Weapons of 2017- M1A3/T-99

[danzig5]

Sadly few facts are known about T-14, but to say it has the potential to equal M1A2SEPv2 is high praise (especially coming from me), as it is still shrouded in secrecy.

[Nerdwing]

The biggest problem with Armata is that T-14 just isnt a cool name.  You blew your chance for a T-100, Russia.  Ya blew it

[danzig5]

The biggest problem with Armata is that T-14 just isnt a cool name.  You blew your chance for a T-100, Russia.  Ya blew it

T-1000. Straight up. All the way. Liquid metal.

[ikalugin]

Sadly few facts are known about T-14, but to say it has the potential to equal M1A2SEPv2 is high praise (especially coming from me), as it is still shrouded in secrecy.

The known facts amongst other things are:

- gun type used and it's approx capabilities (I did mention 20+ percent advantage over the L55 muzle energy wise, didn't I?).

- general layout, which improves the armour protection compared to the previous tanks by its own virtue, even without the new technologies being added.

Sure there may be no precise figures for the protection levels for example, but there is sufficient information to make conclusions on how it compares to known Russian designs and thus by extension - to Western ones.

Edited January 15, 2015 by ikalugin

[Nerdwing]

I assume the new gun is GLATGM compatible as well?  Are any new missile designs planned to take advantage of the new gun's allowed dimensions?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Until the tank is clattering down the road in a normal combat unit, I think it's pretty hard to make many statements about its capabilities with confidence.  Which again is why I'm pretty leery about including it or the M1A3 in game. 

 

Re: M1A2 SEP V2

 

Calling it a 1991 tank is inaccurate.  It has at least as many difference between the current generation of T-90s and the late 80's T-72s, and the 1991 era M1A1HAs.  Same basic layout, same gun and engine, the rest has been changed or pretty well worked over in the last 20+ years.

[A Canadian Cat]

Morever, the move to get everything out of turret means that there is no need for turret to have heavy duty armour protection it would require otherwise. This in turn allows to move all the armour from the turret down into the hull, increasing the armoured protection of hull (where the critical components such as crew and ammo are) per same mass/technology level. Hence due to the new layout (not to mentioned improved armour technology) - Armata is expected to have very strong protection within the safe angles of manuever.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of designs that increase crew protection. These do seem like good ideas. However if the turret is not well protected then hits up there will make the vehicle combat ineffective, which is not a good thing.

[A Canadian Cat]

Sure there may be no precise figures for the protection levels for example, but there is sufficient information to make conclusions on how it compares to known Russian designs and thus by extension - to Western ones.

at least 24 (LRIP vehicles) have already been produced. This year full scale production of Armata begins, as well as of other items (such as Kurganets IFV).

So, prototypes exist and production is slated to start soon but we don't have any info on dimensions or protection. I take it that is because things are still classified. 

 

The funds are already allocated (under GPV 2020 program),

The Canadian air force is supposed to be getting F35s and the funds are approved too. Frankly with the price of oil on its way down (already talk of having to reduce the Federal Government's budget by multiple Billion dollars) I'll believe it when I see F35s do a fly pass on Canada Day.

Don't get me wrong I think the new tank project is very interesting and I look forward to your armed forces having new toys to play with. I'm just not sure they will be rolling around quite as soon as we all hope.

[ikalugin]

Panzerkrautwerfer, this is why I have explicitely asked to state the version discussed. When talking about M1A2 you are talking about the 1991 vintage tank, not the more modern version of it.

This is also why I have viewed the post as potentially inflammatory - as it implied a comparison between a 2015 vintage and 1991 vintage tanks.

Edited January 15, 2015 by ikalugin

[ikalugin]

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of designs that increase crew protection. These do seem like good ideas. However if the turret is not well protected then hits up there will make the vehicle combat ineffective, which is not a good thing.

There is nothing in the "turret" warranting armoured protection, because everything in it (scope apertures, primary and secondary armament) is not possible to protect frontaly with armour as it would impede their functionality (ie scope apertures could not see through armour). Edited January 15, 2015 by ikalugin

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Well there was no 1991 vintage M1A2 to speak of, which is rather why you cannot be speaking of 1991 era M1A2s. To that end even the 1993 vintage of M1A2 has been completely replaced largely by the SEP V1, which in turn in the process of being replaced by the SEP V2.

 

Not really sharp shooting, just the M1A2 model in question for CMBS is the M1A2 SEP V2 which is a lot to type out every time you mention it.  If the SEP V1 or just baseline A2 was in the game, I could see your point though.

[danzig5]

I wish we had protection figures for the third generation DU armor on the SEPv2, the visible increase in the frontal turret armor thickness makes me thick it would be pretty significant.

[ikalugin]

My point about clearly stating the vehicle types compared still stands, as M1A2 is still an M1A2 and not M1A2 SEP V2.

And comparing M1A2 (not prototyped by 1991? Ok) with Armata is still fairly inflammatory in my opinion.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The M1A2's first prototypes were 1992 by my understanding, with 1993 being low rate production.  

 

I think we're both making a bigger deal out of this than we need to.  The M1A2 SEP V2 is very commonly called the M1A2 (just the same as the M1A2 SEP was very frequently just the "M1A2").  I think on this board talking about a game that only has the M1A2 SEP V2, and with the planned US Army of 2017 having chiefly M1A2 SEP V2s, we can just assume for future discussion without qualifiers like we're actually talking about tanks in 1995, that M1A2 means M1A2 SEP V2 on this forum.

 

Anyway.   On topic.  If there's a sudden burst of information on the Armata, or M1A3 prototypes roll out of the factor in Lima Ohio in the next 2 years or so (given the spread of CMSF's module release), perhaps having them as special addition for the last module (RU Tank Battalion (T-14)/US CAB 2017 formations, or the ability to upgrade individual tanks at some cost when assembling forces to T-14/M1A3s), but right now I'm just getting flashbacks to having T-95s rolling around in iM1A2, which always felt somewhat silly in retrospect.  

[Stagler]

The reason I say bustle autoloader is safer and more efficient is thus. You are thinking of the safety of the ammunition - I am thinking of the safety of the crew.

If autoloader is placed within the hull, the round has to get from the hull to the chamber within the vehicle. Which is a longer distance to travel and requires more machinery to do so.

 

Lets hope the T-14 has dazzle protected optics otherwise the whole thing will be rendered ineffective by virtue of the crew only having digital access to weapon optics - another troublesome idea.

[dan/california]

 

 

Lets hope the T-14 has dazzle protected optics otherwise the whole thing will be rendered ineffective by virtue of the crew only having digital access to weapon optics - another troublesome idea.

Auto canon rounds are occasionally nettlesome in this regard as well.

[A Canadian Cat]

There is nothing in the "turret" warranting armoured protection, because everything in it (scope apertures, primary and secondary armament) is not possible to protect frontaly with armour as it would impede their functionality (ie scope apertures could not see through armour).

I see what you mean. I was thinking more of the internal bits for loading shells etc. I guess if you make the turret small enough that the weapons and scopes etc are the majority of the size then that holds. It is a different way of looking at things. It takes the roof mounted remote MG / small cannon to the next level. It will be very interesting to see what things look like.

[Sgt Joch]

On "Armata", still too little is known to determine its capabilities. Despite rumors, leaks, "official" announcements, we still have no definitive final design and no hard production date.

 

In 2008, front line units in the Georgia war were still using T-62s. Russia only got around to re-equipping every tank unit with at least T72B3s  recently.

 

Will Russia be able to debug, mass produce and equip its forces with a next generation of Tanks by 2020, i.e. in 5 years? I have serious reservations.

 

 

[ikalugin]

On "Armata", still too little is known to determine its capabilities. Despite rumors, leaks, "official" announcements, we still have no definitive final design and no hard production date.

 

In 2008, front line units in the Georgia war were still using T-62s. Russia only got around to re-equipping every tank unit with at least T72B3s  recently.

 

Will Russia be able to debug, mass produce and equip its forces with a next generation of Tanks by 2020, i.e. in 5 years? I have serious reservations.

Before 2008 Russian Armed Forces did not receive major batches of equipment (tanks included), even though development process was active at the time (new T80U derivatives and mods, T72B mods, T90 derivatives and mods). Post 2007 there were 2 large programs introduced - GPV2015 and more ambitious GPV2020.

 

Under those programs rearmament, specifically rearmament of Ground Forces has began with the then available equipment types (T90A, BMP3 and so on), upgrades to existing weapons (T72B variants, development and installation of new C3 systems) as well as development of new generation equipment types  (Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang).

 

Under separate programs the companies (and factories) selected for producing those new items of equipment received money for retooling (mostly complete pre Ukrainian events). Because those new items of equipment were expected soon (production beginning in 2015) the decision was made to save money and procure various upgrades (such as the T72B3) to keep the manufacturers funded and their workforce in place.

 

   Note, that the rearmament went by the MD, first was the Southern MD (received T72B(A), T90A, BMP3 and other such items, it's rearmament could be viewed as essentially complete), now the Western MD was rearmed (with the T72B3 and other items), then the Eastern MD was intended to receive new arms (Armatas - and new line up in general), then the Central MD.

   VDV did not receive much in terms of new gear (they did get the new C3 equipment, plus a small number of new vehicles, but that's it), due to the shift of "small elite nucleus" to the "all round excellence" concept of Armed Forces.

 

Thus, barring some horrible accident happening, I doubt that the production of the new generation of vehicles would be postponed, as the factories have already retooled for their production, definitive variant reached and funds for the said production were already allocated. That said I could not discount the possibility that Armata (and other new vehicles) could evolve a lot during their production and initial service, a practice quite common for the Soviets for example.

[nsKb]

I'll believe it when I see it, the Russian arms industry has a long and storied history of vaporware. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I'll believe it when I see it, the Russian arms industry has a long and storied history of vaporware

 

It's the best kind of vaporware though.  Usually strongly implied to have a scary sounding thing that will destroy all other things, the prototype's only known photo is by the same man who takes pictures of the loch ness monster, the weapons system will enter service sometime next year starting FY 97, and will be only 2% of the cost of an M16A2.  

[ikalugin]

I'll believe it when I see it, the Russian arms industry has a long and storied history of vaporware. 

That industry did not receive any significant domestic arms orders prior to the GPV2015/2020.

[DreDay]

   VDV did not receive much in terms of new gear (they did get the new C3 equipment, plus a small number of new vehicles, but that's it), due to the shift of "small elite nucleus" to the "all round excellence" concept of Armed Forces.

 

While I agree with most of your post that shows solid research and analysis; it should be noted that Russian VDV units had gone through a major upgrade of BMD-1s (which had probably made up around 50% of their IFVs till 2008) to BMD-2 standards. That upgrade alone has significantly increased the capacity of VDV units. At the same time, I would certainly agree that the purchases of new VDV weapon platforms (i.e. BDM-4, Rakushka, 2S25) have been very limited up untill now. It would certainly be interesting to see how much the Russians can invest in the manufacture of these new platforms in the next few years...