing, unstoppable, war winning armored forces rolling unhindered to conquer the world hyperbole until maybe more is known?

Like the T-50 people ran to comment threads across the internet shouting that the F-22 & F-35 were all outmatched and US stealth was dead and then Russia rolled back production from 55 to 12 aircraft with speculation of major program problems.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/russia-s-stealth-fighter-is-in-serious-trouble-24ac3ef85227
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
38
Abraham Gubler said:
For Russia trying to leverage battlefield sensors against the west is a no win approach. Who do you think is the world leader in battlefield sensors and stealth? Ain’t Russia. I have little doubt that if needed the entire operational fleet of Abramses and friends in leading NATO nations can have APS and radar sensors fitted before the Russian’s can deploy a division or two of the T-14 or similar upgrade to the T-80 and T-90.
Honestly, I do think we spend far too much time comparing systems and trying to find the gaps or technological leads between 'NATO vs. Russia'. I suspect that the more intelligent approach is to assess the systems individually and consider what their performance is like in a battlefield situation, and what facing them as an OPFOR would be like.

I think it can be said that the T-14 will be a significant upgrade in capability compared to the T-90 and the T-72. It can also be said that the T-14 has a number of capabilities that place it in a qualitatively newer generation of tank compared to late 20th century production tanks. I don't think either of these facts can be disputed.

The design offers a number of interesting capabilities (if what has been implied is correct):

- The modern third generation active protection system offers higher survivability against infantry, air and vehicle launched anti-tank missiles. This is important because it is easier to upgrade warheads on anti-tank missiles than it is to introduce a new generation of anti-tank guns.

- The design offers higher crew survivability than any previous Russian design. The durability of the turret is in question, and particularly the vulnerability of the sensor systems seems dubious. But this is still and advance. Perhaps more importantly, the use of digital work stations and a combined crew compartment means that it is possible for any two of the crew to operate the vehicle while the third one sleeps. Combined with the air conditioning and quieting in the crew compartment this means that the crew will be much fresher during long operations or counter-insurgency support situations where dismounting is not an option.

- The improved optics and radar system will allow accurate ranging of targets (allowing higher PK shots - especially against armoured vehicles). Furthermore, the network ability will allow sharing information with other assets to an unprecedented degree.

- The side mounted optics and radar system will make it much more likely for the tank to identify the location of incoming enemy fire immediately. If the ERA allows the tank to survive the first hit, the tank will be able to respond with suppressing fire much faster than legacy designs. If the unmanned turret has a higher rotation rate... all the better.

So - all in all - it isn't the tank we grew up with.
 

aam641

One needs a personality to have a personal text!
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
107
Reaction score
4
bobbymike said:
There is a major error in the analysis. The gunner sits in the middle, slightly behind the commander and the driver. The gunner has a single forward-looking periscope, which can be clearly seen the third-last picture. And he likely exists through the commander's hatch. Periscopes behind the driver's hatch are used by the driver (similar to British Challenger).
 

aam641

One needs a personality to have a personal text!
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
107
Reaction score
4
Void said:
1. It solves the fundamental defect with Soviet tanks designs: Penetration, ammo fire, everyone dies. The T-14 it is safe to say provides the highest level of protection for the the crew of any tank in the world.
2. It probably has more armor on the front than any other tank and a more powerful gun.

1. This has been mentioned very often, but how relevant is it? What is more difficult to replace, the tank or the crew?
2. This is questionable, as the entire T-14 is about as heavy as M1 or Merkava hull, and they are about the same size.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
lastdingo said:
But basic issues such as poor abilities against high targets (air power, rooftop, hilltop) due to very limited main gun elevation seem to persist.
This remains to be seen. An add on remote turret that sits on top of the vehicle’s roof would have obvious problems with large gun elevation due to the limited space for the breech to recoil. But I would suspect the T-14 still has a traditional turret ring. Which would allow the gun to recoil down into the hull. Which would enable reasonable elevation. The limitation here would be determined by how much of the ammunition and loading system is in the hull. The turret bustle is quite small and would probably only hold 10-20 rounds of ammunition or just propellant cases. So there would have to be a magazine in the hull.

The key metric for gun training will be depression. The Russians have had several generations of tanks with very poor gun depression and this has severely limited their ability to use defilade to protect the tank from enemy fires. The mantlet of the T-14 seems quite large and the turret roof comparatively high so allowing for gun depression. There is also that large hatch on the roof that could possibility be automatically opening to allow for recoil at high depression. Though this would be a clumsy and unlikely solution.

Gun elevation is important for tanks operating in direct support of infantry in close terrain but as part of a combined arms formation in open terrain less so. The Russian’s have the T-15 heavy infantry support vehicle in their new family of systems that could provide that high elevation fires capability in urban warfare. Though being limited to a medium calibre gun would make it less effective at destroying any roof top reinforced fighting position.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
51
AdamF said:
There is a major error in the analysis. The gunner sits in the middle, slightly behind the commander and the driver. The gunner has a single forward-looking periscope, which can be clearly seen the third-last picture. And he likely exists through the commander's hatch. Periscopes behind the driver's hatch are used by the driver (similar to British Challenger).

Just because they have an advertising banner along the top of their webpage does not make them a credible source for analysis.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
79
Abraham Gubler said:
lastdingo said:
But basic issues such as poor abilities against high targets (air power, rooftop, hilltop) due to very limited main gun elevation seem to persist.
This remains to be seen. An add on remote turret that sits on top of the vehicle’s roof would have obvious problems with large gun elevation due to the limited space for the breech to recoil. But I would suspect the T-14 still has a traditional turret ring. Which would allow the gun to recoil down into the hull. Which would enable reasonable elevation. The limitation here would be determined by how much of the ammunition and loading system is in the hull. The turret bustle is quite small and would probably only hold 10-20 rounds of ammunition or just propellant cases. So there would have to be a magazine in the hull.

The key metric for gun training will be depression. The Russians have had several generations of tanks with very poor gun depression and this has severely limited their ability to use defilade to protect the tank from enemy fires. The mantlet of the T-14 seems quite large and the turret roof comparatively high so allowing for gun depression. There is also that large hatch on the roof that could possibility be automatically opening to allow for recoil at high depression. Though this would be a clumsy and unlikely solution.

Gun elevation is important for tanks operating in direct support of infantry in close terrain but as part of a combined arms formation in open terrain less so. The Russian’s have the T-15 heavy infantry support vehicle in their new family of systems that could provide that high elevation fires capability in urban warfare. Though being limited to a medium calibre gun would make it less effective at destroying any roof top reinforced fighting position.
All very good points. In Grozny, it was the lack of gun depression that really hampered operations; Chechen tank hunting teams had a considerable degree of immunity firing from basements.
 
Top