T-14 Armata

[Akim]

Exactly. Time to evolve.
___________________

I repeat. In the T-14 only improved crew protection. Everything else can be upgraded. in older tanks. Of course 152-mm gun will not fit in the turret of an old tank, but the new 125-mm gun and even 140-mm gun - no problems. Electronic control can be increased by the example of the T-90MS or ZT-99. Such stock is not deprived of modernization and Western tanks.

 

[Vlaad]

Documentary was somewhat meh... No actual info, but more PR than one prefers but at least it has some gratuitous juicy shots of interior and firing. It's closer to tank porn than documentary

I repeat. In the T-14 only improved crew protection. Everything else can be upgraded. in older tanks. Of course 152-mm gun will not fit in the turret of an old tank, but the new 125-mm gun and even 140-mm gun - no problems. Electronic control can be increased by the example of the T-90MS or ZT-99. Such stock is not deprived of modernization and Western tanks.

Improvements, chassis logistics:

1. Complete modular design across Armata/Kurganets chassis with shared parts. In itself this a sub category leading to much more cost efficient manifacturing and maintenance. Mind you, it does not mean that initial production will be cheaper, however given enough time it will have significant financial impact given enough time.

2. Modular armor design to be replaced not as a whole but in sections. For example, damaged section can be replaced with more simplicity since most of the vehicle has modular reactive armor. Reactive armor is now integral part of vehicle.

3. While here there is a saying for Russian made stuff is robust, it is another matter when it comes to maintaining powerplant on soviet tank. t-72/90 and t-80 have a nasty reputation when it comes to engine swap and repairs, robust as they are. Armata very much addressed this, it has been noted that engine aside from power limiters (engine regimes on 1200hp for regular driving, 1500hp in regular and 2000hp as maximum power output).

4. Platform is built to accept current generations hardware improvements including ones learned from "object 195", metallurgy advancements, fire control/observation system, suspension and so on.

5. integrated active protection system. Not like it can be added on on but rather entire vehicle is built around it. Inherited advantages of such approach is quite obvious. Experience has shown that such systems are crucial part of vehicle protection.

Improvements, Gun and unmanned turret.

1. Autoloader redesign, improved fire rate, much longer APFSDS (Vacuum-1), more powerful/larger propellant. Gun itself is new 2A82.

2. Unmanned turret is next step in evolution of Soviet tanks (Russian rather). In itself it is a grand undertake.

3. Future improvements. It has been noted that there is a bigger gun already developed. 2a83 is next in line and T-14 can pretty much be swapped without too much complications. Allegedly.

So to conclude, it would be much more expensive to upgrade entire fleet of previous generation to modern standards, none of which will be as effective as t-14. Effective, Armata chassis represents modern Russian approach to military doctrine. Efficiency in cost and maintenance, quality over quantity.

Now after all that I myself am somewhat skeptical, in reality Armata has still way to go before it achieves what it claims it can. It is not shown but every vehicle HAS to get over child sickness before it matures. Such is the rule of life.

 

[Akim]

Documentary was somewhat meh... No actual info, but more PR than one prefers but at least it has some gratuitous juicy shots of interior and firing. It's closer to tank porn than documentary



Improvements, chassis logistics:

1. Complete modular design across Armata/Kurganets chassis with shared parts. In itself this a sub category leading to much more cost efficient manifacturing and maintenance. Mind you, it does not mean that initial production will be cheaper, however given enough time it will have significant financial impact given enough time.

2. Modular armor design to be replaced not as a whole but in sections. For example, damaged section can be replaced with more simplicity since most of the vehicle has modular reactive armor. Reactive armor is now integral part of vehicle.

3. While here there is a saying for Russian made stuff is robust, it is another matter when it comes to maintaining powerplant on soviet tank. t-72/90 and t-80 have a nasty reputation when it comes to engine swap and repairs, robust as they are. Armata very much addressed this, it has been noted that engine aside from power limiters (engine regimes on 1200hp for regular driving, 1500hp in regular and 2000hp as maximum power output).

4. Platform is built to accept current generations hardware improvements including ones learned from "object 195", metallurgy advancements, fire control/observation system, suspension and so on.

5. integrated active protection system. Not like it can be added on on but rather entire vehicle is built around it. Inherited advantages of such approach is quite obvious. Experience has shown that such systems are crucial part of vehicle protection.

Improvements, Gun and unmanned turret.

1. Autoloader redesign, improved fire rate, much longer APFSDS (Vacuum-1), more powerful/larger propellant. Gun itself is new 2A82.

2. Unmanned turret is next step in evolution of Soviet tanks (Russian rather). In itself it is a grand undertake.

3. Future improvements. It has been noted that there is a bigger gun already developed. 2a83 is next in line and T-14 can pretty much be swapped without too much complications. Allegedly.

So to conclude, it would be much more expensive to upgrade entire fleet of previous generation to modern standards, none of which will be as effective as t-14. Effective, Armata chassis represents modern Russian approach to military doctrine. Efficiency in cost and maintenance, quality over quantity.

Now after all that I myself am somewhat skeptical, in reality Armata has still way to go before it achieves what it claims it can. It is not shown but every vehicle HAS to get over child sickness before it matures. Such is the rule of life.

Modularity - I agree,unmanned turret - I agree. But this is all impossible to achieve in a classic tank. Why everybody is talking about long sabo? Long sabó has a distinct advantage with the same initial speeds A increases speed and minimizes the difference. Soviet core has a diameter of 45 mm compared to 40 mm in the West because the technology of metallurgy behind. All other achievements can be realized even in a modernized T-72. I think the T-72 cannot be the engine of the new generation? As for the number... Never, never Russian army didn't win without having the numerical advantage. I think one of the combat platform rewrite the entire Field Manuals?

 

[Vlaad]

It has been talked a lot about long kinetic penetrator vs shorter ones. In short, since APFSDS's job is to put a hole in the armor, it is logical to put as much force as possible on smallest area possible on impact point.

Lets say that both types of penetrators have same mass and same energy caried in layman's terms, shorter penetrator of larger diameter has more surface area spread its kinetic on the target while longer slimmer penetrator has less more energy focused on the less area. But that is not the whole story, it is entire profession when you take into consideration densities of material, spalling, penetrator deviations inside armor (its disruption by say reactive armor) and so on. In short, 2A82 gun system includes much more than just longer kinetic projectile...
We know that gun breach has been redesigned and gun itself can take more propellant and higher pressures and its autoloader can take new ammo types. There is a size restriction on t-72 and t-90. mind you, I'm not disregarding those tanks as obsolete in any way. APFSDS keep evolving as do tank armor and reactive armor and 2a82 is nothing more than another step in evolution.

I disagree that soviet metallurgy was behind an any point in time. You forget that smoothbore guns were first standardised in soviet era tanks much to dismay of west who openly mocked them... Effectiveness of soviet era technology is the reason why NATO did not proceed with planned ground invasion of Kosovo in '99.

Akim, it is not possible to just swap the engines with no consequences. Even IF it would be more efficient to do so, reverse and gearbox is dated... It is a whole system, you can't just swap parts without affecting other systems. Heck, you cant even modify car engine for more power with no consequences! For example, if you wanted to improve every system on t-72 you'd basically need to strip down entire tank to its bare bones and rebuild it with modern systems. It would still look like t-72 but it would not be it any more and it would cost more than new project build from scratch. Take Armata platform as such, t-72/t90/t-80 evolved.

For last argument, I have to agree it is a historical fact. However it does not apply to today's battlefield. In all chances, there will be no more open conflicts but rather hybrid war using proxies, financial means and so on. Modern Russia, knows this and it merely adapts its military.

Interesting stuff here to read http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/tank-guns-and-ammunition.39363/

 

[Akim]

It has been talked a lot about long kinetic penetrator vs shorter ones. In short, since APFSDS's job is to put a hole in the armor, it is logical to put as much force as possible on smallest area possible on impact point.

Lets say that both types of penetrators have same mass and same energy caried in layman's terms, shorter penetrator of larger diameter has more surface area spread its kinetic on the target while longer slimmer penetrator has less more energy focused on the less area. But that is not the whole story, it is entire profession when you take into consideration densities of material, spalling, penetrator deviations inside armor (its disruption by say reactive armor) and so on. In short, 2A82 gun system includes much more than just longer kinetic projectile...
We know that gun breach has been redesigned and gun itself can take more propellant and higher pressures and its autoloader can take new ammo types. There is a size restriction on t-72 and t-90. mind you, I'm not disregarding those tanks as obsolete in any way. APFSDS keep evolving as do tank armor and reactive armor and 2a82 is nothing more than another step in evolution.

I disagree that soviet metallurgy was behind an any point in time. You forget that smoothbore guns were first standardised in soviet era tanks much to dismay of west who openly mocked them... Effectiveness of soviet era technology is the reason why NATO did not proceed with planned ground invasion of Kosovo in '99.

Akim, it is not possible to just swap the engines with no consequences. Even IF it would be more efficient to do so, reverse and gearbox is dated... It is a whole system, you can't just swap parts without affecting other systems. Heck, you cant even modify car engine for more power with no consequences! For example, if you wanted to improve every system on t-72 you'd basically need to strip down entire tank to its bare bones and rebuild it with modern systems. It would still look like t-72 but it would not be it any more and it would cost more than new project build from scratch. Take Armata platform as such, t-72/t90/t-80 evolved.

For last argument, I have to agree it is a historical fact. However it does not apply to today's battlefield. In all chances, there will be no more open conflicts but rather hybrid war using proxies, financial means and so on. Modern Russia, knows this and it merely adapts its military.

Interesting stuff here to read http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/tank-guns-and-ammunition.39363/

These words I told my teacher many years ago: If you face the fat man, you just fall, if you ran into a kid on a Bicycle, you will be taken to the hospital. Small ball the size of a pea, can penetrate a meter of armor. All depends on the speed and density of the ball. Want longer penetrator put AL is not down and aft turrets. Put a new engine put digital equipment and the APS.

Hybrid war is different. In any hybrid war should be a large number of armored vehicles. A platoon of tanks or heavy infantry fighting vehicles covers the sector with 10 km. on the defensive, and the offensive is even less. I don't think the family of "Armata" will be able to significantly increase these parameters. Better to upgrade the 4 BM Bulat, than to buy one BM Oplot. The Russian army was correct that the modernized T-72B to T-72B3. However, if the Russian army is so rich, why is she not upgraded these tanks to the level of the T-72B2?

 

[pmaitra]

These words I told my teacher many years ago: If you face the fat man, you just fall, if you ran into a kid on a Bicycle, you will be taken to the hospital. Small ball the size of a pea, can penetrate a meter of armor. All depends on the speed and density of the ball.

Words of wisdom, and I agree.

There can be more than one interpretations.

Even a large machine can be disabled by a small object. That can be extended to mean momentum.

Large projectile, low speed: 10 kg x 1 m/s
Small projectile, high speed: 1 kg x 10 m/s

Momentum is the same.

 

[sorcerer]

Armata Vs Leopard 2: Germany's Main Battle Tank Could Be in Trouble
Russia's next generation heavy military tracked vehicle platform, better known as the Armata, has every chance of winning one-on-one battle against the best tank Germany has to offer, the Leopard 2A7, according to the National Interest.
Although both war machines are hailed as exceptional pieces of military hardware, "Berlin's tanks in a theoretical match-up would face a problem," NI's defense analyst Dave Majumdar noted.

"While the Leopard is probably overall more than a match for the Armata – it doesn't have the right ammunition to defeat the T-14," he explained.


According to the expert, the Leopard's key disadvantage stems from the fact that it uses tungsten instead of depleted uranium for tank rounds. The choice of material affects performance.

"Because of the limitations of tungsten ammunition, the Bundeswehr has some doubts as to the ability of its penetrator rounds to punch through the armor of the latest Russian tanks. Specifically, there might be instances where German ammunition might not have enough kinetic energy to ensure a kill against the T-80, T-90 and obviously the Armata," Majumdar pointed out.
The solution to this problem might seem obvious – replace tungsten with depleted uranium but the Leopard is unlikely to receive rounds made out of depleted uranium since the Germans are largely against the move.

Using US-made ammunition could have been an option but it is said to be incompatible with the Leopard's improved L55 tank gun.
The Leopard might well be one of the world's best tanks "when it comes to blending firepower, protection and maneuverability," as defense analyst Thomas Newdick put it, but the future seems to belong to the Armata platform at the moment.

Keep in mind, that Russia's cutting edge piece of military equipment will not remain static. For instance, its designers say, that the Aramata could well become the first unmanned tank in the world


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/201...pard-tank-depleted-uranium.html#ixzz3lt6sMvyF

 

[Akim]

Armata Vs Leopard 2: Germany's Main Battle Tank Could Be in Trouble
Russia's next generation heavy military tracked vehicle platform, better known as the Armata, has every chance of winning one-on-one battle against the best tank Germany has to offer, the Leopard 2A7, according to the National Interest.
Although both war machines are hailed as exceptional pieces of military hardware, "Berlin's tanks in a theoretical match-up would face a problem," NI's defense analyst Dave Majumdar noted.

"While the Leopard is probably overall more than a match for the Armata – it doesn't have the right ammunition to defeat the T-14," he explained.


According to the expert, the Leopard's key disadvantage stems from the fact that it uses tungsten instead of depleted uranium for tank rounds. The choice of material affects performance.

"Because of the limitations of tungsten ammunition, the Bundeswehr has some doubts as to the ability of its penetrator rounds to punch through the armor of the latest Russian tanks. Specifically, there might be instances where German ammunition might not have enough kinetic energy to ensure a kill against the T-80, T-90 and obviously the Armata," Majumdar pointed out.
The solution to this problem might seem obvious – replace tungsten with depleted uranium but the Leopard is unlikely to receive rounds made out of depleted uranium since the Germans are largely against the move.

Using US-made ammunition could have been an option but it is said to be incompatible with the Leopard's improved L55 tank gun.
The Leopard might well be one of the world's best tanks "when it comes to blending firepower, protection and maneuverability," as defense analyst Thomas Newdick put it, but the future seems to belong to the Armata platform at the moment.

Keep in mind, that Russia's cutting edge piece of military equipment will not remain static. For instance, its designers say, that the Aramata could well become the first unmanned tank in the world


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/201...pard-tank-depleted-uranium.html#ixzz3lt6sMvyF

I can find a similar article on the Russian site, which says that the T-80U is better than any Western tank. Of course, the tank "Armata" formidable opponent, however, tank duels will be no more. Tanks rarely meet with each other. In the sky loitering dozens reconnaissance UAV and aim is being destroyed by artillery.

 

[jouni]

Armata Vs Leopard 2: Germany's Main Battle Tank Could Be in Trouble
Russia's next generation heavy military tracked vehicle platform, better known as the Armata, has every chance of winning one-on-one battle against the best tank Germany has to offer, the Leopard 2A7, according to the National Interest.
Although both war machines are hailed as exceptional pieces of military hardware, "Berlin's tanks in a theoretical match-up would face a problem," NI's defense analyst Dave Majumdar noted.

"While the Leopard is probably overall more than a match for the Armata – it doesn't have the right ammunition to defeat the T-14," he explained.


According to the expert, the Leopard's key disadvantage stems from the fact that it uses tungsten instead of depleted uranium for tank rounds. The choice of material affects performance.

"Because of the limitations of tungsten ammunition, the Bundeswehr has some doubts as to the ability of its penetrator rounds to punch through the armor of the latest Russian tanks. Specifically, there might be instances where German ammunition might not have enough kinetic energy to ensure a kill against the T-80, T-90 and obviously the Armata," Majumdar pointed out.
The solution to this problem might seem obvious – replace tungsten with depleted uranium but the Leopard is unlikely to receive rounds made out of depleted uranium since the Germans are largely against the move.

Using US-made ammunition could have been an option but it is said to be incompatible with the Leopard's improved L55 tank gun.
The Leopard might well be one of the world's best tanks "when it comes to blending firepower, protection and maneuverability," as defense analyst Thomas Newdick put it, but the future seems to belong to the Armata platform at the moment.

Keep in mind, that Russia's cutting edge piece of military equipment will not remain static. For instance, its designers say, that the Aramata could well become the first unmanned tank in the world


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/201...pard-tank-depleted-uranium.html#ixzz3lt6sMvyF

I laugh at the Soviet technology, that is nothing without good users. In 1944 Great battles, Finnish Sturm IIIs destroyed 87 Soviet latest T-34 85s and Klims and ISs with the loss of 6 own Sturms.

That is kill ratio of over 10:1. I do not see any change in that regard with current forces/ technology. Motivated and skilled users can achieve a lot with inferior technology, with current Leo 2 family, it would be a massacre for any Russian unit against them.

BTW. I am not anti-Russian, just pragmatic.

 

[Akim]

I laugh at the Soviet technology, that is nothing without good users. In 1944 Great battles, Finnish Sturm IIIs destroyed 87 Soviet latest T-34 85s and Klims and ISs with the loss of 6 own Sturms.

That is kill ratio of over 10:1. I do not see any change in that regard with current forces/ technology. Motivated and skilled users can achieve a lot with inferior technology, with current Leo 2 family, it would be a massacre for any Russian unit against them.

BTW. I am not anti-Russian, just pragmatic.

You're not tired to praise the victory of the grandfathers? What makes you different from the Russians who built it in the cult? Be proud that Finland has now!

 

[salute]

I laugh at the Soviet technology, that is nothing without good users. In 1944 Great battles, Finnish Sturm IIIs destroyed 87 Soviet latest T-34 85s and Klims and ISs with the loss of 6 own Sturms.

if you buy a calender then you know that it is a more than 70 years ago thing.

 

[pmaitra]

You're not tired to praise the victory of the grandfathers? What makes you different from the Russians who built it in the cult? Be proud that Finland has now!

What makes @jouni different from the Russians?

The Russians praise their forefathers who won victory. @jouni praises his forefathers who lost the war with Russia. Therein lies the difference.

Is he tired? No. He never will be tired.

I laugh at the Soviet technology, that is nothing without good users. In 1944 Great battles, Finnish Sturm IIIs destroyed 87 Soviet latest T-34 85s and Klims and ISs with the loss of 6 own Sturms.

That is kill ratio of over 10:1. I do not see any change in that regard with current forces/ technology. Motivated and skilled users can achieve a lot with inferior technology, with current Leo 2 family, it would be a massacre for any Russian unit against them.

BTW. I am not anti-Russian, just pragmatic.

Last time you claimed Finland stopped 300 million strong Red Army, when Russia's entire population was less than that. I highly doubt your claims, but ramble away nonetheless.

 

[Akim]

What makes @jouni different from the Russians?

The Russians praise their forefathers who won victory. @jouni praises his forefathers who lost the war with Russia. Therein lies the difference.

Is he tired? No. He never will be tired.

You too live in the past. You can lose the war, but lose it with dignity. Little Finland lost the war to us, but has earned the respect. Have you never been in a fight at school with a big bully? And respect will come if you take the fight, and not run away, hiding her tail. Yes, of course, you'll lose. but lose with dignity. However, all this does not apply to "Armata".

 

[pmaitra]

You too live in the past. You can lose the war, but lose it with dignity. Little Finland lost the war to us, but has earned the respect. Have you never been in a fight at school with a big bully? And respect will come if you take the fight, and not run away, hiding her tail. Yes, of course, you'll lose. but lose with dignity. However, all this does not apply to "Armata".

Lose with dignity? This does not apply to Armata? Yes, of course. It does not apply to Armata.

Armata has not yet fought in a war. So, the question of running away from a fight does not arise. Why doesn't Finland, who earned your respect, give Russia a fight? After all, they can stop 300 million strong Red Army, as was claimed. Perhaps then we can see whether this applies to the Armata?

Theories, unless tested, are just that - theories.

 

[Akim]

Lose with dignity? This does not apply to Armata? Yes, of course. It does not apply to Armata.

Armata has not yet fought in a war. So, the question of running away from a fight does not arise. Why doesn't Finland, who earned your respect, give Russia a fight? After all, they can stop 300 million strong Red Army, as was claimed. Perhaps then we can see whether this applies to the Armata?

Theories, unless tested, are just that - theories.

You don't understand, because I have never tried it.

 

[pmaitra]

You don't understand, because I have never tried it.

I don't understand (what?) because you have never tried it (what?).

 

[Akim]

I don't understand (what?) because you have never tried it (what?).

Let's go back to the "Armata"?

 

[pmaitra]

Let's go back to the "Armata"?

Glad you decided to get back to the Armata. I am already there. See below:

Lose with dignity? This does not apply to Armata? Yes, of course. It does not apply to Armata.

Armata has not yet fought in a war. So, the question of running away from a fight does not arise. Why doesn't Finland, who earned your respect, give Russia a fight? After all, they can stop 300 million strong Red Army, as was claimed. Perhaps then we can see whether this applies to the Armata?

Theories, unless tested, are just that - theories.

 

[jouni]

What makes @jouni different from the Russians?

The Russians praise their forefathers who won victory. @jouni praises his forefathers who lost the war with Russia. Therein lies the difference.

Is he tired? No. He never will be tired.


Last time you claimed Finland stopped 300 million strong Red Army, when Russia's entire population was less than that. I highly doubt your claims, but ramble away nonetheless.

I guess you have never heard the phrase "figure of speech"? "the guy who jumped me was the size of a house "

 

[pmaitra]

I guess you have never heard the phrase "figure of speech"? "the guy who jumped me was the size of a house "

I assure you, I have. Have you considered that you are not particularly skilled with hyperboles? I am sure you know what it is? A figure of speech.