T-14 Armata

[Kunal Biswas]

This will drastically reduce Logistic Chain..

 

[Armand2REP]

There is no such tank as Black Eagle... "another" western european specialist that do not know official designation of tank prototype made somewhere in east.

Official designation name is Object 640.

Object 195 also is not a fail, this tank showed that Russians are capable to design something better and actually show it, than most countries in Europe can do. Show me something similiar made in France, with similiar high level of protection and 152mm high pressure smoothbore gun mounted in completely unmanned turret... sometimes arrogance and iggnorance of western europeans is... incredible.



Current modern variants of Leclerc have a weight close to 60 tons, or 60 tons allready in case of SXXI variants. Not to mention that Leclerc even in it's most basic and lightest variant is over the maximal weight limit for Russian Army in case of tanks in classical design. Object 195 weighting approx ~55 tons was too heavy and big for Russians.

WoW, you are in serious denial. At the VTTV Expo 97' the announcer said "Black Eagle" and the mock-up display said "Black Eagle". There is a project number and name. If you knew anything about Russian nomenclature you would know this.

Object 195 was a complete failure. RuMoD was so embarrassed by it they wouldn't let Uralvagonzavod display it at the exposition even after they cancelled it. This tank has shown that Russians are incapable of designing something that even meets Western tank standards and refuse to show their failure. The Leclerc is superior to this monstrosity...

Sometimes arrogance and ignorance of Russian fanboys are incredible.

The combat weight of Leclerc is 56t, that means with full fuel, ammo and armour modules. Without fuel and ammo it weighs 54.5t, there is still 5t of composite steel/ceramic/Kevlar armour modules to be stripped from it that gets it at 50t leaving enough fuel to move it. I don;t know what Army transports their tanks in roll-off combat condition anyway. They go to a staging area to prep.

 

[methos]

Armand, if you really believe that the Leclerc a better weapon system than the Obiect 195, then you are very likely the only user of this forum thinking so.

____

Methos, have You hear smth.about SPz Puma whit 120mm + autoloader?
I heard that some prototype is making, but BW is not interested in. It's rather interesting, becouse SPz Puma have better protected hull sides and lower front hull then most MBT's on the word. If Germans redesignted upper front hull SPz Puma +120mm can by nex.gen Germans tank in low-cost option.

No, never heard about it, but I would really like to see such a vehicle in the next years. Two Pumas are currently being tested in Norway to see how they perform in the cold weather there.

 

[Damian]

WoW, you are in serious denial. At the VTTV Expo 97' the announcer said "Black Eagle" and the mock-up display said "Black Eagle". There is a project number and name. If you knew anything about Russian nomenclature you would know this.

I do not care what announcer said, I care only about official nomenclature, and official nomenclature is clear here, every prototype armored fighting vehicle in Soviet Union later Russia and Ukraine have a designation name Object and number. And I do not care what ignorant from France who probably do not know even 1% about weapons development in eastern block or even other western countries have to say.

Object 195 was a complete failure. RuMoD was so embarrassed by it they wouldn't let Uralvagonzavod display it at the exposition even after they cancelled it. This tank has shown that Russians are incapable of designing something that even meets Western tank standards and refuse to show their failure. The Leclerc is superior to this monstrosity...

What? How Leclerc or any other currently used tank can be superior to Object 195, where crew is sitting in heavy armored hull (no need to armor turret, so hull can have superior armor protection), in their completely isolated compartment, with 152mm high pressure smoothbore gun (designated 2A83), how it can be superior? Only in Your wet dreams.

Sometimes arrogance and ignorance of Russian fanboys are incredible.

Yes of course, what we can say about French fanboy that do not know that Leclerc is also not safe tank, with 18 rounds stored in hull front without any isolation, how this can be any better to Object 195, where all ammunition is allready completely isolated from crew.

The combat weight of Leclerc is 56t, that means with full fuel, ammo and armour modules. Without fuel and ammo it weighs 54.5t, there is still 5t of composite steel/ceramic/Kevlar armour modules to be stripped from it that gets it at 50t leaving enough fuel to move it. I don;t know what Army transports their tanks in roll-off combat condition anyway. They go to a staging area to prep.

This combat weight is for S1 Leclerc variants, with all upgrades Leclerc weight increased definetly to something around 60 tons.

 

[Armand2REP]

? Have You and idea about what You have been written?


1."Black Eagle = FAIL
2.Object 195 = FAIL
3.Auto Transmission = FAIL
4.Strong Power Packs = FAIL
5.1400hp+ Engine = FAIL (even the 1000hp only produces 850hp)
6.Battle Management = FAIL
7.HD Comms = FAIL
8.rd gen FLIR = FAIL"


3. and 4. and 5. - In Russia are redy:
-2V16-1 from OAO CzTz (1100kW)
-UTD-38 (Transmasz from Barnaul city) (1200kW)
- KaDwi gas turbine from Kaluga (920-1500kW)
About transmision - there is redy autotransmision both for T-90MS and for new "Ob.xx"
and this in your opinnion doesn't exist?

6 and 7
Again:
about 1,2 and 8 I'll write later.

Funny, if they have the engine, why does Deputy Director General of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant say "overcoming the technical backwardness of the Russian engine is possible through the creation of several federal centers in key areas... That's the direction we are ready to take on, because it completely shuts down the engine family of "T" series."

Doesn't sound like they have the engine to me. Neither transmissions or power packs were addressed. Either you didn't bother to read your links or reading comprehension is straight out the window.

I got your 7 & 8 right here...

T-90 BMP-3 will carry Thales communications and thermals

 

[Armand2REP]

@Damien & Methos

How can you guys seriously debate a failed prototype rusting in a field being better than an operational MBT? That is absurd...

 

[methos]

How can you guys seriously debate a failed prototype rusting in a field being better than an operational MBT? That is absurd...

There are different types of failures. Failures can be (amongst others) political or technical. Most Soviet/Russian prototypes (including the Obiect 195) didn't fail because of technical requirements but because of policy, strategy and finiancial reasons. In the Soviet union there were allways different design bureaus competiting against each others - some people in the army or in the politics favoured one or the design bureau, which lead to some rather curios decisions IMO. This situation is unkown to France, where the tanks are produced and designed by GIAT.

 

[Armand2REP]

195 failure was completely technical, It wasn't successful in any of the aformentioned subsystems to make it a modern tank. Leclerc has all the systems in operation Russia wished it had.

 

[militarysta]

195 failure was completely technical, It wasn't successful in any of the aformentioned subsystems to make it a modern tank. Leclerc has all the systems in operation Russia wished it had.

Doesn't sound like they have the engine to me. Neither transmissions or power packs were addressed. Either you didn't bother to read your links or reading comprehension is straight out the window.

Well, I really don't care what arye you thinking, or what not.
Russinas after 20years developing have PP whit ~1500HP and automatic "gerbox" (transmission). You have picture, it's nothing new, and rather smth.well-know for peopels who are interesting in tank developmend on est.

I got your 7 & 8 right here.

In your wet drem maybe:

1."Black Eagle = yes
2.Object 195 = yes/no
3.Auto Transmission = they have
4.Strong Power Packs = they have
5.1400hp+ Engine = they have
6.Battle Management =they have
7.HD Comms = they have
8.rd gen FLIR = FAIL

So, I see here max 2-3/8 not more.
BTW - propably You haven't any idea about Ob.640 (not Black Eagle christ sake!) - Ob.640 was rejected in erly study becouse it was worse then Ob.195 and Ob.477

btw : I wrote smth about IV gen MBT here: Forum Militarium • Zobacz temat - Ostatnie ogniwo - niedoszÅ‚a IV powojenna generacja czoÅ‚gów p
tekst in polish will be usless, but even pictures can be usefull
and here:

 

[Damian]

Armand, please, teach Russians how to build tanks when France finally show at least single prototype with similiar capabilitis and potential as Object 195 had... not to mention that Your knowledge about history of development of tanks in Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine is probably non existing.

Also Methos is right, the whole conections between design bureaus, lead designers, MoD, Army etc. it is just fascinating, and decisions made then? And decisions made in our days.

And yes, prototype in capabilities higher than series manufactured tank, is better. Leclerc would not survive probably even one hit from that 152mm gun, any tank currently used would not survive hit from such monster, on the other hand that monster was armored well enough to survive hit from any 120mm or 125mm high pressure tank gun.

For example what I like in Leclerc are it's suspension and gun and... actually nothing more, someone would say autoloader? Nope why I should like something that has a low capacity, 22 rounds? Americans were able to design fully working and reliable autoloader with 34 rounds capacity for example, not only that! These autoloader not only quickly loaded gun, but were able to even unload it if nececary.

Someone would say, maybe armor, and nope, mainly because all NATO armors are bastard childs of British Burlington program, France is definetly not different here, only materials differ, but all French composite armors development refers their armors as sandwich type... clear connection to Burlington.
And documents says clearly that after some time British started to promote their invention across NATO allies.

Someone else would say, maybe electronics package then? Nope, much more impressive is electronic package of M1A2SEP v2.

Autotracker? Nope because Leclerc do not even have a real autotracker, it is something that can be called semi-autotracker or rather gunner aiming support system, real autotracker have such tanks like Merkava Mk3 and Mk4, Type 90, Type 10, K2 and, oh this is shocking, Object 199 Ramka BMPT, or demonstrators like T-72B2 (also known as T-72BM Rogatka) or T-90MS Tagil.

Someone else would say, that maybe engine then? Nah, MTU Diesels are much more impressive, or US compact engines developed under AIPS program like LV100-5 or XAP-1000. Ukrainian 5TD and 6TD engines are also very good, 6TD-2 allready can generate 1200HP being very, very compact, the newer 6TD-3 is reported to have 1500HP, being smaller than Leclerc engine.

So really Armand, read about developments of other countries, You will see that France after WWII actually not done anything impressive in terms of AFV's research and development.

When French Army was riing on these silly AMX-30's, Soviet Army allready have breakthrough design, the T-64, later supplemented by T-72 and T-80, what have NATO back then? Nothing comparable, until Leopard 2 was fielded in 1979, M1 Abrams in 1980 and Challenger 1 in 1983... what had France back then? AMX-30 and derivatives?

So really I do not see a reason why Russians or Ukrainians should be inferior to western europe in case of AFV's R&D.

Not to mention that You seems to not understand the mechanism standing behind decision making in terms of military-industry complex, if some director of some facility or some general says that their equipment is inferior and needs something, foreing for example, do not nececary means that these equipment is inferior in reality, it is just attempt to gain more funding.

Americans that definetly can't call inferior in R&D of military industrial complex are doing this all the time.

 

[militarysta]

x2


BTW:

Americans were able to design fully working and reliable autoloader with 34 rounds

Boh of us known why TTB was closed, and why this autoloader was (paradoxically) the weakest piont ;-) The transfer of ideas from sea to land is not always good idea...

 

[Damian]

Boh of us known why TTB was closed, and why this autoloader was (paradoxically) the weakest piont ;-) The transfer of ideas from sea to land is not always good idea...

TTB autoloader stored not 34 but 44 rounds, I was talking about Meggitt Systems Compact Autoloader for M1A1/M1A2 Abrams tanks.

 

[militarysta]

BTW:
To users:
try to use codename for tanks.
writing "T-90" is ussles becouse we have
Ob.188 (T-90)
Ob.188A1 (T-90A)
Ob.188A2 (T-90A)
Ob.188M (T-90MS)

Ob.184 is T-72B etc.

The same about Ukrainian tanks:
Ob.478B (T-80UD)
Ob.478DU10 (T-84M Opłot-M)
etc


There is no "Leopard2"
Leopard-2A0
Leopard-2A3
Leopard-2A4
....
to Leopard-2A7.

Boh of us known why TTB was closed, and why this autoloader was (paradoxically) the weakest piont ;-) The transfer of ideas from sea to land is not always good idea...

Indeed - my mistake, im just tired...

 

[Armand2REP]

:

Well, I really don't care what arye you thinking, or what not.
Russinas after 20years developing have PP whit ~1500HP and automatic "gerbox" (transmission). You have picture, it's nothing new, and rather smth.well-know for peopels who are interesting in tank developmend on est.

Well, I really don't care that you don't read what you post. The interview clearly stated Russia's "technical backwardness" in the tank engine coming from your own link. Vladimir Popovkin, Chief of Armaments stated in 2010 that Russia lacked auto transmissions and modern power packs so that they will look abroad. The picture shown in the blog was stated as being a "mock-up"... so you don't care about what you post. As to what I post, we have Thales comms and thermals going into Russian tanks signed at Eurosatory. The BMS was tested in Kavkaz 2009 and Union Shield 2011. It suffered multiple crashes and rendered useless. Both tanks were cancelled, there is no argument. You Poles are in utter denial...

 

[asianobserve]

And yes, prototype in capabilities higher than series manufactured tank, is better. Leclerc would not survive probably even one hit from that 152mm gun, any tank currently used would not survive hit from such monster, on the other hand that monster was armored well enough to survive hit from any 120mm or 125mm high pressure tank gun.

Don't you think that this O195 is something like the "King Tiger" of Russia? No doubt well armored and big gunned, but was nevertheless a failure for an MBT... Or you would consider the "King Tiger" as an excellent all around tank?

 

[Damian]

Asianobserver why do we need to consider Object 195 as a Russian "King Tiger"? King Tiger was overall failure, 195 is not adopted bu yet succesfull vehicle, because it was working (tested on proving grounds), it's only failure was... some may not belive, it's difference to existing tanks.

This project was not killed because it was bad from technical point ov fiew, but it was just different. Really tanks are cheap, overall weapons itself are cheap, what is expensiv is the whole logistical chain standing behind them, 195 was so different that it needed a completely new infrastructure, new ammunition, new production lines for that ammunition of a much bigger calliber, new engine, new production line for that engine etc. etc. etc. This is the real reason why 195 was killed, and why it will be replaced by "Armata", it's downzised and more universal version.

 

[p2prada]

Armand, if you really believe that the Leclerc a better weapon system than the Obiect 195, then you are very likely the only user of this forum thinking so.

? Have You and idea about what You have been written?

There are different types of failures. Failures can be (amongst others) political or technical. Most Soviet/Russian prototypes (including the Obiect 195) didn't fail because of technical requirements but because of policy, strategy and finiancial reasons. In the Soviet union there were allways different design bureaus competiting against each others - some people in the army or in the politics favoured one or the design bureau, which lead to some rather curios decisions IMO. This situation is unkown to France, where the tanks are produced and designed by GIAT.

I don't know which rock you guys were living under but anybody who praises Russian weapons are worse than fanboys and probably have "Russian cold" from the Cold War era.

I don't think you guys have been watching other threads, especially Indian Air force subforum, but it has been well established on this forum that Russian equipment, no matter how or why it was made, is pure, non biodegradable junk which is at best a decade or two behind the Europeans and many more behind the Americans. Anybody who says otherwise has Russian cooties.

@militarysta or anybody else who can answer.

What is the difference between Obj 188A1 and A2?

 

[Blackwater]

Any ideas we can get those

 

[Damian]

@militarysta or anybody else who can answer.

What is the difference between Obj 188A1 and A2?

AFAIK there are minor differences like thermal sight and some electronics upgrade, You should as Alexei Kholopotov for more informations, he should know more details.

 

[methos]

I don't know which rock you guys were living under but anybody who praises Russian weapons are worse than fanboys and probably have "Russian cold" from the Cold War era.

I don't think you guys have been watching other threads, especially Indian Air force subforum, but it has been well established on this forum that Russian equipment, no matter how or why it was made, is pure, non biodegradable junk which is at best a decade or two behind the Europeans and many more behind the Americans. Anybody who says otherwise has Russian cooties.

If you believe former East German soldiers then it wasn't far inferior than Western technology; it was in some aspects but in others it was even better. But that's Cold War equipment and not the current Russian made equipment. Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has lost qualified workes, formerly strict rules have been bent and a number of other failures in their industry has happened (there is no reason to mention all of them here).

In fact the Soviets did have quite a few decent weapon systems of which some were even superior to their Western counterparts, but most/all of them were not available for export.
E.g. the T-72 has only been sold in "monkey models" to other countries which were technological inferior in some aspects than the already "simplified" T-72 tanks. Among other shortcomings of the T-72 one of it's main drawbacks is the unadvanced, analog FCS... the T-72 (basic version) became operational at a point of time when some NATO tanks already had digital FCS - which means that they were better than the T-72. The T-72A from 1979 still has an analog FCS, while the first NATO tanks (Leopard 2) with digital FCS even in the basic version enter service. This is matches with your claims about "a decade or two behind the Europeans".
But the Soviet army did operate T-64 (from T-64B in 1975) and T-80 tanks, which did have digital FCS.
So there was no decade of inferior technology, but the technology available for export was a decade behind.
There are other examples were the Soviet equipment was considered to be superior to NATO technology even after the war - one example is the MiG-29 and their Vympel R-73 missile armament. German pilots were suprised when the saw the capabilities of the Russian HUD and the agility of R-73, which influenced the development of NATO missiles and fighters. Another example is the "Hiddensee" (although it seems that this wasn't the German name for the ship), a Soviet made corvette operated by the GDR forces and later given to the U.S. for evaluation. The U.S. are claimed to have found that the underestimated the Soviet naval power in quite a few points, among others the Soviet CIWS was considered to be better than expected - it used 30 x 165 mm munition at still a very decent rate of fire, whereas the U.S. decided to adopt the 20 x 102 mm round for their Phalanx CIWS. The 20 x 102 mm round was originally designed for aircraft and has also used on ships and air defense vehicles, but it is a very bad round, i.e. (nearly) the weakest round adopted.