T-14 Armata

[Myth]

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.

[Husar]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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:



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]

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]

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:



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?

[Husar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Husar]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

That thing looks absolutily awesome

[Husar]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Greyblades]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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]

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.