T-14 Armata

[Papewaio]

So how are tanks going to survive air superiority. Particularly with air superiority supplied by drones.

I can understand the need for armoured transport and tanks in a mixed arms approach.

I just do not think tanks alone or mass tank formations as we know it will be the same.

Maybe autoloader drone tanks with drone spotters with a dual HQ/mechanic human element as support.

[Husar]

So how are tanks going to survive air superiority. Particularly with air superiority supplied by drones.

Partially because there is always AA and the friendly air force around, partially with the measures in one of the videos I linked earlier.
Not only does Russia in particular have a relatively strong ground-based air defense, the tank also has an upwards smoke grenade launcher that spreads smoke which will apparently interrupt the guidance of guided munitions. TV guidance can't see through, lasers are blocked, infrared doesn't get through and even millimeter band radar waves are blocked (the Longbow Hellfires from Apaches use them for example). The forward-facing smoke grenades usually have the same capabilities on all modern tanks, it just seems like the T-14 can also deploy such smoke right above it against munitions coming from above. Of course this also necessitates that the tank moves in case the bomb or missile drops where it last "saw" the tank, but I can see how this can be quite a bit of a challenge for air power, especially when the airplanes can't get closer to attack with unguided munitions due to the AA umbrella. In fact, aircraft would have to get this close in the first place, stealth is not a 100% and stealthy aircraft couldn't carry all that many munitions internally anyway, making a miss due to countermeasures even more important.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a better than even chance that this tank will outperform everything out there at present, Putin may be a lot of things but I doubt he's daft enough to showcase an already obsolete MBT.

That being said the role of MBT's in modern warfare is definitely limited, why build 2200 tanks and their associated logistics chain when you can buy twice as many drones and operate them from a secure base?

Because:

A: Jamming

B: Not having air superiority

C: The Ground War doesn't wait for the Air War to end.

To see a decent war with modern-ish technology you have to look at either the Falklands or the Iran-Iraq War. Whilst the first Gulf War may superficially look like a "conventional" war it was highly asymmetric because the Allies started out with massive air superiority and were using much better tanks, the Soviet T-80's were garbage (and still are, really). Conversely, in both the Falklands and the Iran-Iraq War the fighting that mattered was actually done on the ground my infantry and tanks, the majority of the Air War was the inconclusive battle for air superiority.

[Husar]

Whilst the first Gulf War may superficially look like a "conventional" war it was highly asymmetric because the Allies started out with massive air superiority and were using much better tanks, the Soviet T-80's were garbage (and still are, really).

When did Iraq ever have T-80s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80#Operators

I thought we already solved that the soviet tanks exported to the middle east were mostly downgraded variants of the worse/outdated soviet tanks. The T-64 and T-80 were mostly in use by the soviet guard/elite armored units, if they were garbage then NATO wouldn't have had to fear the soviets at all.

[Ironside]

There's a better than even chance that this tank will outperform everything out there at present, Putin may be a lot of things but I doubt he's daft enough to showcase an already obsolete MBT.

That being said the role of MBT's in modern warfare is definitely limited, why build 2200 tanks and their associated logistics chain when you can buy twice as many drones and operate them from a secure base?

During spec conditions, certainly. But not by a huge margin (still probably a large margin). How long and often it can be in those conditions is unknown. The Tiger II is the prime example of a tank having trouble being in spec conditions.

And mainly propaganda. It's a prestige project. Wiki says that's 80% of the tank force in Russia and you can't have less tanks than that when you're "defending the Glorious Motherland Russia from evil decadent Western Imperialism" can you?

And about the auto loaders. As long as they're treated ok they're fine. Thing is, tanks aren't treated ok, but are getting shot at and move through very rough terrain (while having moving parts), so you will have a jamming rate due to that. Since you can't fix it on the move in this case, the jamming rate will determine if this is barely an issue or if they'll spend a lot of time in maintenance.

[Kagemusha]

I dont think that this discussion should be about whether if a tank design is a war winner at itself. It is not.

Still no drones and light infantry can defeat a modern combined arms force. If one wants to take a certain location, heavy infantry is needed and for that mechanized infantry is best bang for the buck. If one is using mech infantry you need MBT´s to support it and protect from enemy MBT´s. What is worrisome to me about the Armata project is that the Russian claim is not to create a "supertank" similar to certain German WW2 designs, but a universal platform using a modern MBT chassis for its IFV´s, APC´s, SPA´s and SAAW´s. This would not hazard so much comparable modern Western MBT systems, like Leopard 2 A6/7,M1A2 Abrams and Challenger 2, but our IFV´s and infantry would be in world of hurt in their efforts to eliminate Russian equipment in possible conflict, because of the superior protection of their equipment compared to Western ones.

Also using a single platform would give a huge logistical benefits to Russia compared to myriadity of systems Western armies are using.

[Montmorency]

Why do you think the non-MBT Armata will have similar defensive capacities to the MBT? It takes more than MBT-grade suspension, tracks, and active protection...

[Husar]

Why do you think the non-MBT Armata will have similar defensive capacities to the MBT? It takes more than MBT-grade suspension, tracks, and active protection...

http://www.military-today.com/apc/armata_heavy_ifv.htm

It seems that Armata heavy IFV has similar level of protection as Armata main battle tank.
[...]
The Armata is one of the most protected, if not the most protected IFV in the world. It seems that in terms of protection it is superior to most heavy armored personnel carrier and heavily-armored vehicles such as German Puma IFV.
It has been reported that it has newly-developed armor, made of steel, ceramics and composite materials. Also it has been reported that Armata has a Malakhit add-on explosive reactive armor of new generation. A front-mounted engine provides additional protection. As usual this armored vehicle is fitted with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems. It has been reported that it will be fitted with new Afganit active protection system. It seems that it also has a new countermeasures system that reduces the chance of being hit by enemy ATGW with semi-automatic guidance.
Due to its superior armor protection the Armata heavy IFV can carry infantry into battle and provide direct fire support on modern battlefield. It can be deployed on the battlefield alongside Armata tanks, not behind them. Recent conflicts revealed that in combat IFVs are usually kept in a safe distance from enemy firing line due to their vulnerability to anti-tank weapons.

However, the Armata IFV will not be the new mainstream IFV and more likely be a vehicle for specialist/elite troops (also mentioned in the link).

The Kurganets-25 is more likely to take over the more mainstream tasks: http://www.military-today.com/apc/kurganets_25.htm

The Kurganets-25 IFV has a modular armor with add-on modules. Protection level can be tailored to counter specific threats. It seems that this vehicle can be fitted with newly-developed Drozd-2 active protection system. Also is seems that it comes with newly developed countermeasures system, the reduces the chance of being hit by enemy ATGW with semi-automatic guidance.

Not that military today is 100% reliable but I don't think Kage made that up.

[Montmorency]

Interesting, I had not seen that link. From what I read here and in other sites, the T99 Armata is a universal chassis of specially-designed steel, and that for the purposed variants (MBT, IFV, etc.) the real similarities will be in active protection and advanced armor accessories. In other words, the T15 (IFV variant) would not for the most part have equivalent thickness core hull armor as the T14 (MBT variant), but would have similar optic and APS, and crucially, would be able to layer on the new grade of composite and reactive armors developed specifically for the T14/T99, and the cancelled T95 project.

In other words, sure, it will have very good overall protection compared to all other armor in its class, but if actually hit in any part by some anti-tank projectile would not have as good a chance at resisting penetration as the MBT variant in a homotopic portion.

[Montmorency]

I recalled that Battlefront had recently put out a new Combat Mission title to simulate a potential conflict in Ukraine in the near future.

As it turns out, there is a cool thread on the Armata in the forum there.

[Husar]

I recalled that Battlefront had recently put out a new Combat Mission title to simulate a potential conflict in Ukraine in the near future.

As it turns out, there is a cool thread on the Armata in the forum there.

The guy who made post #5 there is probably eating his hat now.

As for the T-15, it's not an MBT, but neither is the Armata fully armored like an MBT. My feeling, and that does not have to say a whole lot, is that the entire platform is more based around a medium armor concept where every vehicle has a relatively good protection against a lot of AT systems but no special emphasis was given to the protection againstthe heaviest weaponry the system might encounter as that is either for the active protection to deal with or simply not worth the additional effort/weight. The MBT hull may differ in that, but the turret is apparently not really made to withstand hits by heavy ATGMs or tank sabots. What seems to be new for Russia is the emphasis on crew protection as the crew compartment is said to be the most well-armored part of the MBT.

On the other hand, if the gun/ammo is actually more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 with DM-63 or the American L/44 with the M829A3, then it might pose a serious threat to western MBTs simply due to how reliable it may be in killing them first, potentially before they can react due to the automation. Your link mentions radar to find enemies, if that is turned into a proper point and click measure for the crew, the Armata might just get the first shot versus a tank where the commander has to visually identify the enemy. In that case the armor might be less important if both tanks can penetrate the other.

[Kadagar_AV]

The guy who made post #5 there is probably eating his hat now.

As for the T-15, it's not an MBT, but neither is the Armata fully armored like an MBT. My feeling, and that does not have to say a whole lot, is that the entire platform is more based around a medium armor concept where every vehicle has a relatively good protection against a lot of AT systems but no special emphasis was given to the protection againstthe heaviest weaponry the system might encounter as that is either for the active protection to deal with or simply not worth the additional effort/weight. The MBT hull may differ in that, but the turret is apparently not really made to withstand hits by heavy ATGMs or tank sabots. What seems to be new for Russia is the emphasis on crew protection as the crew compartment is said to be the most well-armored part of the MBT.

On the other hand, if the gun/ammo is actually more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 with DM-63 or the American L/44 with the M829A3, then it might pose a serious threat to western MBTs simply due to how reliable it may be in killing them first, potentially before they can react due to the automation. Your link mentions radar to find enemies, if that is turned into a proper point and click measure for the crew, the Aramat might just get the first shot versus a tank where the commander has to visually identify the enemy. In that case the armor might be less important if both tanks can penetrate the other.

Our modern offensive capabilities tank vs tank FAR excell our defensive capabilities...

So we're back in the Hollywood Wild West, who draws first...

[Gilrandir]

Didn't read a single post in this thread, but I found this article on the subject by the leading Russian military expert. It is in Russian and I couldn't find an English-language version, yet I hope others with more skills in working with the Internet may do this.
http://www.novayagazeta.ru/comments/68416.html

[Montmorency]

Seems like a deeply-pessimistic article.

Putting it through translit, my takeaway is that the author linked considers Western armor in general to have both higher resilience and higher lethality than any of the Russian legacy armor (up to and including the T-90). The author considers the per-unit expense of the Armata - possibly exceeding 1 billion rubles - to be exorbitant.

He sees the design of the Armata crew compartments as being a paradigm shift in Russian strategic thinking, such that the crew is now recognized as being more valuable than the machine (while in the past Russian tank crews were considered, uh, highly expendable). On the other hand, he wonders whether the crew compartments are too small to allow comfortable and efficient manipulation of all the high tech equipment within, pointing out the capaciousness of the Israeli Merkava line - he quotes some 2m-tall tank commander who claimed that he slept in his Merkava during the Lebanon war.

The author notes that the future is in unmanned vehicles (including UAVs) and that the West has a much bigger advantage in these technologies, one that Russia cannot simply surmount given a few years to build up.

Some of the last few paragraphs:

Jeffektivno protivostojat' zapadnym tankam v nastupatel'nom boju T-14 «Armata» v nyneshnem vide ne v sostojanii, i zashhishhat'sja budet takzhe neprosto: BIUS i bortovoj radar ispol'zujut kuplennye na Zapade komponenty i mogut byt' vyvedeny iz stroja zapadnym jelektromagnitnym oruzhiem (electromagnetic pulse or EMP). Osleplennyj T-14 voevat' po starinke — bez sensorov i radara, s zavisshim BIUSom — ne smozhet voobshhe nikak. Konechno, i so staroj 125-mm pushkoj mozhno voevat' s otstalym protivnikom, no T-14 «Armata» dlja lokal'nyh konfliktov izlishne navorochen i dorogo stoit. Krome togo, zapadnye tanki postepenno rasprostranjajutsja po planete, i Ukraina mozhet, naprimer, naladit' licenzionnuju sborku. Dlja reshenija jetoj problemy na «Uralvagonzavode» predlagalos' postavit' na tak i ne poshedshij v seriju tank T-95 «Chernyj orel» orudie v 152 mm, i segodnja o toj zhe pushke dlja T-14 «Armata» zagovoril Dmitrij Rogozin. No govorit' proshhe, chem sdelat', v tom chisle iz-za problem proizvodstva kachestvennyh tankovyh gladkostvol'nyh stvolov bol'shego kalibra. U nashih 125-mm est' uzhe problema prostranstvennoj krivizny, iz-za chego vozrastaet razbros i snizhaetsja skorost' BPS na bol'shoj (okolo 2 km) dal'nosti, a takzhe bystrogo (pochti v dva raza po sravneniju s zapadnym 120-mm orudiem) iznosa stvola. U pushki v 152 mm jeti problemy budut mnogo huzhe. Zarjazhanie orudija v 152 mm budet zavedomo razdel'nym, dlina snarjada budet primerno prezhnej, i hotja mogushhestvo snarjada vozrastet, no vrjad li vser'ez prevysit luchshie segodnjashnie zapadnye obrazcy v 120 mm, pri rezkom sokrashhenii obshhego boekomplekta T-14 «Armata», problem snabzhenija v hode boevyh dejstvij iz-za nalichija tankov s raznym osnovnym kalibrom, nizkoj tochnosti i bystrogo iznosa novogo 152-mm orudija.

T14 Armata in its current form not ready to stand up to Western tanks. Command systems and radar are built of Western components and can be disabled by EMP...Ukraine can license local production of Western armor platforms...There are production quality issues with Russian 125mm guns, particularly in the curvature of the barrel, that contribute to rapid wear during operation. Increasing the caliber to 152mm will only exacerbate the issue. The 152mm gun's projectiles will not likely exceed the firepower of the best Western 120mm guns, and mounting 152mm cannons on Russian MBTs would create serious logistical difficulties.

Zapadnye tankostroiteli aktivno obmenivajutsja tehnologijami, razrabotkami i komplektujushhimi i, ochevidno, smogut spravit'sja s problemoj T-14 «Armata» dazhe s orudiem v 152 mm bez razrabotki i proizvodstva novyh, a lish' pri dal'nejshej modernizaciej sushhestvujushhih tankov, i jeto budet vo mnogo raz deshevle, chem dal'nejshaja razrabotka i massovoe proizvodstvo T-14 «Armata». Esli cena nefti na mnogo let ostanetsja nizhe 100 dollarov za barrel', to i T-14 budet, kak segodnja, lish' bol'shoj igrushkoj dlja bol'shogo nachal'stva na paradah.

Western militaries actively share technology, and will soon be easily able to cope with the Armata merely through upgrades to existing designs, rather than creating entirely new designs. The T14 Armata is just an expensive toy for the leadership.

Naprimer, rassmatrivalsja variant s perednim raspolozheniem dvigatelja, kak na «Merkave», dlja luchshej zashhity jekipazha. Nuzhna v ljubom sluchae dlja novogo tanka sushhestvenno drugaja pushka s drugim naborom snarjadov i drugim avtomatom zarjazhanija ili vovse bez nego. Nado chto-to delat' s tradicionno hudoj rossijskoj voennoj jergonomikoj, esli, konechno, Al'fa-bank ne obankrotit «Uralvagonzavod». No v rossijskih Vooruzhennyh silah i v Suhoputnyh vojskah nado vpravdu mnogoe modernizirovat', i ne tol'ko tanki. Nado reshat' nasushhnye problemy, chestno i otkryto opredeljaja prioritety, vmesto togo chtoby privychno naduvat'sja spes'ju, rassuzhdaja ob osobom puti. Esli jekonomicheski, nauchno, tehnologicheski i intellektual'no otstalaja RF v processe narastajushhej korrupcii i deintellektualizacii sozdaet ne imejushhie analogov v mire sistemy, to, skoree vsego, oni takie bol'she nikomu ne nuzhny

If Russia doesn't get serious about actually modernizing its military in the face of increasing corruption and "de-intellectualization", then it's screwed.

[PanzerJaeger]

Dating back to the highly vaunted yet completely terrible T-34, Russian tanks have always been much better on paper than on the battlefield. They always check the right boxes to be competitive with Western AFVs, but never seem to come together in a way that matches the combat effectiveness of the latter. Russian AFVs have always been junk, I would be surprised if this one is any different.

What is more interesting is the strategic thinking behind putting the state's limited resources behind a new AFV platform so soon after the T-90 (which is still fairly new in MBT terms, despite its dated origins) and the Kurganets-25 (which is brand new). I'm guessing this is Russia's version of America's Stryker/F-35 programs... sold to leadership using the same language of affordability, modularity and cross-platform, multi-role performance without actually delivering on any of it. Meanwhile, the same tried and true Cold War designs will continue to soldier on in upgraded versions. I will be surprised if total production surpasses 500 by 2025, much less 2500.

[Hooahguy]

Nice to see you back after a 9-month absence, PJ!

[a completely inoffensive name]

Because it's TANKS... And we are MEN!!!

Hold on to your vagina mate :p

They have a long vertical rod with lots of penetration power, a thick skin, usually make very manly noises and generally represent the archaic picture of manliness and the idea of having power over your fellow man/woman with the help of a long stick or whatever else serves the purpose. Since we're all sexist conservative monkeys/lizards at heart, why would we not drool when we see one? Or in other words, what's wrong with you that you have to ask?

I guess I am the only one here that's perfectly comfortable with my penis size.

[Brenus]

"Dating back to the highly vaunted yet completely terrible T-34," So terrible than the German Engineers wanted to copy it, and did in fact, with the Panther...

[Husar]

I guess I am the only one here that's perfectly comfortable with my penis size.

I was always comfortable with it until I heard people praising Putin's size. Let's face it, it's not an issue that is only decided by your own size, it also depends on the size the other side can take, and if it bounces or glances off then you may be in trouble....wait, what were we talking about again?

As for the T-34, it had pros and cons, but the armor was better than that of similar german tanks, the gun and crew comfort were not so great, at least early on. But that says about as much about the Armata as the Sherman says about the M1A2 or the Panzer III about the Leopard 2. Otherwise I'm going to claim that the French made the first real tank with the Renault FT, inventing the design with a main gun in a turret, and therefore the Leclerc is proof that autoloaders are the future.

Oh and the Germans already knew about the advantages of sloped armor as employed by the T-34, it was apparently not used partially because it makes the interior of the tank more cramped and leaves less space for equipment and the crew. The Panther only had a sloped front as well so a lot was about compromises or whether you favored armor or a faster rate of fire due to a crew that can move and more convenient ammunition storage and so on.

[GenosseGeneral]

According to Der Spiegel, the German Ministry of Defence is pushing for the development of a new generation of MBTs. Source is unfortunately in German.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...a-1035063.html

[Husar]

According to Der Spiegel, the German Ministry of Defence is pushing for the development of a new generation of MBTs. Source is unfortunately in German.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...a-1035063.html

Not so unfortunate for me. What's interesting is that it also mentions a potential fusion betwen KMW (Leopard 2 manufacturer) and Nexter (Leclerc manufacturer) that may still happen this year. The new bigger corporation would then develop a new MBT for France and Germany apparently. It says the end of the Leopard 2's lifecycle is scheduled for 2030 and they would like the new MBT to be ready to replace it then.

[Brenus]

"and therefore the Leclerc is proof that autoloaders are the future."! AMX 13 Canon before them

[Husar]

"and therefore the Leclerc is proof that autoloaders are the future."! AMX 13 Canon before them

An old tank that is not in service anymore can hardly be used to prove that some technology it used is future-proof though.

[Kagemusha]

An old tank that is not in service anymore can hardly be used to prove that some technology it used is future-proof though.

Finland has and had a tank fleet made of T-72M bought from Germany and Leopard 2 A 4/6 bought from Germany and Netherlands respectively. Never that there was a problem with autoloader or lack of really made any difference.

[PanzerJaeger]

"Dating back to the highly vaunted yet completely terrible T-34," So terrible than the German Engineers wanted to copy it, and did in fact, with the Panther...

Myth. MAN's Panther design was an evolution of existing German tank design principles, and was in no way a copy of the T-34. The only similarity was the sloped armor, I suppose, but the idea of sloped armor was well known and was to be incorporated into future AFV designs long before the Germans encountered the T-34. It is true that encountering the T-34 did greatly fast track the Panther's design and acceptance. Interestingly, during the sourcing competition, Daimler put forward a prototype that was much closer to the T-34, but it was rejected.

Of course, everything surrounding the T-34 is myth. It's quite amazing how possibly the worst tank of the war has become known as the best. It was not reliable, it was not fast, the armor was brittle, the gun had low velocity and subpar penetration, was far more prone to catastrophic burnout than its piers, and it's awful design and layout led to such a poor showing in the "soft factors" (visibility, optics, communication, etc) that are just as important as the armor/speed/gun combo that is traditionally used to compare tanks that it was virtually unusable against enemy tanks, or really anything other than infantry without adequate AT systems. Like I said... junk.

[Husar]

Myth. MAN's Panther design was an evolution of existing German tank design principles, and was in no way a copy of the T-34. The only similarity was the sloped armor, I suppose, but the idea of sloped armor was well known and was to be incorporated into future AFV designs long before the Germans encountered the T-34. It is true that encountering the T-34 did greatly fast track the Panther's design and acceptance. Interestingly, during the sourcing competition, Daimler put forward a prototype that was much closer to the T-34, but it was rejected.

Of course, everything surrounding the T-34 is myth. It's quite amazing how possibly the worst tank of the war has become known as the best. It was not reliable, it was not fast, the armor was brittle, the gun had low velocity and subpar penetration, was far more prone to catastrophic burnout than its piers, and it's awful design and layout led to such a poor showing in the "soft factors" (visibility, optics, communication, etc) that are just as important as the armor/speed/gun combo that is traditionally used to compare tanks that it was virtually unusable against enemy tanks, or really anything other than infantry without adequate AT systems. Like I said... junk.

This guy actually agrees with you and his explanations make sense if his numbers are correct:
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/t...e-performance/

However, the Armata seems to represent a big shift in Russian tank design so I'm not sure how we can use the T-34 as an indication of how well the Armata works unless we imply certain unchanging stereotypes about Russians.

[Greyblades]

Huh, I was under the impression that the T34 was like the Sherman; a fairly medeocre tank that was cheap and easily replaced. A quantity response to the German quality.

[Husar]

The german quality is also heavily overrated, possibly because the soviet tanks apparently hardly hit them. But the german steel quality varied wildly and the armor often cracked or began to dislodge, especially when hit by the bigger soviet shells. The problem was apparently that the soviets could hardly place their shells and so the inferiority only became obvious on the Western front where the Sherman outperformed the Panther.

[Greyblades]

When I mentioned german quality I was referring more to the line of Tiger tanks than the panthers.

[Husar]

When I mentioned german quality I was referring more to the line of Tiger tanks than the panthers.

Well, the Tiger I didn't even have sloped armor so it was obviously inferior to a T-34 and the Tiger II broke down all the time or had to be abandoned. The Maus never made it to the front, it was that bad.

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/

This was armour made before the war, before Allied bombings, before any lack of vital metals. This was German industry’s finest hour, and their output was unacceptable by the standards of the Soviet military. Even without any excuses, the mythical Krupp steel does not measure up to Izhor’s product.

edit: Oh and before anyone gets upset by my Sherman comment, it was a horrible tank as well:



WW2 seems like a competition of who could build the worst tanks.