Russia's T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank

Back on topic...

Russia's New tank reminds me a little of this 1985 Abrams Prototype

Simpleχity;1064515249 said:

Unlike typical Russian tanks, the T-14 has 7 wheels and will supposedly be unveiled in the Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9. 2A82 125mm smooth-bore cannon and 7.62mm remote controlled machine gun. It has video cameras and will feature Malakhit add-on explosive reactive armor, NBC protection, automatic fire suppression systems, a battle-management system, and the new Afganit active protection system. A 2 man crew will sit in an armor-protected capsule in the front. The gun auto-loader (32 rounds) is under the turret and a A-82-2 turbocharged diesel engine (1,500 HP) is in the rear.

Click to expand...

Other then the 2 man crew and unmanned turret (definitely the future of tanks, imo - VERY cool) and the 'new Afganit active protection system'...everything seems a semi-carry over. Basically, it's a T-95 with an auto loading turret.

Why didn't they put the engine in the front and the crew in the back (like the very successful Israeli Merkava)? Much safer for the crew and if they want to develop an APC variant later (which I read they do), having the engine up front would facilitate that GREATLY.
Cost was the reason, I suppose.

Still, a cool tank anyway, imo.

I was reading up on a new tank active protection system being tested by the US. It basically senses where a threat is coming from and forms a field/cloud of plasma as a defensive shield.

Incoming will incinerate before reaching the tank.

First time, fully uncovered image of the Armata T-14 tank, and of few other new goodies.
Source: twower.livejournal.com

Armata T-14 tank


A heavy BMP based on the Armata platform - tank and support vehicle


Koalitsya-SV self-propelled artillery system


Kurganets-25 BMP - infantry transport and fire support vehicle


Fallen.

and lastly, few more uncovered goodies.

Kurganets-25 BTR - infantry transport and fire support vehicle


Bumerang BTR - infantry transport and fire support vehicle


Kornet D1 on a Tiger platform


Fallen.

... for some reason ppl started 2 more threads on the same topic

Anyways, I"ll just update mine with some cool new vids.

T-90 and Armata


Full vid of the Vicory Parade rehearsal - with all the new and old tech.


Fallen.

Some size comparison pics, source: Stealth machines.ru

T-14 Armata (blue lines) vs T-90 1992


T-14 Armata (blue lines) vs Leopard



...and some more T-14 Armata vs T-90 comparison





Fallen.

Fallenangel said:

and lastly, few more uncovered goodies.

Kurganets-25 BTR - infantry transport and fire support vehicle


Bumerang BTR - infantry transport and fire support vehicle


Kornet D1 on a Tiger platform


Fallen.

Click to expand...

Coming soon to a Ukrianian city near you.

Higgins86 said:

Coming soon to a Ukrianian city near you.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, Ukrainians already "burned" so many Armatas/T90s and killed so many "Russian GRU/FSB/VDV/Chechenspetsnaz/Marines/Buryats" that Russia simply doesn't have an army anymore - what you'd see at the parade on the 9th of May are simply robots and cardboard models.


On a more serious note, please keep the butthurt to Ukraine related threads in Europe forum...there are more than enough of those thanks to the efforts of some members here.

Fallen.

Oozlefinch said:

But the problem is...

That the Chinese military equipment is still primarily the same as what they used 30, 20, and even 10 years ago. And it was obsolete way back then as well.

Simple fact, they have gotten lazy and complacent. Luckily for them all of their neighbors are smaller and weaker, so they are still able to intimidate them if they want to because they can overwhelm them by shear numbers. But now they are starting to try and move up to the "big leagues" by intimidating nations that the US actively supports and defends, and that can potentially put them at war with the US.

And Russia is now increasingly hesitant to sell them their top tier equipment. Recent cases of licensing and outright design theft as well as dishonesty in some of their acquisitions have Russia increasingly hesitant to sell their top tier equipment to China. So like the US and USSR-Russia before, they are now reduced to trying to make it for themselves (still often off of copied designs).

But follow the money, fine. Let's see where the World's Money goes to when it wants to buy military equipment, shall we?

Wow, looks like most of the rest of the world tends to share my opinions.

Click to expand...

We need a bigger share. We need to corner the market.

PirateMk1 said:

We need a bigger share. We need to corner the market.

Click to expand...

Actually, I have no problem if a lot of countries decide instead to buy cut-rate equipment.

Makes it a lot easier to destroy in the event that we do have to take them out.

Well... one of the tanks stalled during today's rehearsals.






Only to drive away after the main column passed.
The narrator claimed it to be a "planned tank evacuation drill", but imo the actual reason is that soldiers driving the tank managed to **** things up... because apparently as soon as professional drivers from UralVagonZavod (UVZ) came to the scene they managed to simply drive away.





Fallen.

Higgins86 said:

Coming soon to a Ukrianian city near you.

Click to expand...

Too hard to claim they come from museums, army memorabilia shops, etc.

New Russian Armor – First analysis: Armata

Russian Defense Official Promises Massive New Cannon for Armata Tanks

According to Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, future T-14 Armata tank models would get a 152mm cannon instead of the 125mm they have today.

152mm vs 125mm shell

Source for image: Andrei-bt


Fallen.

Some more size comparison pics Armata T-14 vs. T90A




Source: bmpd
Damn that thing is huge!


Fallen.

Oozlefinch said:

Actually, I have no problem if a lot of countries decide instead to buy cut-rate equipment.

Makes it a lot easier to destroy in the event that we do have to take them out.

Click to expand...

True. Initially.

Modern systems need more maintenance support ammo ect., and in combat need that maintenance, ammo, support, even more so effectiveness falls dramatically. So the question that begs to be asked, what's better to have sold to a military without much of a native defense industry? A lot of cheap fairly easily destroyed things, or a few high tech systems dependent on ammunition, service, and support? Case in point the Russians can sell a whole lot of T-72's that is sell and forget basically, or a few, more sophisticated, T-14 systems that require more sophisticated maintenance, ammo, technical support, ect.

Personally I vote for selling the high tech stuff, for a couple reasons. A, a county of limited means can buy only so many. The more expensive the system the less they can buy. B, by selling maintenance intensive equipment with sophisticated ammunition requirements, you create a dependency and build a relationship. Especially if they think you are giving them a great deal. If you make a enemy a friend, have you not destroyed your enemy? Sun Tzu said it best from the art of war. "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

PirateMk1 said:

True. Initially.

Modern systems need more maintenance support ammo ect., and in combat need that maintenance, ammo, support, even more so effectiveness falls dramatically.

Click to expand...

Yes, and no.

Here, we are really talking about 2 different things. Maintenance (and even more importantly Preventative maintenance), and Logistics. You really can not confuse or combine the two.

Maintenance is really 2 different things, Maintenance (fixing things when they break), and Preventative Maintenance (checking things regularly to either prevent them from breaking, or detecting faults before they become critical failures). Modern equipment is really no more maintenance intensive then older equipment (generational speaking, not age of equipment), so long as proper PM is performed regularly to keep small problems from becoming big problems.

To give an example, a PATRIOT Launcher circa 1981 had a Daily PM requirement of say 20 minutes. A PATRIOT Launcher circa 2010 had a daily PM requirement of say 60 minutes. That is a large difference, but it is more then made up for by the more rapid emplacement and reduction in overhead of other things once done manually that is now done automatically (for example plotting exactly where it is, once done by a surveyors insturment, now done by GPS on the launcher).

But the actual maintenance has not changed in 35 years. Replacing a circuit board, an elevator actuator (the thing that makes the canisters go up and down), or fixing a generator has not changed in decades, no matter how advanced the system has become.

The logistical requirements (missiles, fuel, etc) has not changed at all though. The requirements to keep a piece of equipment battle ready (fuel for the engines/generators, ammo for the launcher/guns/cannons, food and water for the personnel) has not really changed since modern mechanized warfar started in WWII. Be is rounds and gasoline for a Sherman Tank, or diesel and sabot for an M1.

The only time that maintenance becomes a key issue, is if the Preventative Maintenance is not done, or if required repair maintenance is not done. As long as equipment is maintained in a battle-ready condition, the generation of the equipment matters little to be honest. Be it old equipment like 1980's legacy stuff still in use, or more modern systems built in the last 2 decades. But keeping the parts and required supplies flowing is logistical in nature, not tactical or operational.

If a column of T-72s or M-1 tanks fails because the air filters are clogged that is a logistical failure, not a maintenance failure (unless the operators were simply to lazy to blow them out when required, only then is it a maintenance failure).

As a side note, typically more modern systems require less ammunition then older ones. Because they are generally more accurate, so less resupply for expended rounds is typically required. Resupplying a WWII air defense unit was a major undertaking. For a modern one it is much less so, PATRIOT rounds can be air dropped or helo lifted in a matter of hours, and the kill percentage per round is much higher then the older stuff. In WWII, the expected expenditure was tens of thousands of rounds per each kill, with a newer system like PATRIOT it is generally 2 (only because SOP is 2 missiles per target). The same goes for everything else from tanks and aircraft to ships and submarines. Advances in fire control and smart weapons greatly lessens the ordinance that needs to be expended.

PirateMk1 said:

Modern systems need more maintenance support ammo ect., and in combat need that maintenance, ammo, support, even more so effectiveness falls dramatically.

Click to expand...

Now I am going to go a bit further with this, from some personal knowledge.

At the current time, the US military is at one of it's lowest levels of readiness that it has been in for decades. And this goes to the Maintenance-Preventative Maintenance circle I mentioned earlier.

Now every week all active duty units in the military perform Preventative Maintenance (PM) on all equipment that requires it. Be it a tank or cannon to a HMMWV or PATRIOT Launcher. We fill out in the Army the DA-5988 or DA-2404 (ERO or Equipment Repair Order in the Marines) with everything wrong with our equipment, and then the S-4 makes the request for the replacement parts.



This can be everything from a windshield wiper for a truck, to a new barrel for a gun. We notice it is broken-defective-out of tolerance, and we request it to be replaced.

Now say 7 years ago, we generally got it as fast as it could be acquired and shipped to us. Allowing for certain priorities (units overseas got them first, as did units about to go overseas).

In the last 6 years, we have seen things that would have been replaced in days take weeks, and weeks take months. And sometimes it has taken even longer. This is because less money is being spent on replacement parts. And for units that are expected to remain stateside for 2-3 years 9say they just got off of a deployment), they may wait 5-6 months for the replacement parts.

In 2008,we had the previously mentioned Elevator Actuator on a PATRIOT Launcher in my Battery fail, and we had 2 replacement units in 3 weeks (there are 2 per launcher, both are replaced at the same time). In 2011 we had an Elevator Actuator fail on my PATRIOT Launcher. When I left in 2012 (7 months later) they still had not been replaced.

And failure to fix equipment can cause more failures. We had one launcher in my battery that had a faulty Generator. It was throwing excessive voltage, but we could not get the authorization to replace it or dismount it and send it in for depot level maintenance (no money in the budget). So we continued to use it, we had no choice. Then one day it had a critical failure during a PM cycle, the generator caught fire (extinguished quickly), but the voltage spikes caused 10 circuit boards in the launcher to fail. I would guess that was probably $500,000 in damage, because of a $35,000 generator that was not replaced when it should have been.

Probably the biggest challenge our military has is that the PM and replacement for much of our equipment has been put off for 6+ years, because of budget concerns. Each and every unit in the military works off of a budget. Once you reach it, no more maintenance (replacement parts) is given to them. And many times the replacement parts are simply not in the logistical chain, because the military as a whole has not been given the money to purchase them.

Some regular PM items (fuel filters, air filters, tires, etc) is readily available. These are expendables, and are expected to be replaced regularly. But more unusual items (outrigger pads for PATRIOT, gun barrels for an M1, etc) are in short supply, because these have to be ordered by set amounts and currently they are trying to only order what is absolutely required.

Hope this has helped to clairfy some of the actual issues involved. I have worked in both the S-4 (logistics) and the S-3 (operations) sections of combat Battalions, so have a good idea what is involved in both of these fields.