Armata soon to be in service.

[akd]

Well, we surely need to see T-14 first.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

And know what it does with some level of credibility. I'm sure whatever armor it has according to the Russians can defeat smaller nuclear explosions and resist Captain America's sheild but combat mission thus far has well modeled what we know about vehicles vs propoganda claims.

[mikeCK]

Lol. Yeah. I'm sure US weapons designers are trembling at the new "Robotech/voltron robot tank which will inevitably reek havoc on the battlefield along with its uncanny ability to defeat any anti tank missle and I'm sure deflect DU sabot rounds.

[MikeyD]

Just looking at the 3-D model I don't see much redundancy. The rotating camera mast goes down for any reason and you've got three guys sitting in the hull with nothing to do. I understand Stryker MGS has had constant problems with its overhead rotating camera. Either the camera goes out or the computer CPU overheats or the monitor konks out. Of course MGS has its good old-fashioned primary gun sight and vision blocks to rely on as well.

[Stagler]

Anterior note. The same chassis we can see on 2S35 production models will be same as armata, with turret design similar to concept art vehicles and the technology demonstrator testbed from Kubinka I posted a while ago.

[gunnersman]

I love that image. I especially like the gatling gun on the left sidet

 

 

Looks like the Armarta is going to be in in the CMBS: Total Overkill module, along with the BMPT. I mean, how many barrels has this thing? 1 x 125 to 152 mm main gun, 1 x 30mm chain gun, at least 3 x 7,62 on the gatling gun + an additional 7,62 coaxial MG - this makes 6 barrels in total. History has clearly shown that multi-barrel weapon systems on MBTs are significantly cooler than their single-barrel counterparts.

 

 

When I was very young (5 years old-ish) I would draw alot of pictures. And alot of those pictures were of planes and tanks. And those planes and tanks had lots of guns on them pointing in every direction.  Either the Russians read my mind...or there are pre-schoolers in their design bureaus. 

That thing looks like a maintenance/supply nightmare.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

That thing looks like a maintenance/supply nightmare.

 

It won't need maintenance, St Putin of Novorussia has blessed it with his Holy Hands of Power, so like all Russian equipment, it will run without so much as a hiccup.  

[Nerdwing]

I was hoping for the unmanned turret, personally

[Baneman]

It looks good in that concept picture - but in a Command & Conquer kind of way ie, without any consideration for things like ammunition stowage or feed.

[akd]

It is just fantasy art.  Nobody knows what Armata turret looks like yet.

[mikeCK]

Anyone who has played command and conquer knows that tanks with 2 barrels are far superior

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

And the only effective way to kill infantry is to run them over with a tank.

[Nerdwing]

I've run the numbers Soviet-style, and I can tell you that the ratio to destroy an M1A1 "Medium Tank" is exactly 3:1 for AT Soldiers to tank.  It also may be 2:1 due to corruption and lack of testing on my part, and operating under 10-year old memories and nostalgia/rose-tinted glasses.   So yes, Soviet-style.

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

Sadly, we can crush guns (vehicles?) in the CM games but not men. The combat accounts say otherwise. Carius talks about how his unit ground hundreds of Russian soldiers beneath their Tiger tracks in one battle (ground a regiment to pulp; bet we won't see that in a war movie), and I've read several accounts of Russian tanks going hog wild on German horse convoys and, in one case, a huge column of retreating Italian soldiers, resulting in gory bits clear up to the turret. I forget which account it was, but one TC had to drive his tank into the river and let the current scrub it clean. Tracks. Cheaper than bullets and shells. Wonder why we can't or, for that matter, inadvertently do the same to our people? Am also of the opinion friendly small arms fire should also do to friendlies what it does to enemies. I find it ridiculous it doesn't.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Kettler

 

Command and Conquer was (is?) a very unrealistic strategy game, in which tank shots did next to nothing against infantry, but driving tanks over infantry was pretty much the fastest way to be rid of them.  Infantry was a serious threat because enough riflemen firing at once could sandblast hitpoints off the tank.

 

In terms of running people over IRL, it's strongly discouraged because of the mess it makes and the toll it takes on the crew.  

[BTR]

What do you mean next to nothing? Overlords with Gatlings were anti-infantry kings. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

That's because you're a pure newb and not thinking about  the OG Command and Conquer with amazing FMV cutscenes.

 

ALL HAIL KANE! 

[Codename Duchess]

"strongly discouraged"

I'm curious about how that's actually brought up in tanker training/within a command. Like is there a power point slide saying "yes we call them crunchies but don't find out why" or do you just wait for an E-1 to inevitably ask or what?

[John Kettler]

When my brother was at NTC, one night there was a soldier, out cold in his sleeping bag. Then someone moved an M113 about ten feet in the dark without checking ahead. You know the rest. Which was how I learned about crunchies after hearing him first use the term and not understanding it. Some explanations can be done without, I've discovered. I was equally perplexed by "DATs" and "CDATs," but those terms, while not endearing to those referenced, at least didn't directly involve sudden large compressive forces on a hapless friendly.

 

In looking at my #89, I now find myself cringing a bit over my first sentence. I think what I find offputting is that I prefaced my lead thought with "sadly," and I wish I hadn't done that. To me, it seems almost inhuman when I look back at it. 

 

Codename Duchess,

 

A very good question. Monty Python would've gone to town with that training session. Something like.

 

Training Instructor

 

"Now see here, men. You've all done the Armour Course, You're real tank men now. Regret to inform you that something got left out of the training syllabus."

 

(Up pipes Private Watkins)

 

"Sergeant?"

 

Training Instructor

"Yes, Watkins, what is it?"

 

Private Watkins

(Freezes, can't talk)

 

Training Instructor

 

"As I was saying, you've learned you must shoot, move and communicate in order to fight your tank properly and kill the enemy, right?"

 

(Growling but low enthusiastic utterances from the men)

 

"Kill the enemy! Right!"

 

Training Instructor

 

"But sometimes, you must be clever in how you go about it. Understand?"

 

(Tank men look clueless)

 

"You must learn to squish and not be squeamish. Got it?

 

(Watkins again)

 

"What? Getting toothpaste out of a tube?"

 

Training Instructor

 

"Something like that."

 

Watkins

 

"Why ever would one be squeamish about toothpaste?"

 

Training Instructor

 

"Well,..."

 

END

 

I really would like to see Armata. Something that rumbles smartly down the road, a brilliantly conceived and executed steel, exotic alloy and composites tank that leaves observers speechless. Not one that looks that way, but is made of plywoodium, either. I want to see Armata, but the only place I want it in combat is on our (virtual) turf. There, we shall test its mettle (and metal) in vicious flurries of electrons and charge state changes!

 

I feel like Tantalus, and I'm tired of having this purported super tank dangled in front of me, yet always out of reach. Given that we seem to be able to get pictures of experimental tanks on the Poligon, pics which, given my former work, would've been practically priceless during the Cold War, it's frustrating to have so little on Armata. I almost wish I'd not seen the speculative or better informed renderings (not the SF style insanities), articles and vid. For they gnaw at me. At times. If patience is a virtue, right now I'm not terribly virtuous!  

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Sublime]

U cant run over.your.own.soldiers.in.game.because.itd cause.insane.amounrs.of.complaints.and.micromanagment. things.are.still.somewhat abstracted so.its assumed ur troops.will.. move out of the way

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I'm curious about how that's actually brought up in tanker training/within a command

 

For me it was sitting in a classroom out on Wilson range at Fort Knox.  The US Army Armor school trains (trained?  I'm not sure if post move to Benning it stayed the same) both Army and Marine armor officers, so as a result it has both Army and Marine instructors.  Minus the two crews on the range, we were all being more or less baby sat by our resident Marine Staff Sergeant who was showing off his various "this is what I did in Iraq" photos on his computer.  He mentioned that they'd run over an Iraqi after shooting him (if I recall the guy had been trying to attack the tank and strongly underestimated the ability a tank has to kill dismounts when he rabbited)  Being the special kind of stupid 2LTs are, we were all suitably impressed at this slaying of an insurgent and a grinding of him into the dirt.  The Staff Sergeant shook his head and said something along the lines of how it took them hours to get enough of the Iraqi out of the tracks to be passable, and that the friction on the tracks themselves heats up and cooks the remains.  He said it smells sort of like pork.

 

Doesn't really sound that cool.  I know of other folks that have run over someone in a tank, but more or less as a rule it was "intense firefight, some Iraqi gets wasted, and then the tanks have to go through the same space occupying said dead Iraqi" vs "we will crush them with our panzers!"  

 

Re: Running Friendlies over

 

It's best if just abstracted not to happen.  Whenever my tanks worked around infantry guys we'd always take them aside and show them where to stand to not get run over, or make it clear how much of them we could actually see.  I think it's pretty standard, and usual tank speeds are slow enough that troops will have some time to move before said tank grinds them over.

[Sulman]

The antennae and sensor vulnerabiblity interest me. Steel Beasts simulates (through abstraction) tree branches disabling the GPS  (good incentive to avoid woods) and the Syrian T-72 footage with completely slapped up tanks (how many unscathed IR searchlights can people see?) suggested good simple standbys are still very important. 

 

When playing the game I wonder about those Arena masts, too. They have to be very vulnerable. 

Edited March 13, 2015 by Sulman

[MikeyD]

One factor to Armata's disadvantage is that its a 'prestige' weapon system. One can imagine political forces at work pushing to get it out and marching in patriotic parades before all the t's have been crossed and all the i's dotted in weapons development. I'm reminded of a very different 'prestige' weapon system that shall remain unnamed. This was where we got the Donald Rumsfeld line "First we'll field it, then we'll fix it."

 

 

I wonder about those Arena masts, too. They have to be very vulnerable. 

 

Ah, you reminded me of the big honkin' MRAP and the real danger faced by the gunner of electrocution from low hanging power lines.

[Stagler]

The Arena-E doesn't have masts so to speak they are little plates dotted around the turret. Their supposed effectiveness at covering all arcs is suspect.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Stagler

[Badwolf66]

The Armarta has a Terminator/Doctor Who feel to it and the side guns remind me of a Daleks plunger and gun.
is it only concept art or is it the actual tank?