T-14 Armata

[Kadagar_AV]

The Swedes actually did some interesting tests with their S-Tanks:



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]

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.

[Husar]

I'm pretty sure the Dutch had already disbanded their last tank regiment a while ago.

There, 2012: http://hollandinsider.blog.com/2012/...ent-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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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]

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...

[Husar]

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

[Sarmatian]

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]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[Husar]

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]

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]

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.

[Ironside]

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).

[Hooahguy]

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.