Secret Russian T-14 Armata Tank Revealed

[NoShoes]

Secret Russian T-14 Armata Tank Revealed

New tank will replace Russian Federation's T-72 and T-90 tanks.

Technology marches on, and given the turmoil over in Russia, it seems logical that that technology comes in the form of new armor for the battlefield.

The Russian Federation's T-14 Armata tank, which was developed by the same company that manufactured the Russian Federation's T-72 and T-90 models has been unveiled. According to International Business Times [http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-top-secret-tank-unveiled-armored-vehicle-purportedly-filmed-first-time-1858106], the new T-14 will replace the older models as Russia's main battle tank.

[gallery=3957]

The heavy armor has a bit of a different look than the previous models.

"This is the least Russian-looking Russian tank I've ever seen," said a Russian defense expert, speaking to The Escapist on condition of anonymity. "But the photo leak suggests we'll see substantial numbers of T-14 prototypes in May, as the Russian military had previously stated. There was a rumor there would only be three T-14s in the Victory Day parade."

In an opinion piece run on Russian state-owned Sputnik News [http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150324/1019956133.html], the T-14 was classified as "on par" with the German Leopard 2 and the American M1A2 Abrams tank, which are currently the most advanced models run by each country.

Blogger YouTube user Alexander Smirnov's video [http://www.gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/03/14_24.html] supposedly showing the new T-14 tank.


What are your thoughts on the new T-14 tank?

Source: International Business Times [http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-top-secret-tank-unveiled-armored-vehicle-purportedly-filmed-first-time-1858106]


Permalink

 

[gigastar]

What are your thoughts on the new T-14 tank?

How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Seriously though, i dont quite know what i can say about it, since both its specs and those of its competitors are at least partially classified.

 

[D3s_ToD3s]

How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Why would they hand out the newest weapon to anyone?
More likely scenario: They sell the older variants to anyone willing to pay. (possibly including some eastern uropean warzones)

 

[Westaway]

Where is the Russian megalomania? That thing is a normal size.

 

[Made in China]

This looks very unconventional for a tank, honestly.
First of all, there is no visible fume extractor - which means that it either A. doesn't exist or B. extracts fumes from the gun's base. Seeing as B is extremely inefficient as it negates a major part of the gun's power, I'd say it leans more towards A - but that would make the turret and the connecting hull part (mainly the driver's compartment) incredibly toxic. Meaning it would be manned entirely from the hull while the turret would have only electronic control systems and an automatic loader - similarly to the Object 95 design.
It also has a very low profile turret, which is very, very good - but it's almost negated by its long hull - meaning it would still be exposed in warfare that takes place in hills or any other non-bunkered positions. That would mean it would be ideal for fortifying defenses, but not so much when going on the offensive and using natural cover.
The hull design and its size relative to the turret, including the supposed placement of the entire crew inside it, make it very vulnerable (without taking into account the tank's armor).
I can't really comment on the tank's armament, but it seems like it couldn't have some of the more exotic capabilities, such as a mortar launcher and a non-axial machine gun, so it should fare badly in close quarters situations.

This is my analysis of it, anyhow. I don't think it would be a major improvement over modern tanks like the Leopard 2 or the M1A2 Abrams in asymmetrical warfare, but it's definitely a different approach - so that may lead to new tanks designs in the future.

 

[DSK-]

This looks very unconventional for a tank, honestly.
First of all, there is no visible fume extractor - which means that it either A. doesn't exist or B. extracts fumes from the gun's base. Seeing as B is extremely inefficient as it negates a major part of the gun's power, I'd say it leans more towards A - but that would make the turret and the connecting hull part (mainly the driver's compartment) incredibly toxic. Meaning it would be manned entirely from the hull while the turret would have only electronic control systems and an automatic loader - similarly to the Object 95 design.
It also has a very low profile turret, which is very, very good - but it's almost negated by its long hull - meaning it would still be exposed in warfare that takes place in hills or any other non-bunkered positions. That would mean it would be ideal for fortifying defenses, but not so much when going on the offensive and using natural cover.
The hull design and its size relative to the turret, including the supposed placement of the entire crew inside it, make it very vulnerable (without taking into account the tank's armor).
I can't really comment on the tank's armament, but it seems like it couldn't have some of the more exotic capabilities, such as a mortar launcher and a non-axial machine gun, so it should fare badly in close quarters situations.

This is my analysis of it, anyhow. I don't think it would be a major improvement over modern tanks like the Leopard 2 or the M1A2 Abrams in asymmetrical warfare, but it's definitely a different approach - so that may lead to new tanks designs in the future.

That is what I thought. On Wikipedia it says:

The "Armata" Universal Combat Platform is a Russian prototype of an advanced next generation heavy military tracked vehicle platform. The "Armata" platform is intended to be the basis for a main battle tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, a combat engineering vehicle, an armoured recovery vehicle, a heavy armoured personnel carrier, a tank support combat vehicle and several types of self-propelled artillery under the same codename based on the same chassis. It is also intended to serve as the basis for artillery, air defense, and NBC defense systems.

So that explains a few of the issues I had with what I could see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

 

[K.ur]

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) ...

I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.

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

 

[Major_Tom]

I assume it was designed to take on T-72s and T-84s (hint, hint), which is why it looks so different from the T-90 which is basically a modernised T-72. Anyway, I think traditional MBTs are becoming largely obsolete, the "great tank battles" are a thing of the past and IFVs and hybrids like the Merkava are more useful in modern urban warfare.

 

[P-89 Scorpion]

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) ...

I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.

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

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).

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Handing out arms like this would kinda punch a hole in the plausible deniability thing he has going on right now.

 

[Karadalis]

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) ...

I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.

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

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).

Same reason the german leopard has manual loading. A well trained crew can load shells faster then any autoloader.. plus the mentioned flexibility in choice of ammunition comes to mind.

I have a hard time taking any russian tanks serious thought since they simply lack the technology to keep up with modern western designs. What good is a brand new tank when all rival tanks can hit you more reliably due to better targeting technology?

Russia has no high tech sector to speak off and now with heavy sanctions where will they get any computer systems worth a damn for a combat vehicle?

In this day and age with tanks all over the world having comparable armaments its more important then ever to be the first to shoot and land a hit... and in that department the russians have ALLWAYS... even since WW2 times lacked behind everyone else.

So without a decent targeting system all this new tank will be good for is beating down countries that dont have much of an army to speak of anyways... like former sowjet states for example.

 

[FalloutJack]

How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Handing out arms like this would kinda punch a hole in the plausible deniability thing he has going on right now.

If it were plausible, that is. All I see is a man with cold war joneses

 

[Zontar]

How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Why would they hand out the newest weapon to anyone?
More likely scenario: They sell the older variants to anyone willing to pay. (possibly including some eastern uropean warzones)

Why would that be the case? After all everyone knows you can get a T-14 at any military surplus store.

 

[gigastar]

How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Handing out arms like this would kinda punch a hole in the plausible deniability thing he has going on right now.

As if it hadnt already been perforated by the multitudes of Russian military personell who happened to be "on leave" in Ukraine.

 

[Strazdas]

Where is the Russian megalomania? That thing is a normal size.

Thats germany actually.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav

Note the words: largest ever built

 

[BoogieManFL]

M1A2 replacement already well underway, so that won't be our best for much longer.

 

[freakonaleash]

Are you kidding me? OF COURSE the russian news media said it was "on par" with the leopard and abrams.

 

[Fijiman]

My question is how long before we can drive it in World of Tanks?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Are you kidding me? OF COURSE the russian news media said it was "on par" with the leopard and abrams.

Every military says that about all their shit, or more often they will say their shit is the greatest shit that has ever been shat.

Anyway knowing how these things are made "all new" it probably has about 95% of the same parts their current stuff has. Not sure what the Russian defense expert was looking at but that T-14 form looks almost identical to a T-90 without side skirts.