View Full Version : T-14 Armata
So, anyone got any idea of how good it is? Other than that one tank whcih stopped working on rehersal day for the victory parade?
Anyone actually watch the parade? I was really busy that day. I'm curious of what the G cube thinks, since he knows his tanks.
AFAIK the g-cube left us, but hardly anyone can know how good it really is without having tested it.
the idea to automate the turret has pros and cons. The con is that the turret is less protected and therefore easier to take out, rendering the tank useless/turning it into an expensive car for two/three people. The advantage is that if it had been taken out anyway, at least you lose no crew, unless it somehow affects the hull as well, but supposedly the crew is well-protected.
What I'm curious about is whether it has 2 or 3 crew now, I read only 2 at first but then some article said it's 3. :shrug:
Another expert opinion on the cons was that the crew cannot use direct optical devices from the turret but only cameras. The expert said that being able to use direct optics can have several advantages and makes some things easier to spot etc. On the other hand the tank seems to be some sort of semi-drone with the next step being the removal of the entire crew, for which it might even be somewhat prepared.
How good the armor really is seems hard to say, they claim the gun is stronger than any current western one and has a higher muzzle velocity, however the ammunition plays a big role in how deadly the projectile actually is in the end. The added 30mm gun might be useful against lighter targets and I read somewhere that the 12.7mm MG can engage incoming AT missiles, how well that works I have no idea, but active protection is not all that new and seems to work rather well in general, though what I saw until now was more the use of outward explosives to blow up incoming rockets or missiles before they reach the tank, I would assume that hitting the missile with a bullet requires far more precise technology (or 12.7mm air explosives with timer/proximity sensor if those are available at that caliber) and becomes wonky when the tank is also moving etc.
Then agains I'm not even sure whether normal articles can be trusted to give the correct information because let's face it, not all journalists are tank or even military fans. The part about the vulnerable turret/gun and the optics was from a german article where they asked a military expert though.
Greyblades
05-11-2015, 13:31
In regard to the automated turret I find myself asking: if it's a good idea, and viable at our level of technology, why aren't the Americans already doing it?
Fisherking
05-11-2015, 15:54
Don't give too much weight to the breakdown. Tanks can break sitting still. The protection system sounds good but it is far to soon to tell. I think there is a three man crew and the gunner sits in the compartment with the TC. The automated turret would allow for more ammo storage but any problems with the automation or electronics would be hard to fix without leaving the area. Reliability will be crucial. Armata is the name of the whole family of vehicles. From PCs to Tanks, artillery, and antiaircraft artillery. It may be a couple of years before we know if it is any good or just another POS the Russians are trying to sell.
The US has one vehicle with an automated turret. The Stryker Mobile Gun System. It is not popular with the crews. The Russians have favoured auto loaders for years but most countries have not found them to be of great advantage.
Well, the French also love autoloaders and the Leclerc also has one (AFAIK usually faster than a human loader as well). but it still has crew (commander, gunner) in the turret.
I also like the autoloader of the Roland:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biAoI9VC2mY
The US military may actually go full drone one day, these systems seem to be already in development and as we all know the aircraft are already there to an extent.
Kadagar_AV
05-11-2015, 21:51
It's hard to speculate when we know nothing about it...
We don't even know if it's manned by 2 or 3 men... We don't know the tech system inside... We don't know anything about the reactive armor and reactive protection... We don't know.. Well, the list goes on.
My GUESS is that it's a very competent tank, Russia isn't exactly stupid, and if they choose this version to mass produce they probably have good reasons.
Does it beat the western tanks? I have no idea... But I wouldn't be surprised if it did, as it's a new model whereas we in the west have just upgraded old models for quite some time now...
Summary: I wouldn't want to meet that tank in a dark alley...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-12-2015, 00:42
Well, the French also love autoloaders and the Leclerc also has one (AFAIK usually faster than a human loader as well). but it still has crew (commander, gunner) in the turret.
I also like the autoloader of the Roland:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biAoI9VC2mY
The US military may actually go full drone one day, these systems seem to be already in development and as we all know the aircraft are already there to an extent.
Well, afaik a skilled human loader is usually faster, at least British tank crews were seen to out perform auto-loaders historically, but I'm like 10 years out of date so things may be better now. In the West tankers do the maintenance on their own machines, and the four man crew makes that faster and gives you more men to operate the tank if someone gets knocked out - so if a tank crew lose their loader or gunner then he can be replaced and the tank keep fighting (albeit less efficiently). The big problem with an autoloader is that it's something else that will break, and in a combat situation everything will break at some point.
As to the effectiveness of the new Russian tank, it may look good on the outside but I'm dubious as to how hi-tech it is, and if it is hi-tech I'm dubious about Russia being able to producing consistent quality. Hell, two of their air-display team crashed into a mountain, you think those Radars didn't fail?
Well, afaik a skilled human loader is usually faster, at least British tank crews were seen to out perform auto-loaders historically, but I'm like 10 years out of date so things may be better now. In the West tankers do the maintenance on their own machines, and the four man crew makes that faster and gives you more men to operate the tank if someone gets knocked out - so if a tank crew lose their loader or gunner then he can be replaced and the tank keep fighting (albeit less efficiently). The big problem with an autoloader is that it's something else that will break, and in a combat situation everything will break at some point.
Well, I don't know how likely it is that just one crew member gets knocked out in a modern tank, but the Russians have been relying on autoloaders for many of their existing tank designs already. The Leclerc can fire 12 rounds per minute apparently, I am not aware that human loaders are this fast. The older soviet autoloaders seem to be slower, but the russians improved them as well AFAIK. One advantage of requiring less crew is that you can field more tanks in the first place I guess.
As to the effectiveness of the new Russian tank, it may look good on the outside but I'm dubious as to how hi-tech it is, and if it is hi-tech I'm dubious about Russia being able to producing consistent quality. Hell, two of their air-display team crashed into a mountain, you think those Radars didn't fail?
That sounds a lot like prejudices, but I see no reason to assume that Russia is incapable of having hi-tech, they got really good programmers after all.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-12-2015, 01:07
That sounds a lot like prejudices, but I see no reason to assume that Russia is incapable of having hi-tech, they got really good programmers after all.
Russia has not historically been good at producing exacting machinery, and they have a very high level of corruption, including in the military and military procurement which naturally leads to corners being cut.
Kadagar_AV
05-12-2015, 02:23
PVC Let us remind ourselves that Soviet used a pencil while the US invented the space pen?
As you say yourself, you are ten years out of date here...
Don't get me wrong here... Heck, Russia is "The Enemy" for us Swedes... With that said, I have the utmost respect for their ability.
If they have automatic systems it is because it works... We in the west are the ones who put our money on gadgets, not Russia.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-12-2015, 02:45
PVC Let us remind ourselves that Soviet used a pencil while the US invented the space pen?
As you say yourself, you are ten years out of date here...
Don't get me wrong here... Heck, Russia is "The Enemy" for us Swedes... With that said, I have the utmost respect for their ability.
If they have automatic systems it is because it works... We in the west are the ones who put our money on gadgets, not Russia.
Actually, the soviets used a normal ball point, the US tried using a pencil but they discovered the graphite particles got into everything, including the electrics and instruments. Thing is, a ball point doesn't actually need gravity, it's just that when you hold it AGAINST gravity it won't work.
Another Myth, see.
As regards Russian tanks, it's difficult to say - a high-tech tank that works most of the time (i.e. outside combat) is a good deterrent, but that doesn't mean the Russians can make hundreds of them that will work reliable for, say, 100 hours of combat use.
a completely inoffensive name
05-12-2015, 03:17
Actually, the soviets used a normal ball point, the US tried using a pencil but they discovered the graphite particles got into everything, including the electrics and instruments. Thing is, a ball point doesn't actually need gravity, it's just that when you hold it AGAINST gravity it won't work.
Another Myth, see.
Actually the truth is that Fisher made the space pen without NASA/government funding, completely on private capital and because it was good, NASA and the Russians bought it and began using it. Both used pencils for a time, with the Russian's attempting to use grease/wax pencils as a replacement until the space pen came out.
I don't believe regular ballpoint pens work in zero gravity since the ink first needs to have specific material properties to withstand extreme temperatures as well being in a vacuum environment (this makes the ink much more expensive). Most ballpoint pens do require gravity in order for the ball to actually work. Once the ball has transferred the ink on its surface onto the writing surface, there needs to be a force that brings additional ink to contact the surface of the ball. Capillary action is too slow for the purposes of writing (I think). This is why space pens are actually highly pressurized ink cartridges that force the ink to make contact with the ball.
I actually have a space pen, and I use it every day. I really like it and I enjoy the idea that I have something that could write on the ISS.
Greyblades
05-12-2015, 04:08
I have a question for our millitary officianado's, the history books and articles I have read say that curved/rounded walls and armour was more effective protection against projectile weapons, so what has changed that it seems the more modern a tank the more flat and angular it's surfaces are?
I have a question for our millitary officianado's, the history books and articles I have read say that curved/rounded walls and armour was more effective protection against projectile weapons, so what has changed that it seems the more modern a tank the more flat and angular it's surfaces are?
Composite armor, different penetrator technologies I guess. Some say the modern penetrators can hardly be deflected anymore, so the attempt is usually to make them shatter and disintegrate. This is apparently also the reason that there are no shot traps on modern tanks because the penetrators usually aren't deflected anywhere due to their properties. There are still angled surfaces and I'd assume they still increase the amount of material in the way of the projectile and therefore help, but the relatively flat lower plates on many modern weestern tanks also made me wonder. Howevery, it could also be that these surfaces are less likely to get hit anyway, given that in many situations they would be covered by terrain and in an ideal situation the tank would be hull down, which is why the turret is often better protected than the hull I assume.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-12-2015, 10:30
I have a question for our millitary officianado's, the history books and articles I have read say that curved/rounded walls and armour was more effective protection against projectile weapons, so what has changed that it seems the more modern a tank the more flat and angular it's surfaces are?
Greater slant increases the thickness of the amour vs the projectile, this is more important against penetrators than the structural integrity of the hull vs the blast.
Greater slant increases the thickness of the amour vs the projectile, this is more important against penetrators than the structural integrity of the hull vs the blast.
What blast?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-12-2015, 23:24
Read as "a blast", advances in tank armour since the end of WWII gradually made tanks invulnerable to HE shells not coming from a Battleship, so we moved to SABOT which is a penetrator and it became more important to make the front of the tank and the turret armour as thick as possible to stop said SABOT rather than to create a nice round shell which was more conventionally strong. Also, we've got better at welding things together, so nice round turrets are no longer as important.
Montmorency
05-13-2015, 04:18
Besides that, isn't it that much contemporary AT ammo is based on some sort of HEAT tech, meaning that the composition of the armor and/or its reactive capacities count for more than slope, and often more than even thickness per se. Perhaps its even that sloping the armor would reduce the reactive density, or sommat. Put another way, the boxy sort of shape a lot of contemporary tanks have comes from being lined with layers of replaceable and interchangeable blocks of composite/reactive armor; I can see that a lot of sloping would reduce both fungibility and resilience.
That thing looks absolutily awesome
Read as "a blast", advances in tank armour since the end of WWII gradually made tanks invulnerable to HE shells not coming from a Battleship, so we moved to SABOT which is a penetrator and it became more important to make the front of the tank and the turret armour as thick as possible to stop said SABOT rather than to create a nice round shell which was more conventionally strong. Also, we've got better at welding things together, so nice round turrets are no longer as important.
Amazing. I was surprised you brought up blasts because the question was specifically about KE penetrators.
Or so I assumed since he said projectile weapons. If by projectile all missiles etc. are included it gets a little more complicated.
Though even in WW2 most shots were probably AP rounds and artillery can still hurt tanks quite a bit, at least by hitting the optics or with modern AT rounds that penetrate the roof with HEAT much like cluster bomb cluster munitions.
Besides that, isn't it that much contemporary AT ammo is based on some sort of HEAT tech, meaning that the composition of the armor and/or its reactive capacities count for more than slope, and often more than even thickness per se. Perhaps its even that sloping the armor would reduce the reactive density, or sommat. Put another way, the boxy sort of shape a lot of contemporary tanks have comes from being lined with layers of replaceable and interchangeable blocks of composite/reactive armor; I can see that a lot of sloping would reduce both fungibility and resilience.
Well, not for tank vs tanks, where it's mostly about giving the KE (kinetic energy) penetrator as much of that kinetic energy to make it punch right through the armor. For missiles, rocket launchers and the abovementioned cluster bombs and artillery shells you often get HEAT or CE (chemical energy), yes. Whether the armor is always easily replaceable I'm not so sure, if you mean the addon blocks they put on the outside, that's usually in the areas which are historically only protected by relatively thin armor and vulnerable to insurgents coming from all sides. so they put cages in the back as spaced armor of sorts and reactive armor blocks on the sides for additional protection. Sloping the sides would not only make the tanks much wider or smaller on the inside but also be a potential weakspot in tight streets with enemies on the roofs, who could now not only hit the roof very well, but also go for those sloped sides which would look rather flat from slightly above.
The boxy german tanks of WW2 were also boxy because it gave them more space inside and it was easier to stuff all the equipment into a box than to put it into a wedge.
Fisherking
05-13-2015, 08:13
The Russians claim they are using an active protection system against incoming projectiles which makes the tank unable to be hit.
Israel has fielded or is fielding a system like what the Russians claim to have. I can’t tell you much about it but you can assume everyone will be mounting them in a few years as an add-on. But the Russians claim that theirs can also stop inert rounds like Sabot.
The Russian reliance on autoloaders has mostly been because of larger ammo. It took around 3 seconds to load aim and fire a 105mm gun but twice as long for the 120mm, due in part to the weight of the rounds. The draw back is in round selection. You have more difficulty with the number of types of rounds you can fire. The currently proposed M-1A3 has an autoloader, similar to the French model. However, each crewman you eliminate makes keeping the tank functional and providing local security exponentially more difficult. How much sensors can alleviate the problem is still up in the air.
There is a lot about the T-14 that could pose difficulties for Western Nations if it works as advertised. If nothing else, it should shake the US out of its complacency and ambivalence toward Armor and perhaps convince the European Nations to increase that combat arm.
Also, on HEAT ammunition, the Russians have moved toward EFP and MEFP rounds. (Explosively Formed Penetrators) They seem to have a better effect in dealing with advanced armour and reactive armour. HEAT has become pretty much useless in dealing with the ceramic and copper sandwiched in more advanced armours.
Pannonian
05-13-2015, 08:32
Read as "a blast", advances in tank armour since the end of WWII gradually made tanks invulnerable to HE shells not coming from a Battleship, so we moved to SABOT which is a penetrator and it became more important to make the front of the tank and the turret armour as thick as possible to stop said SABOT rather than to create a nice round shell which was more conventionally strong. Also, we've got better at welding things together, so nice round turrets are no longer as important.
I wonder if there would be anything remaining of an Abrams if it caught a direct hit from one of Yamato's main guns.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-13-2015, 13:22
I wonder if there would be anything remaining of an Abrams if it caught a direct hit from one of Yamato's main guns.
Yeah, probably the turret glassis and nothing else.
The Swedes actually did some interesting tests with their S-Tanks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw
Keep in mind that this is a 70s tank or so and probably doesn't have quite the same armor as more modern (upgraded) MBTs.
Greyblades
05-13-2015, 17:15
Looks less like a tank and more like a mobile artillery piece.
I wonder if there would be anything remaining of an Abrams if it caught a direct hit from one of Yamato's main guns.For that matter, would there be anything remaining of anything less than a modern bunker?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-13-2015, 17:39
The Russians claim they are using an active protection system against incoming projectiles which makes the tank unable to be hit.
Israel has fielded or is fielding a system like what the Russians claim to have. I can’t tell you much about it but you can assume everyone will be mounting them in a few years as an add-on. But the Russians claim that theirs can also stop inert rounds like Sabot.
I don't buy it, stopping SABOT is the same as stopping a bullet.
The Russian reliance on autoloaders has mostly been because of larger ammo. It took around 3 seconds to load aim and fire a 105mm gun but twice as long for the 120mm, due in part to the weight of the rounds. The draw back is in round selection. You have more difficulty with the number of types of rounds you can fire. The currently proposed M-1A3 has an autoloader, similar to the French model. However, each crewman you eliminate makes keeping the tank functional and providing local security exponentially more difficult. How much sensors can alleviate the problem is still up in the air.
One notes that the 120mm gun on British tanks uses two-part ammunition, which significantly reduces the weight problem. The British rifled gun also fires HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) about twice as far as anyone's smoothbore can fire HEAT or similar rounds, which has implications against the lightly armours American Stryker tank-killers, because they would be vulnerable to HESH. Of course, this comes at the expense of SABOT performance to a degree and the need to completely replace the barrel and send a faulty one back to blighty in the middle of the cricket match.
There is a lot about the T-14 that could pose difficulties for Western Nations if it works as advertised. If nothing else, it should shake the US out of its complacency and ambivalence toward Armor and perhaps convince the European Nations to increase that combat arm.
Also, on HEAT ammunition, the Russians have moved toward EFP and MEFP rounds. (Explosively Formed Penetrators) They seem to have a better effect in dealing with advanced armour and reactive armour. HEAT has become pretty much useless in dealing with the ceramic and copper sandwiched in more advanced armours.
Irrc the Israelis have the most modern tank, followed by the British, every other design is from the Cold War - although the Russians have produced the T-90 I'm not sure how much it's new parts (Challenger II is roughly 2% the same parts as Challenger I).
Ahhhh.... If only I hadn't broken my ankle.
Looks less like a tank and more like a mobile artillery piece.
For that matter, would there be anything remaining of anything less than a modern bunker?
Are we talking WW2 Yamato or the space battleship with lazerz?
Kadagar_AV
05-13-2015, 21:04
The Swedes actually did some interesting tests with their S-Tanks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw
Keep in mind that this is a 70s tank or so and probably doesn't have quite the same armor as more modern (upgraded) MBTs.
The S-model... LOL!!!
What can I say, its one and only function in the Swedish military was target practise and testing, to be honest... It was like the WORST TANK EVER (compared to other tanks at the time).
Regardless, I had a talk with a friend of mine who is colonel for a mechanized brigade... He said we know very little about the T-14... But that from all he could say it seems like a VERY competent tank, and he wouldn't want to face it with what we have now (Stridsvagn 122), basically a German Leopard 2A5 with upgraded command, control, and fire control systems, as well as reinforced armour and long-term combat capacity.
I think that is comparable with the best US or British tanks, so yeah...
I still claim westerners wouldnt want to meet the T-14 on the battlefield.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-14-2015, 02:32
I still claim westerners wouldnt want to meet the T-14 on the battlefield.
Not on day one of the battle, no. On day three? When the tanks have started to develop all those little niggles, the auto-loaders and the automatic turrets are getting finicky? Less worried at that point.
The thing is, how many of these tanks is Russia going to have? I imagine the bulk of their armour will continue to be T-80 and T-90 with the latter gradually replacing the former. So the question then becomes if the British, American and German tankers can concentrate their forces and outfight these semi-automated machines. That's a difficult question to answer, I read recently that the Dutch had been planning to scrap their armour until the Ukraine Crisis which resulted in them maintaining a tank company, now the question is up in the air. Certainly, the UK and US have cut their armour down to an unacceptable low level, the Stryker is a great example of how idiots in peace-time try to fudge numbers, so it looks like they have double the armour they do, but the Strykers have to be stationary to fire and might as well have wet tissue paper for armour if they get into a standup fight with an MBT.
I'm pretty sure the Dutch had already disbanded their last tank regiment a while ago.
There, 2012: http://hollandinsider.blog.com/2012/09/16/last-dutch-tank-regiment-disbanded/
I think the US still have a whole lot of Abrams, somewhere around 8000 or so.
The 4000 german Leopard 2s are spread all over Europe and a few other countries now, not sure how many new ones were built.
Of course not all of those Abrams and Leopard 2s are the latest version, but neither does Russia deploy only the latest tanks.
And then I'm not sure how relevant that really is, as there are plenty of other things that can kill an MBT, like the space battleship yamato.
Kagemusha
05-14-2015, 08:04
There is not much to go with T-14 so far. Apparently it is about 10 tons lighter then Leo 2A6, while having a similarly powerful engine and bit higher top speed compared to Leo. It would seem that T-14 is similar in size to T 90, but it costs double the prize. It would be only logical to think that extra money has been put into some improvements compared to T 90.
Edit: How on earth this post appeared in this thread?...Uhm, maybe a kind Moderator could move it to the T-14 thread.
The tank being more or less invulnerable to attacks seems a bit like an exaggeration, one just needs to look at some youtube videos and assume there is no super secret tech yet to see that this claim is unlikely.
First of all two videos showing the tank and that it apparently uses the somewhat older Drozd active defense system, which also seems a bit directional and only covers the frontal arc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSATqclDypA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfl_1gga6M4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MZWyt5_tug
The first video also mentions a defense against cluster munitions although that seems to hinge mostly on jamming sensors with smoke so that cluster munitions cannot actively aim for the tank or so.
The Arena system is really impressive but a)doesn't seem to have made it into the first version of the Armata (could probably be added later) and b) isn't demonstrated against a sabot, I haven't seen an active protection yet that actually works against a sabot and I would assume that the reaction time is a big problem there since a sabot moves quite a bit faster than a missile and would probably require quite a strong sensor to discover it early enough since it is also really small.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80iyx235C3U
Kadagar_AV
05-14-2015, 14:02
Not on day one of the battle, no. On day three? When the tanks have started to develop all those little niggles, the auto-loaders and the automatic turrets are getting finicky? Less worried at that point.
The thing is, how many of these tanks is Russia going to have? I imagine the bulk of their armour will continue to be T-80 and T-90 with the latter gradually replacing the former. So the question then becomes if the British, American and German tankers can concentrate their forces and outfight these semi-automated machines. That's a difficult question to answer, I read recently that the Dutch had been planning to scrap their armour until the Ukraine Crisis which resulted in them maintaining a tank company, now the question is up in the air. Certainly, the UK and US have cut their armour down to an unacceptable low level, the Stryker is a great example of how idiots in peace-time try to fudge numbers, so it looks like they have double the armour they do, but the Strykers have to be stationary to fire and might as well have wet tissue paper for armour if they get into a standup fight with an MBT.
You might be right, you might be wrong... We really don't know...
However, if you look at Russias (and former Soviets) philosophy of war, they actually tend to build quite sturdy stuff...
Their AK47 was far superior to the western ones for quite some time...
Their MIG fighters could basically take off from a scrapyard, while western planes need people to sweep every single centimeter of the take-off area...
Don't read me wrong, I am NOT saying that the T-14 is unbeatable or anything... Or that it will work wonders in battle conditions... Sure, history isn't always right when it comes to the present or future...
But ya know... It IS actually probably a damn good tank. And most likely superior to ours as it's a new generation tank, whereas we have just updated our old stuff...
Russia has planned to have 2300 of these bastards by 2020....
I would not want to face that rolling towards me any day of the week...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-14-2015, 14:21
You might be right, you might be wrong... We really don't know...
However, if you look at Russias (and former Soviets) philosophy of war, they actually tend to build quite sturdy stuff...
Their AK47 was far superior to the western ones for quite some time...
Their MIG fighters could basically take off from a scrapyard, while western planes need people to sweep every single centimeter of the take-off area...
Don't read me wrong, I am NOT saying that the T-14 is unbeatable or anything... Or that it will work wonders in battle conditions... Sure, history isn't always right when it comes to the present or future...
But ya know... It IS actually probably a damn good tank. And most likely superior to ours as it's a new generation tank, whereas we have just updated our old stuff...
Russia has planned to have 2300 of these bastards by 2020....
I would not want to face that rolling towards me any day of the week...
Oh, I'm sure it's a good tank but the historical pattern suggests that it's A: not as good as the Russians say and B: Not as advanced. Bear in mind that unlike the West Russia does tend to lie a lot about it's military capabilities and operations, just look as the Donbas.
As regards the AK47 etc. you need to remember that while the AK is "rugged" it's not a very good rifle in terms of range or accuracy against the FN or M-14, likely the early MiGs were tough but that was because of all the tech they lacked, rather than any superior build quality, in fact it probably had more to do with the poor quality of their airstrips, needing a fighter that could no rough take off, as much as anything else.
Today, Russians produce impressive pieces of hardware, but they also have a lot of accidents, their display team crashing into a mountain, a submarine haveing a torpedo explode on board...
There are plenty of crashes of western display teams even in recent history.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/20/red-arrows-crash-pilot-killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Arrows#Incidents_and_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels#Accidents
The historical pattern is probably filtered through the historical anti-russian bias and propaganda many westerners still hold on to (in some cases for good reason, in others not so much).
Edit to clarify: The bias is usually visible in how the accidents are narrated and commented on. When a western pilot crashes it was an honest mistake, there's a poor pilot, sad family and friends, basically a horrific accident that was almost impossible to prevent. When a russian pilot crashes the blame is often on systemic corruption, lack of experience, bad equipment etc. You hardly hear that the family of a crashed pilot visited the site and cried or anything like that because that would make them look more human and distract from the systemic faults of Russia that you want to highlight instead. Meanwhile not even half of Germany's Eurofighters can fly due to a lack of spare parts, old helicopters fall apart, new ones are not up to the task, the assault rifle does not work if you fire it too often, the A-400 has more than 200 faults left after all the delays it has already had, the British use a rifled gun because they can't afford a better one for their tanks, the British Navy hardly exists anymore, I read horrible things about the older british autocannons (the rarden), the Starfighter was called the Widowmaker when it was used for ground attacks, the new littoral combat ship of the US falls apart in salt water, the F-22 had been grounded several times for technical issues, the F-15s had some structural issues that made them disintegrate in mid-air, the F/A-35 is being delayed a lot and can apparently do everything but nothing really well. US nuclear personnel sleep at work and have a horrible safety record. But when a russian tank breaks down once during a parade, then that is EVIDEDENCE FOR A HORRIBLE CULTURE OF BADNESS AND UNDERPERFORMING THAT CAN NEVER GET ANYTHING RIGHT!!!!1111
Sarmatian
05-14-2015, 16:28
EVIDEDENCE FOR A HORRIBLE CULTURE OF BADNESS AND UNDERPERFORMING THAT CAN NEVER GET ANYTHING RIGHT!!!!1111
Yeah, that reminds me of an Austrian guy who had thoughts on the similar lines.
Russian military stuff is actually quite good. A lot of bad press comes from bias, as you said, but even more comes from performance of stuff based on Russian stuff.
Serbia had 11 MiG 29's in 1999. They were no match for NATO fighters, they barely launched a rocket. But, that doesn't take into effect the real reasons.
1) Overwhelming inferiority in numbers
2) The fact that only few could actually fly
3) Crews got only a fraction of flight hours they should have had
4) They were old versions, with old and obsolete equipment in them
5) They were basically held together with some rope and bubble gum
Similar reasons can be given for how and why Russian military stuff tend to under perform (in Iraq and so on). Those were basically the only field tests of NATO made equipment versus Soviet/Russian made equipment, and that is often enough for lazy journalists.
Military production remained almost corruption free, even in the days of the Soviet Union, because the political and military elite remembered their near death experience during WW2, and because Russian firms and state make a whole lot of money selling that equipment around the world.
P.S. I have no idea how good this particular (or any other bar those used in ww2) tank is.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-14-2015, 22:40
Yeah, that reminds me of an Austrian guy who had thoughts on the similar lines.
Russian military stuff is actually quite good. A lot of bad press comes from bias, as you said, but even more comes from performance of stuff based on Russian stuff.
Serbia had 11 MiG 29's in 1999. They were no match for NATO fighters, they barely launched a rocket. But, that doesn't take into effect the real reasons.
1) Overwhelming inferiority in numbers
2) The fact that only few could actually fly
3) Crews got only a fraction of flight hours they should have had
4) They were old versions, with old and obsolete equipment in them
5) They were basically held together with some rope and bubble gum
Similar reasons can be given for how and why Russian military stuff tend to under perform (in Iraq and so on). Those were basically the only field tests of NATO made equipment versus Soviet/Russian made equipment, and that is often enough for lazy journalists.
Military production remained almost corruption free, even in the days of the Soviet Union, because the political and military elite remembered their near death experience during WW2, and because Russian firms and state make a whole lot of money selling that equipment around the world.
P.S. I have no idea how good this particular (or any other bar those used in ww2) tank is.
True enough. But the Soviet export versions -- Russian slang translates as "monkey versions" -- were often decidedly 'second tier' when compared with the first line choices fielded by Soviet "A" level formations (aside from small arms). Take that as your start point and then see maintenance expenses trimmed as an economy and the rest is easily explained.
Greyblades
05-14-2015, 23:08
Considering the principles behind these tanks are not completely outlandish it would be in the west's interest to not comfort itself by repeating old Soviet stereotypes. Assume these tanks operate as described until proven otherwise and we will not be caught off guard.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-14-2015, 23:21
True enough. But the Soviet export versions -- Russian slang translates as "monkey versions" -- were often decidedly 'second tier' when compared with the first line choices fielded by Soviet "A" level formations (aside from small arms). Take that as your start point and then see maintenance expenses trimmed as an economy and the rest is easily explained.
Does this not rather bear out my point - viz Russia being unable to maintain a consistent quality level? What you're saying is that they came up with the "clever" solution of selling the duds.
Does this not rather bear out my point - viz Russia being unable to maintain a consistent quality level? What you're saying is that they came up with the "clever" solution of selling the duds.
No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_variants_of_Soviet_military_equipment
Export variants of Soviet military equipment were versions of Soviet military equipment (armored vehicles, airplanes, missiles) of significantly inferior capability to the original designs and intended only for export.
Papewaio
05-15-2015, 02:16
No surprise there. USA doesn't release their best tech particularly fighter planes. Sure might be the same airframe but key components will not be as advanced.
Ironside
05-15-2015, 09:42
You might be right, you might be wrong... We really don't know...
However, if you look at Russias (and former Soviets) philosophy of war, they actually tend to build quite sturdy stuff...
Their AK47 was far superior to the western ones for quite some time...
Their MIG fighters could basically take off from a scrapyard, while western planes need people to sweep every single centimeter of the take-off area...
The AT-14 isn't advancing in robustness, but in high-tech, which are often non-robust. And not something Russians are that well known for.
Basically, it got the F/A-35 warning. Including the part about it being a flagship project.
I'm not even sure whether I would call this high-tech, having an autoloader is not new, they've been building and improving them for decades. To remote-control a turret, well, that is also not really high-tech, remote control devices were around in WW2, digital cameras are not exactly cutting edge technology any more, electrical turret drives also existed in WW2 already, so what exactly is the high-tech in simply having an unmanned turret? The difference to a western tank seems to be more about not having the low-tech in the form of the human eyeball in the turret anymore, which can be a disadvantage but says nothing about the required technologies.
And just because a nation is not known for something that does not mean that it is bad at it. When Germany reunited, the russian infrared missiles were found to be superior to the ones from the US when the german air force tested them, so much so that the new IRIS-T missile is based on them. It is unlikely that this is in any way reflected in western simulator game but that's most likely due to the aforementioned bias. The MiG-29 has had helmet mounted sights that allow the pilot to fire a missile at a plane he looks at and not just one in front of his airplane for quite a while now, the US only introduced them with the F-22 as far as I'm aware (although the Apache has had it for a while as well).
And one should not forget that a major part of modern high-tech is software and Russia has pretty good programmers even apart from shady business. The innovation is not just in the computer chip itself but in what you do with it.
If you ask random people on the street here about Swedish military technology, you could also conclude that Sweden isn't known for it and therefore the Gripen must be a complete failure. But then again what kind of argument is that?
Kadagar_AV
05-15-2015, 13:48
I think USAnians should be a bit worried...
Not because of any direct threat this tank represent, but because Russia is once again building up their military export industry...
In these days where military casualties are highly frowned upon by the US populace, a small nation who suddenly get, say, 50 of these T14 has dramatically changed the balance..
Suddenly you will need boots on the ground, and have to count on casualties... That alone can be enough to make your leaders go "Let's do something else" as they act world police...
I do not by ANY means say or mean that you don't have the tools to deal with the job, I am just saying that this reminds me of Swedens cold war defense...
We KNEW Soviet could easily beat us, but our plan was more about making it not worthwhile to beat us, considering the cost and casualties.
Some modern AA, artillery (You can't spell party without "arty") and a few of these tanks, and suddenly one of your carrier groups alone wouldn't be enough to intervene.
Basically, the US now have to face the fact that they and us in the west is no longer the only supplier of modern arms, and can direct where it goes to... Now any dictator or autocrat can get their hands on A-level war material, and suddenly USA or the west at large have to invest way more than the taxpayer and worried mothers would deem it worth, to keep their international interests.
Seen from that angle, this is actually a rather big step up by Russia on the world political scene...
Hooahguy
05-15-2015, 14:29
Dan Carlin (has great podcasts on historical and modern issues) had a few interesting things to say on this topic. How Putin is basically the Russian version of Reagan, and how the West got so used to treating Russia like a third rate power that it lost the ability to deal with a nation in resurgence like Russia with any sort of deftness at all. We got so used to dealing with smaller powers like Iraq and even Iran for that matter, where we in the West can push them around with no real ramifications but now we are dealing with an almost equally powerful Russia and our leaders have no idea how to deal with them other than the same way we dealt with minor powers.
Montmorency
05-15-2015, 15:22
The real challenge to the West is not in terms of exports or technology or combat capability, but that it tests the limits of the new American strategy of regional multipolarity.
While it is quite clear that Russia does not have the resources to field, let alone manufacture, thousands of units of this platform, its unveiling pushes Western European governments closer to re-armament.
So:
A. America wants Europe to maintain its own security.
B. America does not want a volatile and highly-remilitarized Europe, either east or west.
Let me clarify point B. America wants to take the load off its shoulders, but it still wants to retain a significant amount of military influence and strategic control, especially in Europe. In other words, the implicit Russian threat is of a European arms race that limits American power throughout the continent. If the UK, France, and Germany were to step up and become significant military powers once again (though arguably the UK still has a relatively-powerful military), then European states from Iberia to the Caucasus would be less likely to rely on American military promises and posturing and instead turn inward. America, as we all know, has perceived a Europe able to act strongly outside of American will as a serious geopolitical risk for over a century.
The only alternatives, then, are calling Russia's bluff - risky, since Russia certainly isn't 100% bluffing - or the US taking the lead in European defence yet again, something that the United States has constantly wanted to avoid and is trying to orient itself away from. What I want to hear about are Western European reactions. Sure, Eastern Europe would love to have America take care of their defense, but then it all depends on how France, Germany, and the UK interpret their own roles. Maybe the old great powers will want to carve out their own spheres of influence once more...
Montmorency
05-15-2015, 15:45
For example, take the Middle East. An American success (purely in terms of geopolitics) there would be to have Iran, Israel, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia all cooperative with the US, but at some level still competing with each other. In other words, America would have a strong say in internal and international affairs for each of those states, reaping economic dividends for itself while maintaining some sort of peace (including joint anti-Islamist efforts) through a balance of power. America would have no friends, but it would have all the major players as dependents and thus a lot of regional clout.
A remilitarized, competitive Europe would have a rather different dynamic, one less amenable to American influence. In the worst cases, it would result in a unified European power capable of challenging American hegemony, or a European war requiring another costly direct intervention. And then, with Asia in the game, it would be even murkier than before.
Consider that China and Russia are natural antagonists. On the other hand, China would much rather see Russia gain at the expense of the West than to see Western Europe, Japan, and the US dominate the world more than ever before.
Ironside
05-15-2015, 15:55
I'm not even sure whether I would call this high-tech, having an autoloader is not new, they've been building and improving them for decades. To remote-control a turret, well, that is also not really high-tech, remote control devices were around in WW2, digital cameras are not exactly cutting edge technology any more, electrical turret drives also existed in WW2 already, so what exactly is the high-tech in simply having an unmanned turret? The difference to a western tank seems to be more about not having the low-tech in the form of the human eyeball in the turret anymore, which can be a disadvantage but says nothing about the required technologies.
High-tech is probably wrong word. Higher risk of technology failure, that is very common in combat on average.
If the auto loader jams, back to base or have the unjamming done behind the lines, since someone has to go in the open. If the cameras get smeared or broken, fall back blind until you get the time to fix it.
Let me put it this way. If it's old tech and works with no problem, why haven't it been implemented in the tanks yet? The jamming issue is for example the reason why the autoloader aren't universal.
I think USAnians should be a bit worried...
Not because of any direct threat this tank represent, but because Russia is once again building up their military export industry...
In these days where military casualties are highly frowned upon by the US populace, a small nation who suddenly get, say, 50 of these T14 has dramatically changed the balance..
Seen from that angle, this is actually a rather big step up by Russia on the world political scene...
They can do the same by exporting T-90, unless I'm completely mistaken. Any tank that are a challenge for the Abrahams, instead of the opposition they faced in Iraq. Also, if T14 works well, it's still not that much of an upgrade. It gets the advantage, but it's not terrifying hard to destroy while blowing up the enemy with ease (like the Abrahams in Iraq did).
The actual problem is that everyone but Europe wants to dominate the world.
Ok, the British may actually think that they can dominate the world by themselves, but they also don't think they're in Europe so my statement is still correct.
We'd all be better off if we dropped the aggressive competition component where arms and dead people start to appear. The problem with that idea is that you'd have to force some people to accept it or they would just take advantage of you.
No, I don't have a solution yet beyond the famous let's just nuke ourselves and leave the world to the amoebae and scorpions.
I do not want to start an arms race with Putin but I also do not want Putin to be my lord and savior. What would be nice would be a united European defense and more political integration. But for that we have to wait until the British get over themselves and leave already.
Hooahguy
05-15-2015, 16:35
High-tech is probably wrong word. Higher risk of technology failure, that is very common in combat on average.
If the auto loader jams, back to base or have the unjamming done behind the lines, since someone has to go in the open. If the cameras get smeared or broken, fall back blind until you get the time to fix it.
Let me put it this way. If it's old tech and works with no problem, why haven't it been implemented in the tanks yet? The jamming issue is for example the reason why the autoloader aren't universal.
Something else Ive heard about autoloaders is that besides the risk of technology failure, is that human loaders in combat are faster and more flexible. Ive heard that autoloaders cannot take a round out of the tube once its been loaded. Im not sure if thats the case with the T-14 but thats an issue I heard of. So if you have an anti-personnel shell in the tube, for example, and you need to replace it with an anti-armor shell, you cant with an autoloader system. At least thats what a captain who served in a tank in the second Iraq War told me during a brief moment I talk to him about autoloaders. Again, not sure if thats universally true.
Ja'chyra
05-15-2015, 16:43
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?
Well, the French apparently disagree and the US and Germany would have to completely redesign their current tanks based on 70s technology in order to incorporate autoloaders. The Biritish (some of their nerds anyway) also keep claiming that the rifled gun is superior or on par with the smoothbores the rest of the world uses but their government/army just doesn't want to switch because it would cost too much as they'd have to completely redesign the turret of the Challenger 2 due to the larger ammunition.
And you can't quite expect a government to just go ahead and say that it uses inferior technology for monetary reasons, I guess that would not be good for morale. The US is one of the kings of artificially high morale. It took quite a long time for the german army/government to admit that the G-36 is a faulty rifle, there was even a story about a civil servant who proved that the material was not up to the task quite a few years ago, but his superiors tried to move him to another position and then failed in court with the attempt to have him declared insane. That's the extent to which some organizations go in praising/defending their own faulty stuff and I'm obviously not saying that my country were any better.
a completely inoffensive name
05-15-2015, 17:28
What is it with you guys and tanks?
Kadagar_AV
05-15-2015, 17:29
Something else Ive heard about autoloaders is that besides the risk of technology failure, is that human loaders in combat are faster and more flexible. Ive heard that autoloaders cannot take a round out of the tube once its been loaded. Im not sure if thats the case with the T-14 but thats an issue I heard of. So if you have an anti-personnel shell in the tube, for example, and you need to replace it with an anti-armor shell, you cant with an autoloader system. At least thats what a captain who served in a tank in the second Iraq War told me during a brief moment I talk to him about autoloaders. Again, not sure if thats universally true.
I have heard the same... That humanoids are faster and can also switch already loaded ammo...
However, that is from back in the days when I was in the army... Now 15 years later I wouldnt be surprised if autoloaders are faster.
In Sweden we have this "Archer" artillery system, and it's fully automatic... As there really isn't any reason for this system to autoload if it wasn't the best option, I guess autoloading has taken some steps forwards. We test our stuff SERIOUSLY, and my best guess is that Russia does the same. So suffice to say, if they auto-load they probably have good reasons for it.
BTW, how often would you want to switch the ammo locked and loaded anyway?
Archer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6RqA94Xak8
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?
Well, Russia, and formerly Soviet, are hardcore into "system warfare"... As is the USA...
It means that the tank is a perfect cog in the wheel that is the armed forces... Russia isn't stupid, and probably have already thought out a defense against drones etc... But no, the tank is not part of THAT function of the military...
Tanks are for taking ground. No more, no less. For anything else we have cheaper and better options. So to say "Why build tanks when we have drones" is faulty logic... Why not have tanks AND drones? And artillery, and marines, and submarines, and nukes, and infantry, and special forces yadda yadda yadda...
You get my point.
Kadagar_AV
05-15-2015, 17:33
What is it with you guys and tanks?
Because it's TANKS... And we are MEN!!!
Hold on to your vagina mate :p
What is it with you guys and tanks?
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? ~;)
Kadagar_AV
05-15-2015, 18:01
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? ~;)
That is sig worthy material right there...
Hooahguy
05-15-2015, 18:45
I have heard the same... That humanoids are faster and can also switch already loaded ammo...
However, that is from back in the days when I was in the army... Now 15 years later I wouldnt be surprised if autoloaders are faster.
In Sweden we have this "Archer" artillery system, and it's fully automatic... As there really isn't any reason for this system to autoload if it wasn't the best option, I guess autoloading has taken some steps forwards. We test our stuff SERIOUSLY, and my best guess is that Russia does the same. So suffice to say, if they auto-load they probably have good reasons for it.
BTW, how often would you want to switch the ammo locked and loaded anyway?
Well, this isnt exactly the first Russian tank with an autoloader, even when they were not as advanced as they are today.
As for the artillery, their rounds, if Im not mistaken, are much larger and heavier so it would make sense that an autoloader is better and faster.
Well, Russia, and formerly Soviet, are hardcore into "system warfare"... As is the USA...
It means that the tank is a perfect cog in the wheel that is the armed forces... Russia isn't stupid, and probably have already thought out a defense against drones etc... But no, the tank is not part of THAT function of the military...
Tanks are for taking ground. No more, no less. For anything else we have cheaper and better options. So to say "Why build tanks when we have drones" is faulty logic... Why not have tanks AND drones? And artillery, and marines, and submarines, and nukes, and infantry, and special forces yadda yadda yadda...
You get my point.
Drones are still an important part though, and will be even more important as smaller drones come available. I remember seeing something about how the US is developing swarming drones so you might be able to take out some of them with anti-air and countermeasures but some will get through. Its a challenge for armor going forward for sure, but I think warfare in the future will be more about drones and infantry clashes, I dont think we will ever see another Kursk.
Kadagar_AV
05-15-2015, 19:40
Well, this isnt exactly the first Russian tank with an autoloader, even when they were not as advanced as they are today.
As for the artillery, their rounds, if Im not mistaken, are much larger and heavier so it would make sense that an autoloader is better and faster.
Drones are still an important part though, and will be even more important as smaller drones come available. I remember seeing something about how the US is developing swarming drones so you might be able to take out some of them with anti-air and countermeasures but some will get through. Its a challenge for armor going forward for sure, but I think warfare in the future will be more about drones and infantry clashes, I dont think we will ever see another Kursk.
Quick note, I am just off for dinner (with a beautiful lady I might add).
These are the words of a military tech friend of mine, and I have no idea if he is right or wrong.
But his thoughts were:
"Drones are great until you realize you can't be sure to be able to operate them on enemy turf when the enemy can control the aether".
Let me remind you that Drones have only been up against sheepherders and other beards... How well will they fare against first world nations?
I honestly have NO idea. Have you?
Fisherking
05-15-2015, 19:43
Well, the French apparently disagree and the US and Germany would have to completely redesign their current tanks based on 70s technology in order to incorporate autoloaders. The Biritish (some of their nerds anyway) also keep claiming that the rifled gun is superior or on par with the smoothbores the rest of the world uses but their government/army just doesn't want to switch because it would cost too much as they'd have to completely redesign the turret of the Challenger 2 due to the larger ammunition.
And you can't quite expect a government to just go ahead and say that it uses inferior technology for monetary reasons, I guess that would not be good for morale. The US is one of the kings of artificially high morale. It took quite a long time for the german army/government to admit that the G-36 is a faulty rifle, there was even a story about a civil servant who proved that the material was not up to the task quite a few years ago, but his superiors tried to move him to another position and then failed in court with the attempt to have him declared insane. That's the extent to which some organizations go in praising/defending their own faulty stuff and I'm obviously not saying that my country were any better.https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=782369341882879&id=217403635046122&ref=bookmark
Papewaio
05-16-2015, 01:01
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.
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
05-16-2015, 02:49
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.
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
05-16-2015, 08:34
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
05-16-2015, 09:39
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
05-16-2015, 13:44
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...
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
05-16-2015, 16:07
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
05-16-2015, 16:21
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 (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/) on the Armata in the forum there.
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 (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/) 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
05-16-2015, 17:24
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
05-17-2015, 13:33
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
05-17-2015, 22:23
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
05-19-2015, 02:16
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
05-19-2015, 15:54
Nice to see you back after a 9-month absence, PJ!
a completely inoffensive name
05-21-2015, 05:38
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.
"Dating back to the highly vaunted yet completely terrible T-34," :laugh4: So terrible than the German Engineers wanted to copy it, and did in fact, with the Panther...
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
05-22-2015, 11:36
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/deutschland/leopard-nachfolger-von-der-leyen-will-neuen-kampfpanzer-entwickeln-a-1035063.html
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/deutschland/leopard-nachfolger-von-der-leyen-will-neuen-kampfpanzer-entwickeln-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.
"and therefore the Leclerc is proof that autoloaders are the future."! AMX 13 Canon before them
"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
05-23-2015, 01:47
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
05-23-2015, 04:52
"Dating back to the highly vaunted yet completely terrible T-34," :laugh4: 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.
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/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-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
05-23-2015, 12:03
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.
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
05-23-2015, 12:36
When I mentioned german quality I was referring more to the line of Tiger tanks than the panthers.
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4
WW2 seems like a competition of who could build the worst tanks.
Greyblades
05-23-2015, 12:59
Huh, that's... Huh.
Next you'll be telling me the german navy was sub quality(pun unintended) too.
Huh, that's... Huh.
Next you'll be telling me the german navy was sub quality(pun unintended) too.
Well, a lot of the ships waited in some Norwegian fjord until they got sunk, the Bismarck was obviously a horrible ship since it was easily sunk by the British. There is not much else that remains and Britain always ruled the seas at the time. The submarines did some sysiphos work as they couldn't sink as many ships as the Americans and British churned out.
Greyblades
05-23-2015, 13:36
Well, a lot of the ships waited in some Norwegian fjord until they got sunk, the Bismarck was obviously a horrible ship since it was easily sunk by the British. There is not much else that remains and Britain always ruled the seas at the time. The submarines did some sysiphos work as they couldn't sink as many ships as the Americans and British churned out.
Dude, the Bismark was scuttled by it's own crew after a series of lucky strikes ruptured it's fuel tanks and a torpedo jammed it's rudder, rendering it incapable of retreat. Before that it had faced off against two ships of comparable size and armament, sinking one and driving away the other.
I wont disrespect it by denying it was a damn good ship just because it couldn't singlehandedly win a battle against an entire fleet.
Dude, the Bismark was scuttled by it's own crew after a series of lucky strikes ruptured it's fuel tanks and a torpedo jammed it's rudder, rendering it incapable of retreat. Before that it had faced off against two ships of comparable size and armament, sinking one and driving away the other.
I wont disrespect it by denying it was a damn good ship just because it couldn't singlehandedly win a battle against an entire fleet.
Where's your British pride? You could at least celebrate the superior tactic of using whole fleets instead of sending single ships into their demise or letting them wait in a fjord until 'murica bombs them.
Greyblades
05-23-2015, 14:07
We claim pride because we fought and beat the best, not that everyone else was usless.
Henry V, Drake, Cromwell(IMO, his status as great is highly debatable), Wolfe, Nelson, Cochrane, Pellew, Wellsey, Churchill (both of them, though the second is debatable) Montgomery(also debatable), we dont remember the random men who gunned down spear wielding natives we remember the men who prevailed while at a disadvantage and none of our heroes would have been given so much as a plaque if the nations and commanders they fought were weaklings or run by drooling idiots.
The greater the opponant the greater the pride a victory gains and Britain routinely faced down titans. Through victory she became one herself.
As for this, barely any remember the man who's tactics kept the german navy bottled up while having the greatest fleet in the world at his disposal, A lot more remember the pilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moffat_%28Royal_Navy_officer%29)that crippled the great Bismark with a biplane's torpedo.
He wouldnt be remembered at all if Bismark was a complete flop, but it wasnt.
Battleship Bismark and it's crew had shown it's worth time and again culminating in sinking the pride of the Royal Navy while outnumbered, so why would you dismiss it as horrible?
Like Rommel, the German navy is largely considered free of the stain of Hitler's nazis, so where is your German pride?
I'll just leave this here:
15479
Greyblades
05-23-2015, 14:42
*shrug* WW2 was ended with the combined effort of American and Russian arms, but if Britain hadn't kept it going for two years America would have never joined the war, Russia unaided would have easily fallen against an unblockaded Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would have run roughshod over Asia completely uninhibited.
No one nation won the war, but we have claim to being the lynchpin, keeping the axis from recovering thier strength and being the entity that brought America and Russia to join forces in the first place.
Quite a parallel to the Napoleonic wars really.
I say Germany won it for you by taking on more than it could chew and having a madman as a leader.
Forget that there had never been a war without us for a moment and consider that we were at least kind enough to bring about our own demise. :dizzy2:
Britain only survived since the overall focus shifted towards Russia and the focus of the air war towards town bombardments instead of the very successful military suppression that preceeded the futile terror attempts to make Britain join us or something.
Greyblades
05-23-2015, 15:04
I say Germany won it for you by taking on more than it could chew and having a madman as a leader.
Forget that there had never been a war without us for a moment and consider that we were at least kind enough to bring about our own demise. :dizzy2:
Britain only survived since the overall focus shifted towards Russia and the focus of the air war towards town bombardments instead of the very successful military suppression that preceeded the futile terror attempts to make Britain join us or something.
Eh. If you hadnt had a madman in control you wouldnt have bitten off more than you could chew in the first place.
Likely there wouldnt have been much of a war at all, as Britain wouldn't have considered a reasonable war goal (like, say, another go for alsace lorraine) an unreasonable enough concession to justify continuing the war past France's surrender.
It's like an extended internet argument really, both sides likely could come to an agreement or one could give up if only the other side wasnt being such an unreasonable dick about it.
Eh. If you hadnt had a madman in control you wouldnt have bitten off more than you could chew in the first place.
Likely there wouldnt have been much of a war at all, as Britain wouldn't have considered a reasonable war goal (like, say, another go for alsace lorraine) an unreasonable enough concession to justify continuing the war past France's surrender.
I was saying that Germany had the military and industrial power to beat Britain but the political will in the leadership was not there to use it to that end as crazy ideas about being scary and beating the Russians took over. That's slightly different from saying Germany could only ever have conquered a province.
It's like an extended internet argument really, both sides likely could come to an agreement or one could give up if only the other side wasnt being such an unreasonable dick about it.
Is that an apology? ~;)
Greyblades
05-23-2015, 21:14
I was saying that Germany had the military and industrial power to beat Britain but the political will in the leadership was not there to use it to that end as crazy ideas about being scary and beating the Russians took over. That's slightly different from saying Germany could only ever have conquered a province. I didnt say that they could only conquer a province.
With the royal navy making outright invasion impossible and giving a distinct advantage in the atrition game the only sure way that Germany on it's own could have prevailed against Britain would have been to make them not want to continue, and thus give up. That said, the more they wanted to take the more it would have taken to get the British to back off.
If they wanted something small like alsaice lorraine Britain would have likely relented after dunkirk. Indeed after the french surrender they could have taken quite a bit and britain would have likely been forced to let it happen, however annexing half of poland and half of france while making the other half a puppet state, well, that would have required a series of defeats of Austerlitz proportions.
Such defeats Germany was incapable of quickly inflicting on Britain herself without getting past the royal navy, which with it's 1939 levels of naval and aerial capacity Germany could not do. I do not believe that Germany could have won a war of attrition with Britain without breaking the British blockade, and it is likely this theoretical sanely-lead Germany would have sooner decided to relent and settle for a lesser concession that Britain would be willing to live with.
Now a sanely lead Imperial Japan would be a different story, that would have been a hell of a close contest.
Is that an apology? ~;)
If you want, though in our case it was a two-way jackassery. Still, I do regret a lot of it.
a completely inoffensive name
05-24-2015, 10:46
Yeah, but how many miles to the gallon does it get?
“Like I said... junk.” :laugh4: Yeah, still won the war mind you, so the others side was even worst junk. As yes, you probably forgot than when the USSR was putting on the front line T34 and other junks as KV, the Germans and allies were lining-up Pz II and III, T38 T and others very well advanced machines and pieces of Technological Art. Not mentioned of course the beautifully engineered Mathilda or Somua S35 (in the last one the engineers just forget to put a loader so the Tank Commander was the loader as well) on the other side of the front.
Well, it happen that Guderian (apparently unaware “of the idea of sloped armour was well known and was to be incorporated into future AFV designs long before the Germans encountered the T-34”) "Numerous Russian T-34s went into action and inflicted heavy losses on the German tanks at Mzensk in 1941. Up to this time we had enjoyed tank superiority, but from now on the situation was reversed. The prospect of rapid decisive victories was fading in consequence. I made a report on this situation, which was for us a new one, and sent it to the Army Group; in this report I described in plain terms the marked superiority of the T-34 to our PzKpfw IV and drew the relevant conclusion as that must affect our future tank production. I concluded by urging a commission be sent immediately to my sector of the front... If this commission was on the spot it could not only examine the destroyed tanks on the battlefield, but could also be advised by the men who had used them as to what should be included in the design for our new tanks, in Panzer Leader” and von Kleist who describe the T34 as “The finest tank in the world” (and von Runstedt :"best tank in the world"). They gave their opinion, and, surprisingly, they disagreed with what you said. Wonder why. But who are they?
And the German soldiers fleeing in terror at the 1st encounter just did it because the T34 was a piece of junk that their special anti-tank gun couldn’t pierce the piece of junk tin foil armour. That goes against you view on heroic German soldiers, doesn’t it? So tell me, why did they retreat so hastily? :shrug:
“Daimler put forward a prototype that was much closer to the T-34, but it was rejected.” Because un-patriotic they said. The other probably better explanation was confusion in combat, and use possibility to shoot your own in the smoke of the battlefield.
“This guy actually agrees with you and his explanations make sense if his numbers are correct” Except of course that the reality doesn’t match his explanations, nor the witness statements from the T34 crew members nor the ones from the receiving end of the pile of junk, German, Italian, Rumanian, Croatian, Hungarian and others German Allies soldiers. The pile of junk still defeated the very well designed Elefant, Panthers at Kursk.:bow:
“Like I said... junk.” :laugh4: Yeah, still won the war mind you, so the others side was even worst junk. As yes, you probably forgot than when the USSR was putting on the front line T34 and other junks as KV, the Germans and allies were lining-up Pz II and III, T38 T and others very well advanced machines and pieces of Technological Art. Not mentioned of course the beautifully engineered Mathilda or Somua S35 (in the last one the engineers just forget to put a loader so the Tank Commander was the loader as well) on the other side of the front.
Seriously, the T-34 did not have a gunner, so the commander had to fulfill both functions himself. I also remember reading something about the loading process having been rather tedious because the turret was so small.
And this overload of the commander probably allowed the Wehrmacht tanks to outmaneuver them quite a few times, fire faster and so on. If you have bad vision, have to concentrate on finding targets as well as keep the current one in sight and so on, it's easier to lose your situational awareness or act in a tactically disadvantageous manner.
And the German soldiers fleeing in terror at the 1st encounter just did it because the T34 was a piece of junk that their special anti-tank gun couldn’t pierce the piece of junk tin foil armour. That goes against you view on heroic German soldiers, doesn’t it? So tell me, why did they retreat so hastily? :shrug:
A lot of people fled from a lot of new tanks at the first encounter, but yes, the design was not bad in all aspects, but maybe the worse aspects weren't so visible during that first encounter.
“Daimler put forward a prototype that was much closer to the T-34, but it was rejected.” Because un-patriotic they said. The other probably better explanation was confusion in combat, and use possibility to shoot your own in the smoke of the battlefield.
Or maybe that the interior, especially the turret, was also too small, cramped and didn't allow for proper operation of the tank.
The soviets improved the T-34 with the T-34-85, which has a much bigger turret and one more crew member. You can even read about the ergonomics issues on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Ergonomics
“This guy actually agrees with you and his explanations make sense if his numbers are correct” Except of course that the reality doesn’t match his explanations, nor the witness statements from the T34 crew members nor the ones from the receiving end of the pile of junk, German, Italian, Rumanian, Croatian, Hungarian and others German Allies soldiers. The pile of junk still defeated the very well designed Elefant, Panthers at Kursk.:bow:
No, nonono, also no.
1) First of all, I set out to show that PJ was wrong, but found only stuff about how bad the T-34 was.
2) I'm nonetheless not sure about the performancve of the T-34-85 being as bad as the T-34-76, especially due to the turret and gun upgrade it always seemed like a more capable tank, although by that time it was also very vulnerable as the hull armor was no longer that great against the upgraded german guns.
3) I already showed that german steel was more junk than people usually assume and that allied tanks were junk as well.
4) The Ferdinand was neither well-designed nor beaten by T-34s at Kursk. It lacked almost any defense against infantry and was sent into the soviet lines without proper cover, allowing their infantry to flank it and attack it with grenades. The elefant was the upgraded version with a mchine gun to help it at least a little bit. Apparently a lot of them were also blown up by their crews as they had to retreat and couldn't recover them with broken tracks etc. This says absolutely nothing about the T-34, which could certainly not penetrate them easily.
5) There were more war machines involved at Kursk than just T-34s. And just winning a pyrrhic victory of sorts does not make a tank design good. You are absolutely right that the allies won the war in the end, but the question here is more whether they could have won the war with fewer dead tankers if they had had better tank designs. It's not a strategic but an operational question. Would you be happy to be given a death trap and told that you're expendable enough that when you die your thousands of buddies will still win this for you because we have many thousands more of these death traps than the other side?
Wikipedia sez:
Soviet equipment losses during the German offensive came to 1,614 tanks and self-propelled guns destroyed or damaged[19] of the 3,925 vehicles committed to the battle. The Soviet losses were roughly three times larger than the German losses.[291][292] During Operation Kutuzov, 2,349 tanks and self-propelled guns were lost out of an initial strength of 2,308; a loss of over 100 percent. During Polkovodets Rumyantsev 1,864 tanks and self-propelled guns were lost out of the 2,439 employed. The loss ratio suffered by the Soviets was roughly 5:1 in favour of the German military.[293] However, large Soviet reserves of equipment and their high rate of tank production enabled the Soviet tank armies to soon replace lost equipment and maintain their fighting strength.[291]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk#Casualties_and_losses
That does not exactly speak for the T-34 having been the superior tank design at the battle of Kursk if we assume that it made up the majority of russian tanks involved. Again, the complaint by PJ was not about it's strategic viability if you can afford to throw a lot of tank crews into certain death, but about whether the tank design was good. And apparently it was not all that great if about three times as many of them got killed than tanks on the german side. They could just replace them with new junk and repair some of the destroyed junks to put new crews into them.
I didnt say that they could only conquer a province.
With the royal navy making outright invasion impossible and giving a distinct advantage in the atrition game the only sure way that Germany on it's own could have prevailed against Britain would have been to make them not want to continue, and thus give up. That said, the more they wanted to take the more it would have taken to get the British to back off.
If they wanted something small like alsaice lorraine Britain would have likely relented after dunkirk. Indeed after the french surrender they could have taken quite a bit and britain would have likely been forced to let it happen, however annexing half of poland and half of france while making the other half a puppet state, well, that would have required a series of defeats of Austerlitz proportions.
Such defeats Germany was incapable of quickly inflicting on Britain herself without getting past the royal navy, which with it's 1939 levels of naval and aerial capacity Germany could not do. I do not believe that Germany could have won a war of attrition with Britain without breaking the British blockade, and it is likely this theoretical sanely-lead Germany would have sooner decided to relent and settle for a lesser concession that Britain would be willing to live with.
Now a sanely lead Imperial Japan would be a different story, that would have been a hell of a close contest.
Only a matter of time until Germany had anti-ship cruise missiles and could have blown the entire Royal Navy out of the water from the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293
Greyblades
05-24-2015, 14:21
I thought we were talking about the sane Germany not the secret weapon obsessing one. In theory they could have done the same thing with just U boats, but I don't think that a sane Germany would bother keeping the war going long enough to make enough of them to do it.
I thought we were talking about the sane Germany not the secret weapon obsessing one. In theory they could have done the same thing with just U boats, but I don't think that a sane Germany would bother keeping the war going long enough to make enough of them to do it.
I looked up the amounts of surface vessels and had to admit that this sort of conventional option was certainly not going to solve the problem with the Royal Navy. Air power is a very conventional solution and remote controlled bombs/missiles are probably much better than ordinary dumb bombs if the ships employ a lot of flak and move fast. I know the B-17s also succeeded with normal bombs in the pacific though. I don't think those glide bombs were insane secret weapon ideas, they were the precursors of modern cruis missiles. And the V2 while it was insane considering its intended purpose, was actually the first man-made machine to fly into space (and come back) IIRC. The technology later allowed 'murica (and 'ussia) to fly to space and to the moon. The problem with these missiles was the intention to use them against civilians in a futile effort to scare them enough to make them stop the war. A much better effort would have been to spend these resources on developing better guidance for the glide bombs/missiles such as passive radar or infrared guidance or beam riding. Or tanks that could just drive through the channel. Or a secret eurotunnel. ~;)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-26-2015, 02:43
Bear in mind, fighting the UK would also mean fighting the greater part of the Commonwealth. Granted, the EU has loosened the traditional ties somewhat but if you were planning to do serious harm to the UK I expect you'd have to contend with Australia and Canada, New Zealand and possibly even India given the large number of Indians who currently live here.
Also - with relation to the missiles -
"One drawback of the Hs 293 was that after the missile was launched the bomber had to fly in a straight and level path at a set altitude and speed parallel to the target so as to be able to maintain a slant line of sight and it could thus not manoeuvre to evade attacking fighters without aborting the attack"
Basically, German bombers would have been toast again Fleet Air Arm interceptors. Germany never had enough bombers in WWII anyway, the lack of a heavy bomber is why you lost the Battle of Britain.
"One drawback of the Hs 293 was that after the missile was launched the bomber had to fly in a straight and level path at a set altitude and speed parallel to the target so as to be able to maintain a slant line of sight and it could thus not manoeuvre to evade attacking fighters without aborting the attack"
Basically, German bombers would have been toast again Fleet Air Arm interceptors. Germany never had enough bombers in WWII anyway, the lack of a heavy bomber is why you lost the Battle of Britain.
Not with the RAF suppressed in the east, but you are right that heavy bombers would probably have helped in doing that in the first place, as would not shifting the focus to civilian targets/operation barbarossa. That's from a purely military POV, otherwise I'm glad the Nazis lost of course. ~;)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-26-2015, 10:25
Not with the RAF suppressed in the east, but you are right that heavy bombers would probably have helped in doing that in the first place, as would not shifting the focus to civilian targets/operation barbarossa. That's from a purely military POV, otherwise I'm glad the Nazis lost of course. ~;)
Germany was never able to reach the airfields in Northern Britain which meant that they were never able to beat the RAF, they could suppress them in the South East but fighters would just come down from the North. Basically, without heavy bombers all Germany could do was hamper the RAF's offensive bombing, they couldn't gain air superiority for an invasion.
Germany was never able to reach the airfields in Northern Britain which meant that they were never able to beat the RAF, they could suppress them in the South East but fighters would just come down from the North. Basically, without heavy bombers all Germany could do was hamper the RAF's offensive bombing, they couldn't gain air superiority for an invasion.
I think the problem with that was that they lost the early warning radars and could not scramble fighters from anywhere nearby, so that would have forced the RAF to fly combat patrols over the east, taking away some advantages they had before. The plans for the invasion were mostly delayed because of the Royal Navy, which could have sunk all the invading ships or all the supply ships required to sustain an invasion. The german air force however did not seem capable of stopping the Royal Navy even with air superiority over the channel.
Strike For The South
05-26-2015, 17:10
Germany could never have invaded the UK while the RN still floated.
There best bet was someone toppling Stalin early in Barbarossa and making peace.
Germany could never have invaded the UK while the RN still floated.
Yes, you are right, I shouldn't have said the same thing.
Germany was essentially trapped between the evil capitalist cartel in the west and the evil communist cartel in the east and desperately needed space and a sane leader to gain it. Unfortunately neither were readily available and fate clearly showed that it wanted to keep Hitler around several times when it prevented all the attacks on his life. It was much easier to kill the POTUS than to kill the one guy who ruined half the world. We will forever be indebted to the British for making the biggest sacrifice of all nations in that war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JGRRbF4ew8
As for the Armata, maybe the price of launching rockets from Russia to get food for the austronauts into space will go up now to finance the Armata and the weak ruble. The German navy will certainly not stop any Armatas from rolling through Berlin and Paris down to Madrid.
Strike For The South
05-26-2015, 19:16
You use too many words
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
05-26-2015, 22:38
Germany could never have invaded the UK while the RN still floated.
There best bet was someone toppling Stalin early in Barbarossa and making peace.
The RAF and the Fleet Air Arm were required to keep the RN afloat, though. The battles in the Pacific theatre showed what happened when the RN's superior battleships and battlecruisers lacked air support. They went down fighting, to be sure, but they still went down.
Gilrandir
05-27-2015, 14:50
Germany was essentially trapped between the evil capitalist cartel in the west and the evil communist cartel in the east
The Communist cartel consisted of one memeber. It is rather a godfather than a cartel.
As for the Armata, maybe the price of launching rockets from Russia to get food for the austronauts into space will go up now to finance the Armata and the weak ruble.
The solution is to launch Armatas into space. Only in this way Russia will both keep the austonauts fed and finance the production of Armatas.
The Communist cartel consisted of one memeber. It is rather a godfather than a cartel.
I think each of the 11 timezones in Russia counts as a member.
Gilrandir
05-27-2015, 16:31
I think each of the 11 timezones in Russia counts as a member.
You better count the then 16 Soviet republics. 16 will sound more impressive than 11.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.