They should give it a proper launch. Hand one to Pierce Brosnan and have him flatten half of St Petersburg in it.
Secret Russian T-14 Armata Tank Revealed
- Thread starter NoShoes
- Start date
Well my first thought here was that I imagine these will be heading into Poland soon. Russia moves into Ukraine, the western world does nothing. Russia seizes control of the Black Sea, the rest of the world does nothing. Poland goes "holy crap they are on our borders again, this never ends well" and begins military exercises, Russia unveils a new tank for ground combat.
Oh and for those who have decent long term memory you might remember the US has missile interception technology it developed in violation of previous agreements with the USSR (which no longer exists) which makes the old MAD equasion more or less irrelevant. During the invasion of Georgia there was a lot about this because Poland plays host to US missile interception bases in order to keep the East penned in. Russia said flat out if Poland kept that base they were going to attack it, nuking Poland in retaliation if necessary. Here we are a few years later and Russia is right on the border and rolling out new armor which it's now in a position to deliver due to controlling the Black Sea. This is a big part of why the US and EU should have sent troops to Ukraine, not just because we promised we wouldn't let Russia take control like they wound up doing, but also because if Russia regained control of The Black Sea they would be more difficult to contain. Of course true to form Europe's major powers are refusing to do anything until they are getting clobbered and have people right on their borders, and with our current anti-military leadership the US wasn't about to do anything either. As a result another one of our closest allies is being menaced again... but hey, that's part for the course right now, we're letting China build military bases in Filipino territory while harassing their shipping vessels, and sail navies around Japanese island territory. With Obama at the helm (love him or hate him) nobody can rely on us to honor our alliances and he can't even keep Kim Jong Un in line, so honestly what are real countries worried about.
Right now I can virtually guarantee that if Russia doesn't move on Poland within Obama's presidency, it will probably do so during the next presidency if we have another anti-military liberal in charge, and really Poland is one of those countries that has backed us on a lot of things, and whom we should be there for 100%. We should never have let Russia get into a position to menace their borders this way.
With everything going on, I take the new tank as a sort of statement of intent. I doubt it will find it's way into the hands of Ukrainian militants simply because Russia never really wanted Ukraine specifically, it wants control of the Black Sea via Crimea which is what it already has. As long as it has that kind of control it's happy, it's all a means to an end, it doesn't have to directly control the entirety of Ukraine to unbottle itself.
Oh and for those who have decent long term memory you might remember the US has missile interception technology it developed in violation of previous agreements with the USSR (which no longer exists) which makes the old MAD equasion more or less irrelevant. During the invasion of Georgia there was a lot about this because Poland plays host to US missile interception bases in order to keep the East penned in. Russia said flat out if Poland kept that base they were going to attack it, nuking Poland in retaliation if necessary. Here we are a few years later and Russia is right on the border and rolling out new armor which it's now in a position to deliver due to controlling the Black Sea. This is a big part of why the US and EU should have sent troops to Ukraine, not just because we promised we wouldn't let Russia take control like they wound up doing, but also because if Russia regained control of The Black Sea they would be more difficult to contain. Of course true to form Europe's major powers are refusing to do anything until they are getting clobbered and have people right on their borders, and with our current anti-military leadership the US wasn't about to do anything either. As a result another one of our closest allies is being menaced again... but hey, that's part for the course right now, we're letting China build military bases in Filipino territory while harassing their shipping vessels, and sail navies around Japanese island territory. With Obama at the helm (love him or hate him) nobody can rely on us to honor our alliances and he can't even keep Kim Jong Un in line, so honestly what are real countries worried about.
Right now I can virtually guarantee that if Russia doesn't move on Poland within Obama's presidency, it will probably do so during the next presidency if we have another anti-military liberal in charge, and really Poland is one of those countries that has backed us on a lot of things, and whom we should be there for 100%. We should never have let Russia get into a position to menace their borders this way.
With everything going on, I take the new tank as a sort of statement of intent. I doubt it will find it's way into the hands of Ukrainian militants simply because Russia never really wanted Ukraine specifically, it wants control of the Black Sea via Crimea which is what it already has. As long as it has that kind of control it's happy, it's all a means to an end, it doesn't have to directly control the entirety of Ukraine to unbottle itself.
That's what they've always been doing, and funnily enough the Americans too in WW2. But these days the Americans have taken Nazi Germany's tanks design philosophy. You'd think they'd know better, as they freakin' -beat- Nazi Germany with the opposite.K-lusive said:
When you have the luxury of air superiority and strategic bombing of enemy heavy industry, tank design philosophy is not very decisive. The question isn't really decided.Cowabungaa said:
I was referring to the conditions in WW2. German tank design philosophy was not why they lost.Charcharo said:
And as for Shermans and Sherman Fireflies vs Panzers and Tigers, you're a lot more likely to be going home in a body bag (all other things being equal) on the Allied side of that equation. Crew survival was not the main strength of the Sherman, mass production was.
Charcharo said:The tanks that fought monkey models, were largely on the defensive, and had better logistical support, tactics and strategy.P-89 Scorpion said:Manual loading is faster and gives more options for shell loading which is why USA and UK tanks still use manual loaders even though Russian tanks have had autoloaders since the T-64 from the 1960's (guess which tanks have more combat victories).K.ur said:I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.Charcharo said:Which is strange as the Leopard 2's best models are superior to the American machines, and the best T-90 models too were superior to the Abrams (this is according to the Russians and I dare agree this time, the T-90 > Abrams)...
OT: The tower seems small. Wiki* says a lot more automatization than before, maybe a 2 man crew?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform
The T-90 is already superior to the M1A2. So is the Leopard... and the Leclerc... and the K2... and the Type 10...BoogieManFL said:
The T-90 already is closer to a "force field".Pr0 said:
The T-90 already activates rockets before they reach it. Something the Abrams cant do
Which is strange as they also say that the T-90 is superior to the Abrams and on par with the Leopard.freakonaleash said:
A claim I think holds true...
Never.Fijiman said:
Tier 9 Armored Warfare though.
The AN-94 Abakans (Special Forces weapon of the Russians) was already seen in Crimea. That is a state of the art ultra high class weapon.008Zulu said:
Reports of it in the rebels exist. Wont surprise me.
On those tanks being superior, many experts disagree with you. And I think most of us will believe them over you.
And if some of them are, it's not by much despite the Abrams design being like 3 decades old and as I said their replacement is well underway. It's also more battle proven than other other tanks and the crews them most experienced. Something to consider, at least.
I can define many by pointing out military shows, reports, and even simple googling but you can do that yourself.Charcharo said:Define "many"BoogieManFL said:Charcharo said:The tanks that fought monkey models, were largely on the defensive, and had better logistical support, tactics and strategy.P-89 Scorpion said:Manual loading is faster and gives more options for shell loading which is why USA and UK tanks still use manual loaders even though Russian tanks have had autoloaders since the T-64 from the 1960's (guess which tanks have more combat victories).K.ur said:I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.Charcharo said:Which is strange as the Leopard 2's best models are superior to the American machines, and the best T-90 models too were superior to the Abrams (this is according to the Russians and I dare agree this time, the T-90 > Abrams)
OT: The tower seems small. Wiki* says a lot more automatization than before, maybe a 2 man crew?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform
The T-90 is already superior to the M1A2. So is the Leopard... and the Leclerc... and the K2... and the Type 10...BoogieManFL said:
The T-90 already is closer to a "force field".Pr0 said:
The T-90 already activates rockets before they reach it. Something the Abrams cant do
Which is strange as they also say that the T-90 is superior to the Abrams and on par with the Leopard.freakonaleash said:
A claim I think holds true...
Never.Fijiman said:
Tier 9 Armored Warfare though.
The AN-94 Abakans (Special Forces weapon of the Russians) was already seen in Crimea. That is a state of the art ultra high class weapon.008Zulu said:
Reports of it in the rebels exist. Wont surprise me.
On those tanks being superior, many experts disagree with you. And I think most of us will believe them over you.
And if some of them are, it's not by much despite the Abrams design being like 3 decades old and as I said their replacement is well underway.
There ARE experts that disagree and call the Abrams the best. But they are not really the majority.
HOWEVER! You do have to understand that all modern tanks are QUITE close.
Even if the Abrams is inferior to the Leopard overall, or the T-90, it would STILL be *more* then able to win engagements with them. The differences in these machines mostly amount to crew training, tactics, strategy and luck. That is what would decide battles between all of the mentioned vehicles.
Also there is a difference in design. The T-90 is an assault tank, the Abrams is a defensive one (MAINLY!).
So comparing vehicles that are so close is actually quite hard. Even if your country's Abrams tank is "inferior" it is still quite close and deadly.
Typically I see the Abrams in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on specifics on rating. The higher ones when judged more on real combat tested platforms. Most commonly 2nd or 3rd, which is good for such an aged design which has seen many upgrades over the years. Not at the bottom like you labeled it.
But all things considered (and a little off topic) the fact they are the most combat proven and experienced crews would make me bet on them over any others in current operation. Also (according to most estimates) the Abrams is a very large portion of the US tank arsenal (over 6000), where for example Russia's most common tank by far is the aged T-72 (4000-5000) and only a small number of them are kept in service. Virtually all Abrams are service and are not mothballed.
So while Russia may have more tanks, most of them aren't even in service and are older, lesser designs. I guess that massive US defense budget is going somewhere.
From what I understand the engine is an issue, but one cool thing is how it can utilize so many different things as fuel. But from what I read it is a difficult thing to maintain and support.Charcharo said:Yes, the fact that the Abrams has seen battle, even against inferior equipment and monkey models, is a fact. And it is a pro showing how good the design was for its day. It STILL is competitive. Maybe inferior to newer designs, but VERY close.BoogieManFL said:I can define many by pointing out military shows, reports, and even simple googling but you can do that yourself.Charcharo said:Define "many"BoogieManFL said:Charcharo said:The tanks that fought monkey models, were largely on the defensive, and had better logistical support, tactics and strategy.P-89 Scorpion said:Manual loading is faster and gives more options for shell loading which is why USA and UK tanks still use manual loaders even though Russian tanks have had autoloaders since the T-64 from the 1960's (guess which tanks have more combat victories).K.ur said:I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.Charcharo said:Which is strange as the Leopard 2's best models are superior to the American machines, and the best T-90 models too were superior to the Abrams (this is according to the Russians and I dare agree this time, the T-90 > Abrams)
OT: The tower seems small. Wiki* says a lot more automatization than before, maybe a 2 man crew?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform
The T-90 is already superior to the M1A2. So is the Leopard... and the Leclerc... and the K2... and the Type 10...BoogieManFL said:
The T-90 already is closer to a "force field".Pr0 said:
The T-90 already activates rockets before they reach it. Something the Abrams cant do
Which is strange as they also say that the T-90 is superior to the Abrams and on par with the Leopard.freakonaleash said:
A claim I think holds true...
Never.Fijiman said:
Tier 9 Armored Warfare though.
The AN-94 Abakans (Special Forces weapon of the Russians) was already seen in Crimea. That is a state of the art ultra high class weapon.008Zulu said:
Reports of it in the rebels exist. Wont surprise me.
On those tanks being superior, many experts disagree with you. And I think most of us will believe them over you.
And if some of them are, it's not by much despite the Abrams design being like 3 decades old and as I said their replacement is well underway.
There ARE experts that disagree and call the Abrams the best. But they are not really the majority.
HOWEVER! You do have to understand that all modern tanks are QUITE close.
Even if the Abrams is inferior to the Leopard overall, or the T-90, it would STILL be *more* then able to win engagements with them. The differences in these machines mostly amount to crew training, tactics, strategy and luck. That is what would decide battles between all of the mentioned vehicles.
Also there is a difference in design. The T-90 is an assault tank, the Abrams is a defensive one (MAINLY!).
So comparing vehicles that are so close is actually quite hard. Even if your country's Abrams tank is "inferior" it is still quite close and deadly.
Typically I see the Abrams in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on specifics on rating. The higher ones when judged more on real combat tested platforms. Most commonly 2nd or 3rd, which is good for such an aged design which has seen many upgrades over the years. Not at the bottom like you labeled it.
But all things considered (and a little off topic) the fact they are the most combat proven and experienced crews would make me bet on them over any others in current operation. Also the Abrams is a very large portion of the US tank arsenal (over 6000), where for example Russia's most common tank by far is the aged T-72 (4000-5000) and only a small number of them are kept in service. Virtually all Abrams are service and are not mothballed.
So while Russia may have more tanks, most of them aren't even in service and are older, lesser designs. I guess that massive US defense budget is going somewhere.
The only REALLY shitty thing on the Abrams is its engine. The rest is STILL competitive.
The T-72 is an aged MBT. It is inferior to the upgraded Abrams tanks. Do know, however that the Russians have real, upgraded models of it firing high quality munitions... so it CAN technically destroy and Abrams frontally. Not like the ones the US army has encountered so far.
"So while Russia may have more tanks,"
Russia has less tanks then the US. The T-90SM is what I am talking about.
"I guess that massive US defense budget is going somewhere."
I already explained where a PART of the budget is going.
Also, the Abrams is NOT the most expensive tank if cost/budget is what you consider to be "proof". The Leclerc is a lot more expensive.
As for the T-72, sure some have been upgraded but there are like 1000-1200 in service. Lesser tanks before and after upgrades and if I recall from.. somewhere.. their effective engagement ranges are shorter and they can't fire as quickly or as well on the move, but I could be remembering that wrong.
Russia has more tanks the US, but the vast majority are aged designs and are in storage.
I never said it was the most expensive, nor that alone as a reason for saying it's good. Makes more sense to have the best tank you can get for the cost, and I have no idea what the cost effectiveness per current gen tank models are. But they've gotten their money's worth as very few have been destroyed in combat. Helps to offset the logistical support a bit I'd imagine.
This is straying more and more off topic, but experience is a vital factor and no other tank has seen the amount of real action. Their training is very good, and the support they operate with is second to none. So it's not so easy to take something that is but one part of a larger machine and judge it's effectiveness because that isn't how they operate in the real world.
The only consistent advantage American tanks had in early WWII is numbers and cost, I really don't think, "let's just drown our enemy in bodies and men" is a philosophy that will win us any modern wars. Even then, it's an advantage we still largely have with the Abrams just due to the sheer size of the American military, it's a lot easier and cheaper to build a Sherman than an Abrams, but the tank has also fallen out of favor in most of our modern military doctrine, if anything, from what I've heard American generals telling congress, we have too many tanks. We have over a 1000 of the things just sitting mothballed in an Army depot outside of Reno, Nevada, the military shouldn't be looking to mass produced disposable hardware in this day and age. WWII isn't going to happen again because a war that size will provoke a nuclear response, aping our strategies from WWII would just result in unnecessary death.Cowabungaa said:
I'm not sure what your point is about following German design, the WWII panzers had problems with slave production, too many different models that couldn't share parts between each other, and overspecialization, that is not something the current U.S. Abrams tanks have though, the Abrams is a comparatively sturdy and cheap design (by modern standards), and has modular parts that allow it to be more easily upgraded and brought back into service. The current problem with U.S. tanks is special interests forcing the military to buy more when they don't currently use the ones they have. Due to the highly mobile nature of current American military doctrine, infantry advance far faster under air support than they do waiting for tank columns to show up.
The U.S. isn't following German WWII tank design philosophy, it's just wasting too much money on equipment it doesn't need, the Germans produced tanks that were great at what they did, but they were hard to produce and repair, and there were too many wildly different models in a short time frame, the U.S. Abrams is far closer to the Sherman in design philosophy: modular, relatively cheap, and easily interchangeable parts among a singular design. As far as a replacement to the Abrams goes, the military has halted most of those projects, as again, it doesn't see the need for MBTs in modern American doctrine, the Abrams is expected to last, with intermittent upgrades, until around 2050.
And the U.S never did. The German design philosophy emphasized speed and range in the build up to WW2, and once it became obvious that speed was not an alternative to armor the Germans simply didn't have any form of coherent philosophy regarding their tanks. They kept upgrading the Panzer IV in a hodgepodge fashion, demanding improvements whenever the PIV faced new circumstances or weapons (upgrading armor and gun in response to the T-34, upgrading the gearbox to improve reliability and reduce breakdowns post-Kursk etc.), but they also introduced the Tiger without having any actual doctrinal use for it despite its' supposed superiority in firepower and armor. On top of that was the Panther, which is best described as the result of croneyism within the Nazi party, as the Panther itself never lived up to its' reputation and was a good tank killer tank in a situation when Germany desperately needed multi-purpose medium tanks. It is telling that the most effective armored vehicles of Germany during WW2 turned out to be its' assault guns, because they were designed to be adequate in all situations.EternallyBored said:
Which is really how the US has been designing all of its' Medium tanks/MBTs since the Sherman. The M4, M48, M60 and M1 have never been clearly superior to their opposition, and cases can be made against the M48 and the M60 as clearly inferior to the T-55 and T-64/72 they were expected to face, but they have all possessed a versatility and capability to fulfill their designated roles within the US military doctrine. The M1 in the 80's was projected to be on par with the T-80 and the US really considered that good enough, the reason it is considered a world class tank today is that it has been significantly and continually improved in the last 30 years, whereas the T-80 hasn't. The M1A2 of today is one of the best tanks in the world, but it is so mostly because it has no significant competition to the title, not because it is an example of a overpriced and over-engineered "quality before quantity"-mindset. The M1 as originally designed was a medium priced tank intended to be a direct upgrade from the M60, not as the ultimate MBT of its' generation, it just ended up being that anyway.
M1 Abrams is still superior. But I'm biased. Tanker for life, 10th AD, patch on my soldier.
Anyway interesting and somewhat impressive but I don't think it will hold up as Russian engineering tends to try too hard for overpowering and leaves a weakness in agility, which tanks need for survivability. I don't know exactly what the specs are though so I can't rightly comment but if they're going by their previous designs, it may be powerful but its also got glaring weaknesses.
Plus we have the A10 Tank-killer... I love that plane.
Anyway interesting and somewhat impressive but I don't think it will hold up as Russian engineering tends to try too hard for overpowering and leaves a weakness in agility, which tanks need for survivability. I don't know exactly what the specs are though so I can't rightly comment but if they're going by their previous designs, it may be powerful but its also got glaring weaknesses.
Plus we have the A10 Tank-killer... I love that plane.
