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

T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,924
Reaction score
25
Two answers to that. 1. Don't try and use tanks in built up areas (something learnt in Stalingrad, I seem to remember) and 2. you're making the classic mistake of assuming that a vehicle fighting on the steppes of Russia requires a greater depression than that which it has.

The first is something I fear most modern militaries have forgotten. Urban combat tends to chew up the forces involved with higher casualty rates. Trying to hide their soft bodies behind armoured plate while admirable doesn't necessarily mean it will work against an opponent who is willing to sacrifice men for AFVs.

The second is one of the problems with making comparisons between "East" and "West" AFVs. Western AFVs tend to be designed to fight in environments where reverse slopes abound. Eastern ones not. The Steppes tend to be flat and featureless. The Russians learnt a lower silhouette is much more valuable. Therefore the Western ones usually are taller and have higher turret roofs and therefore greater depression on their gun mounts than Eastern AFVs. The terrain where they are intended primarily to be utilised dictates that...

I remember during the Cold War reading so often of Western tankers who derided their Eastern counterparts for their design philosophy.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
16
Kadija_Man said:
Two answers to that. 1. Don't try and use tanks in built up areas (something learnt in Stalingrad, I seem to remember)
Tanks were and remain and important part of the urban warfare battle. Using tanks by themselves in urban warfare is near suicidal. Something the Russians learnt in Grozny. As for Stalingrad both sides used tanks as part of their combat forces. The Germans took away a lesson from Stalingrad that they needed an armoured vehicle that could destroy an entire building with a single shot. Which lead to the Sturmtiger. Not using tanks in urban combat is a recipe for disaster. Just ask the NVA how that worked for them at Hue or Al Qaeda in Fallujah.

Kadija_Man said:
and 2. you're making the classic mistake of assuming that a vehicle fighting on the steppes of Russia requires a greater depression than that which it has.
Steppe and other generally flat terrain like deserts and plains are not completely flat. Defilade and using it is the basic rule of combat with ranged weapons. Besides since when did the Russian’s just design tanks to fight on the Steppe? Never. No amount of semantic driven debate is going to get rid of a deficiency.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
The Russian "inability" to dig in and depress barrell does not represent "deficiency".You think depressing a barrell is an AMAZING FEAT OF ENGINEERING only the West can master? It reflects operational need and any military engineer knows that form follows function follows operational requirements. Western tanks primarily designed to fight in the Fulda Gap were dug in as defensive units; hence the AMAZING WESTERN ability of depressed barrels. The Soviets expected their units to make rapid advances; no wonder no emphasis on dug in fighting they don't expect to use; it just adds cost they felt wasn't essential. Evaluation of weapons by Western doctrine invariably penalizes weapons designed for different operational realities. Even the Americans haven't used their depressed barrels recently since dug in warfare is no longer the environment the U.S finds its tanks in. Anyone depressed their barrels recently in Iraq, Afghanistan?
 

alspug

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Ok just a disclaimer that I am in no way an expert on anything military but the recent posts made me think outside the box .

The Size difference and different design theory of western and Russian/soviet tanks has always fascinated me . Looking at the problem from a different point of view I see the following .

Western Design philosophy has made taller tanks with better gun depression as the Norm for Defensive battles . This creates better ergonomics and a feature of better ergonomics is the ability to mount the main cannon at a level that allows for superior depression . The downside is armour protection .

Soviet/Russian design philosophy has emphasised maximizing armour frontally and making the smallest possible target due to the desire to Attack not defend .
With a smaller tank in height and width the same thickness of armour will weigh far less reducing strain on suspension or allowing for thicker armour . The Lack of the ability to depress the gun while hull down is reduced by having a turret and hull front much thicker then otherwise possible .

What I mean by all this is that if you specified the desired thickness of armour and mobility requirements along with gun to be carried a western design would be far larger in both mass and physical dimensions , both would nominally be of equal fighting ability yet one would be a larger target while advancing and be hit (all other things being equal) at longer ranges . In a defensive position the western designed vehicle would be superior on hills and slopes yet still be visible from longer ranges . If you are going to fight a small unit action the Soviet design would not be as efficient in combat for as long with crew fatigue accelerating rapidly . In other words I am saying I see the reason for both design philosophy and think it is not as clear cut as most think . Up until the Chobham armour came out and vehicles like the M1/Leo 2 and Challenger the main advantage of Western Tanks was crew comfort not armour or depression . Western Crews could do a road march and fight a battle then be ready for a second . Soviet armies fought set piece battles and would need longer to organise and their crews needed longer to recover , that's my take from years of being a military geek with no practical experience .
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
834
Reaction score
20
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Abraham Gubler said:
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.
You kind of do; if you have:

"Armor Protection Equal to x"
"Firepower Equal to Y"
"Mass no greater than 48 to 49 metric tonnes"

as KPPs, and X and Y continually increases; while Mass remains static. ???

Russian Tank designers have long had impossible goals to meet; and they've met them for a long time, at significant disadvantages, even in more conventional tanks such as T-54/55/62 which were limited in gun elevation compared to western designs; something the Israelis exploited during the Arab Israel Wars.

Everyone else who started out on the same path as the Russians (relatively light tanks), have moved on to big heavily armored tanks:

China -- the latest ZTZ-99s are 55+ tonnes and growing; and there appears to be work on a heavy bustle autoloader for later ZTZ-99s (not yet implemented in the production tanks); the Chinese are very big on spiral development.

France, went from AMX-30 to LeClerc

Germany, went from the lightweight Leopard 1 to the latest heavyweight Leopard 2s

USA, there was great debate over the weight of the Abrams -- a lot of people wanted a tank from 48 to 52 tonnes, when in the end we threw the dice and upped it to 58 or so tons to get the maximum optimal protection from Chobham (or what we viewed as optimal protection).

Meanwhile, the Russians remain stubbornly stuck at 45-48 tonnes as the KPP for MBT mass; and have had to resort to increasingly creative ways to keep them viable on the modern battlefield against much heavier tanks, such as continuous ERA development/deployment, increasingly powerful active protection systems (APS), etc.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
In the "West" the South Korean K2 Black Panther and Japanese T-90 are both in the vicinity of 50 metric tons.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,182
Reaction score
58
sferrin said:
In the "West" the South Korean K2 Black Panther and Japanese T-90 are both in the vicinity of 50 metric tons.
Because, in part, both use physically much smaller (though equally powerful) powerpacks than their older western counterparts. When an MTU883 is put in a Leopard 2 it leaves an empty space a meter long within the vehicle. In new designs that means less chassis and thus less tank to be protected.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,672
Reaction score
41
Website
beyondthesprues.com
There has been a lot of discussion here re the T-14 tank. What about the associated T-15 heavy IFV:


 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Defense Update Part III - Boomerang AFV

http://defense-update.com/20150510_boomerang-2.html#.VU-w4Wd0ysc
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
16
ubiquitous08 said:
The Russian "inability" to dig in and depress barrell does not represent "deficiency".You think depressing a barrell is an AMAZING FEAT OF ENGINEERING only the West can master? It reflects operational need and any military engineer knows that form follows function follows operational requirements. Western tanks primarily designed to fight in the Fulda Gap were dug in as defensive units; hence the AMAZING WESTERN ability of depressed barrels. The Soviets expected their units to make rapid advances; no wonder no emphasis on dug in fighting they don't expect to use; it just adds cost they felt wasn't essential. Evaluation of weapons by Western doctrine invariably penalizes weapons designed for different operational realities. Even the Americans haven't used their depressed barrels recently since dug in warfare is no longer the environment the U.S finds its tanks in. Anyone depressed their barrels recently in Iraq, Afghanistan?
Ultranationalism is no substitute for ignorance. The arguments you have made above are all flawed because they are not based on a practical understanding of tank warfare but are rather an attempt at backwards analysis of the issue.

Gun depression is not about digging in or defensive fighting or the Fulda Gap. It is about maximising the ability to use defilade. Which is very important in attack and defence because it is the use of terrain to avoid being shot. Also maximising gun depression (and elevation) is very important to firing on the move with a stabilised fire control system.

The main reason Soviet tank designers sacrificed gun barrel depression is to reduce height in their tanks. They did so on the flawed belief that this would improve survivability. Though I think this is more so thanks to the Soviet Union’s well known issues with achieving goals on paper rather than practical achievements.

The lower a vehicle is the harder it is to spot on the battlefield. But this applies because a low vehicle is in full defilade (behind contours in the land) more often than a high one. But in order to use its gun the low vehicle with small gun depression has to expose far more of itself out of defilade than a higher vehicle with large gun depression. Therefore making them more vulnerable to enemy fires.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
69
It's important to appreciate that Soviet tank design philosophy was informed by the need to survive in a battlefield dominated
by tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs). The Soviet approach was to:

a. be echeloned in depth to mitigate the damage from a pre-emptive TNW strike on assembly areas

and then

b. commingle the enemy's lines as soon as possible so as to preclude the battlefield use of TNWs.


Achieving (b) given (a) dictates an armored force with cross-country mobility, speed, agility and endurance (as in cruising range) as the paramount design considerations. IOW, getting there firstest with the mostest.

The more conventional settings where Soviet/Russian armor has been challenged have simply exposed the tradeoffs inherent in this design philosophy.

Given the general (if sometimes one-sided) drawdown of TNWs, it's logical that the Russians would change their design philosophy.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
16
marauder2048 said:
Achieving (b) given (a) dictates an armored force with cross-country mobility, speed, agility and endurance (as in cruising range) as the paramount design considerations. IOW, getting there firstest with the mostest.
There is no element in Soviet tank design which enables them to have a noticeable difference in operational manoeuvre compared to western tanks. If all things are equal two tank formations, one made up of Soviet tanks and the other contemporary western tanks, will take the same amount of time to cover the same distance. Things which the Soviets added that might make a difference were external fuel drums (not the fuel tanks on the sponson feature but the two drums at the rear) to reduce fuel stops and the deep wading equipment to take pressure of bridges (but the German tanks had this equipment).

The key factors in improving operational manoeuvre speed are vehicle width (allowing use of narrower roads), GVW under 20 tonnes (allowing for use of light bridges), road range over 1,000 km (reducing the need for fuel stops) and wheels (alleviating breakdowns cased by the tracks). Soviet tanks had none of these features. The key elements to the Soviet’s achieving high speeds in operational manoeuvre were in their organisation and logistics support and the excellent state of the West German road system. Though NATO combat engineers were determined to have a say in the later before the Soviet’s reached them.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
14
So, a T-72 has a lower profile out of defilade and NATO tanks are able to use defilade much more effectively... isn't this really old hat? Do we have to rehash it indefinitely?

bobbymike said:
Defense Update Part III - Boomerang AFV

http://defense-update.com/20150510_boomerang-2.html#.VU-w4Wd0ysc
Any estimates on its height/weight compared to the BTR-82? It looks like it's got a much larger profile (makes me think that the chassis is geared towards other roles - and/or profile is no longer considered important).
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
16
Avimimus said:
So, a T-72 has a lower profile out of defilade and NATO tanks are able to use defilade much more effectively... isn't this really old hat? Do we have to rehash it indefinitely?

Apparently we do because there is always one or three people who take issue with gun depression being listed as an advantage. It is noteworthy to mention that when Morozov unveiled the T-74 tank design he mentioned its high gun depression as a significant advantage.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Ultranationalism is no substitute for ignorance. The arguments you have made above are all flawed because they are not based on a practical understanding of tank warfare but are rather an attempt at backwards analysis of the issue Gun depression is not about digging in or defensive fighting or the Fulda Gap. It is about maximising the ability to use defilade. Which is very important in attack and defence because it is the use of terrain to avoid being shot. Also maximising gun depression (and elevation) is very important to firing on the move with a stabilised fire control system. The main reason Soviet tank designers sacrificed gun barrel depression is to reduce height in their tanks. They did so on the flawed belief that this would improve survivability. Though I think this is more so thanks to the Soviet Union’s well known issues with achieving goals on paper rather than practical achievements. The lower a vehicle is the harder it is to spot on the battlefield. But this applies because a low vehicle is in full defilade (behind contours in the land) more often than a high one. But in order to use its gun the low vehicle with small gun depression has to expose far more of itself out of defilade than a higher vehicle with large gun depression. Therefore making them more vulnerable to enemy fires.
DEFILIDADE? Are you still living in 1973 still abraham gubler? Being in a timewarp is no substitute for CURRENT OPERATIONAL REALITY. In an age of PGM from the air, Gorgon stare sensors and Rivet Joint vehicles can you PLEASE EXPLAIN how hiding in a static position is an advantage? It just makes you easier to target :) . The Armata engineers recognise this hence the upward firing passive kill canisters, you do not. You still think hiding in terrain is an operational advantage. It wasnt for Iraqi tanks at the Battle of 73 Easting. Perhaps it is you Abraham who is ignorant of current operational tank tactics. I suggest you do some reading.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Abraham Gubler are you still living in 1973? I ask but that is the last time reverse slope defences and Defilade were operationaly decisive. Targeting now is not 2 dimensional as assume. The days of primarily spotting a tank from ground level may well be over. If it wasn't we would have to discount air threats which is naive. Perhaps you also discount top attack munitions which see a tank just FINE from above. Ditto top attacks in urban environments like Grozy. Perched on apartment defilade will not help you. Perhaps it is you who is ignorant of current operational tank usage. Defilade now is a nice way to be targeted from the air. Gulf War should have proven that but if not consider the specifc example Battle of 73 Easting; a battle which amazingly did not involve air; you can google it etc where you will discover defilade allowed the Americans to roll over Iraqi static defences. Mobility is key now. the Armata engineers realise this, hence the comprehensive upwards firing passive kill obscurants; you do not. If we are talking peer level engagements, defilade will not help you. You erroneously assume defilade is advantageous for hiding against ones enemies. Absolutely in 1973! we have this thing called networked battlefields now so im not sure hiding from one sensor (an opponent tank) is relevant anymore. Duelling at dawn with Tanks is probably over especially if we consider cheap expendable drones proliferating over the battlefield adding intel across the battlefield network. About the only thing you get right is that greater barrel depression should help firing accuracy but only over rough terrain but feel free to keep embarrasing yourself.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
ubiquitous08 said:
Abraham Gubler are you still living in 1973? I ask but that is the last time reverse slope defences and Defilade were operationaly decisive. Targeting now is not 2 dimensional as assume. The days of primarily spotting a tank from ground level may well be over.
Really? How do you propose to spot the other guy's armor when he controls the air?
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
but does he? Im assuming 1) tactical expendable drones will be commonplace often launched by soldiers 2) maybe air supremacy isn't a given in the future.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
So basically you want to rely on a bunch of maybe/might/possibly hand waving? Okay. . .
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
For the sake of argument lets narrow this down shall we. Peer level threats or asymetrical warfare. Even Hezbollah has drones now so these proliferating on a battlefield is not unrealistic. You can almost guarantee Israel, Russia, China will use them as well. Do you disagree? Helicopters at the feba may also add isr information. Insurgents will cellphones may also from hilltops or apartment blocks call in positions (fallujah).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
ubiquitous08 said:
For the sake of argument lets narrow this down shall we.
Sure

ubiquitous08 said:
Peer level threats or asymetrical warfare. Even Hezbollah has drones now so these proliferating on a battlefield is not unrealistic. You can almost guarantee Israel, Russia, China will use them as well. Do you disagree?
Can you guarantee they'll be able to use them unhindered?


ubiquitous08 said:
Helicopters at the feba may also add isr information.
How many helicopters were Iraq able to have scouting for their army in Desert Storm or OIF?

ubiquitous08 said:
Insurgents will cellphones may also from hilltops or apartment blocks call in positions (fallujah).
Of course that's not the scenario we're talking about now is it? And that's assuming their cellphones aren't being jammed.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
This is going off topic badly... If we are talking counter-insurgency (most likely) then I'm not sure cheap expendable drones can be easily destroyed. They may be cheaper than the ordance to kill them. If we are talking peer level combat (russia vs west over say Ukraine, baltic states) can we assume helicopters wont be used or that soldier deployed drones won't be used? We can agree insurgents have used hills and apartment blocks...p
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
821
Reaction score
18
Avimimus said:
Any estimates on its height/weight compared to the BTR-82? It looks like it's got a much larger profile (makes me think that the chassis is geared towards other roles - and/or profile is no longer considered important).

Much better mine-protection desired, requiring a deeper hull?
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
16
ubiquitous08 said:

Abraham Gubler are you still living in 1973?[/size]




No I'm not. Though I sure could appreciate the 1973 price of petrol.


And even if I was living in 1973 I would assume that is 1973 on Earth. In which case I would be living on the right planet which is more than I can say for you.


Defilade is still a crucial element of tank warfare today. If it isn't thanks to off-board targeting and weapons then tanks can do away with not just gun barrel depression but also their entire gun. And you might want to reassess your argument since the criticism of the lack of gun barrel depression is not directed at the T-14 tank but at the T-54 to T-90 series of tanks. The T-14 would appear to correct this fault.
 

Void

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
129
Reaction score
2
Abraham Gubler said:
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.
True, but only the Abrams completely segregates ammo and crew. And only the the Merkava's store every round in an armored canister.

Moving the crew out of the center of the vehicle also moves them away from the place most likely to be hit by top-attack munitions. Which is something most contemporary designs are woefully unprotected from. Which is not surprising considering their designs pre-date top attack weapons.

Abraham Gubler said:
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.
No contest, but weight does provide a fairly good benchmark. And the T-14 has a clear weight advantage when there is no turret to protect.

Having a lot of space certainly doesn't hurt either.

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.
It is claimed the gun has 17% more muzzle energy than the L55. All things being equal, this will mean more penetration. All things may not be equal, but it is still better to start with more energy.

Void said:
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.
Yes it will gain weight. But the Leopard 2 and M1 have been gaining weight since the 1970s. While the T-14 today is in the same place as the Leopard 2A1 or the M1 in developmental terms, but in capability terms is likely competitive with the Leopard 2A7 or M1A2vWhatever.

Void said:
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.
But they can't really laugh it off. All modern tanks are relatively vulnerable to firepower kills from damages to the optics, which are not better protected on an M1 than on a T-14. For example, on one occasion a CF Leopard 2 in Afghanistan had the commanders and gunners sights destroyed by a single non-penetrating RPG fired at the front. It only remained in the fight because the back-up sight managed to escape damage.

It is a fact of life that some of the tanks most important systems, its sensors and sometimes even it's ammunition if a bustle magazine is being used, are not effectively protected by armor.
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.
Yes but they are competing with China now and can no longer take it for granted that just because the west will not arm a state, it will turn to Russia. Having a clear technological edge is even more useful when stacked against China's superior economic clout.

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.
The US army considers it a triumph to produce a new hull for a 50 year old howitzer. No one doubts they have the technology somewhere to build all sorts of incredible world-beating things, but only after many years have passed and many billions have been spent will any of those things emerge from the acquisition swamp.

France and Germany also both have the ability but they both have limited budgets and cannot get along. France seems more interested in arming Russia than deterring it anyways, so the development of a new "European" tank rests almost entirely on the generosity of German taxpayers and whatever minor European countries they can rope into the project. Which doesn't mean it won't happen, since Germany also has a commercial incentive to develop a new tank. But it probably won't be happening anytime soon.

Britain of course drunk the outsourcing kool-aid long ago and has checked out of AFV development entirely.

And Italy might have made a sophisticated tank once but they are unlikely to be funding much of anything at the government level even if Italian industry get involved in a European project.

Land warfare is not just about land forces. The F-35 trumps the T-14 any day of the week.
Disband the army!

Seriously thought the F-35 is nice but airpower is not a magic bullet.

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.
Interesting, because when the Canadian Forces brought it's then-new Grizzlies to NATO war games in the late 80's they concluded 8x8 APCs made the infantry more vulnerable to artillery. DPICMS easily destroyed them and they made the infantry more visible and far more likely to be hit by artillery in the first place. Large wheeled APCs might have excellent operational mobility but in combat they combine huge profiles with flimsy armor, not a desirable mix when tanks shells and ATGMs are flying.

The Stryker, the Boxer, the VBCI and similar vehicles were not built for a Baltic contingency. They were built because it was felt too much emphasis was placed on "conventional" scenarios. I know you know this.

It’s far from a coup. Just a slight attempt at catch up in a race they are well behind on.
And yet, in a few years heavy force modernization will be back on the agenda in the US and Europe. And many of the capabilities that were killed over the past decade or so will be revived at significant expense. Developing new capabilities which goaded the opponent into spending lots of money to counter them was always counted as a victory by the US during the cold war, that doesn't change just because the shoes is on the other foot.

European NATO members made a bet that conventional warfare in Europe was no longer a contingency worth planning for. The US made a bet that the only serious conventional threat in the near future would be from China in the pacific. Both these bets were wrong. Which doesn't mean NATO is doomed or Russia is unstoppable, your hyperbole aside, but it does mean they have been wrong footed.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Abram Gubler "Defilade is still a crucial element of tank warfare today. If it isn't thanks to off-board targeting and weapons then tanks can do away with not just gun barrel depression but also their entire gun. And you might want to reassess your argument since the criticism of the lack of gun barrel depression is not directed at the T-14 tank but at the T-54 to T-90 series of tanks. The T-14 would appear to correct this fault."


[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/size]I agree that barrell depression is a criticism more of T72 T90 series than Armata which corrects this. I agree its better for on the move firing which alone probably justifies its inclusion in the Armata. However defilade is increasingly less relevant. You seem to think it is essential; historically yes, but operationally now less so. Off board targeting does not remove the need for a gun. You still need armor in close proximity to a a target for rapid fire and weapons on a chassis are still needed to hold ground provide suppresive fire / escort and armor for infantry; your argument makes no sense. If we remove the gun what provides firepower? MLRS? thats going to be expensive and suppressive fire if called in may not arrive when needed. Additionally we have issues of datalinks and ceps. Solvable but expensive. a tank shell is still going to be cheaper. Off board targeting simply means defilade is not the defence it used to be and will become increasingly less relevant as one needs to escape from targeting from above not just on the ground, something you simply fail to grasp. [size=78%][/font]
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
16
ubiquitous08 said:
will become increasingly less relevant as one needs to escape from targeting from above not just on the ground, something you simply fail to grasp.
I understand your argument I just think its complete pants. Line of sight still remains an important element for land warfare despite the increasing use of elevated target acquisition and top attack weapons. Use of defilade restricts enemy line of sight for targeting and engagement. This is not going away no matter how much the T-72 fanboys wish it will. The only way it will cease to be of major influence on the battlefield is if ALL direct fire weapons and ground level target acquisition are replaced. Since the likelihood of this happening anytime between now and the invention of anti-gravity and teleportation is next to zero I doubt that warfighting will become this enfilade free for all you think it is.
 

ubiquitous08

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
I guess it comes down to differing threat assessments and lets be honest military theory is often as much about fashion as actual reality e.g Fischer and battlecruisers, USAF and aams in the 1960s, the infamous WHITE paper etc). I believe air attack and ISR from the air / battlefield network centric warfare is the dominant threat to tanks. So agree to disagree.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
7
Website
www.hisutton.com
Re service entry, are the suggestions they it'll substantially replace older tank designs realistic? Russia has a history of only acquiring token amounts of new flagship weapons systems and while they might want more, their economy has 'tanked'.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
ubiquitous08 said:
... lets be honest military theory is often as much about fashion as actual reality ...
amen brother... and Congressional districts...
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
16
Orionblamblam said:
Russia Shows Off New "Masterpiece" Tank, Swears It Stalled on Purpose

Russia finally got to show off its fancy new T-14 tanks in a Victory Day Parade rehearsal earlier today. And it went great until one of the supposed super tanks came to a direct halt right in front of Lenin’s grave—which was totally intentional and definitely not a sign of anything breaking down. Russia promises.

It could have been worse. One of their BUK launchers (the same system that they used to shoot down the Malaysian Airliner) actually caught on fire during a Victory Day parade in a Siberian city. Another win for Russian Dash Cam footage!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tMvBFgnmY8
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
I attempted to do some "educated guess" On Armata's weight using nominal ground pressure as basis. Based on some photos i managed to get some rough estimates on Armata's track parameters as follows :

Track Pitch :160 mm
Track Width : 550 mm
Roadwheel diameter :700 mm
Number of roadwheel axles :7
Length of track contact surface with ground :5.25 m

If the Armata have similar "mobility" as T-72A tank with NGP of 78 kN/Sqm it would weigh around 46000 Kg If mobility is similar as T-90S with NGP of 92kN It would weigh 54000 Kg.

For MMP (Mean Maximum Pressure) based on estimate above it would be in range of : 248.9-292.2 kN/sqm

Are those estimates looks reasonable ?
 

hs1216

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
110
Reaction score
1
Your numbers provide a good range. 46000 kg is a too light, while 54000 kg is too heavy in my opinion. But that is just looking at pictures and comparing it to other vehicles.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,672
Reaction score
41
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Russian Next-Generation Armata Tank to Receive Bigger Cannon
(Source: Sputnik news; published May 14, 2015)

MOSCOW --- Russia's next-generation Armata tank, recently showcased at the Victory Day parade in Moscow, could be fitted with a bigger, 152mm cannon, the Izvestia daily reported Thursday citing Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

The Armata tank's main armament includes a 7.62mm remote-control machine gun and a 125mm smoothbore cannon. The tank is operated by a crew of three, housed in an armored capsule at the front.

A column of Armata tanks, equipped with 125mm cannons, rolled through Moscow's historic Red Square on May 9 as Russian President Vladimir Putin and a number of foreign heads of state, including Chinese leader Xi Jinping, watched on.

"We have a shell that can burn through a meter-wide steel [plate] for this tank, we will fit it onto the Armata," Rogozin was quoted as saying by Izvestia.

The Armata is a Russian prototype of a heavy tracked vehicle platform, used as a basis to build a next-generation main battle tank and a range of other combat vehicles.

-ends-
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
GTX said:
Russian Next-Generation Armata Tank to Receive Bigger Cannon
(Source: Sputnik news; published May 14, 2015)

MOSCOW --- Russia's next-generation Armata tank, recently showcased at the Victory Day parade in Moscow, could be fitted with a bigger, 152mm cannon, the Izvestia daily reported Thursday citing Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

The Armata tank's main armament includes a 7.62mm remote-control machine gun and a 125mm smoothbore cannon. The tank is operated by a crew of three, housed in an armored capsule at the front.

A column of Armata tanks, equipped with 125mm cannons, rolled through Moscow's historic Red Square on May 9 as Russian President Vladimir Putin and a number of foreign heads of state, including Chinese leader Xi Jinping, watched on.

"We have a shell that can burn through a meter-wide steel [plate] for this tank, we will fit it onto the Armata," Rogozin was quoted as saying by Izvestia.

The Armata is a Russian prototype of a heavy tracked vehicle platform, used as a basis to build a next-generation main battle tank and a range of other combat vehicles.

-ends-
I am pretty sure this is the same guy who said PAK-DA will be hypersonic, T-50 easily kills the F-22 and the Sarmat ICBM will be more powerful than the Voevoda and impervious to all missile defenses.
 
Top