T-14 Armata

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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.