Printable View
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:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You might be right, you might be wrong... We really don't know...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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/201...h-pilot-killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Arr..._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
Yeah, that reminds me of an Austrian guy who had thoughts on the similar lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_...tary_equipmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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?
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...
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.
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...
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.
High-tech is probably wrong word. Higher risk of technology failure, that is very common in combat on average.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
There's a better than even chance that this tank will outperform everything out there at present, Putin may be a lot of things but I doubt he's daft enough to showcase an already obsolete MBT.
That being said the role of MBT's in modern warfare is definitely limited, why build 2200 tanks and their associated logistics chain when you can buy twice as many drones and operate them from a secure base?
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.
What is it with you guys and tanks?
I have heard the same... That humanoids are faster and can also switch already loaded ammo...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
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
Well, Russia, and formerly Soviet, are hardcore into "system warfare"... As is the USA...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
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.
Because it's TANKS... And we are MEN!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
That is sig worthy material right there...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Well, this isnt exactly the first Russian tank with an autoloader, even when they were not as advanced as they are today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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.Quote:
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.
Quick note, I am just off for dinner (with a beautiful lady I might add).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
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?
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...2&ref=bookmarkQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar