Armata soon to be in service.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Kudos to BFC for the Javelin sound effect, it sounds very similar to the video.

[Battlefront.com]

That's funny cause I just had a Jav team fire at 100 meters.  An oncoming tank I guess made for a more pressing concern.  Interestingly this is the second time I have had a Jav gunner take a horizontal shot and in both cases the tank shrugged it off.  They are deadly but not at close range.    Ended up with a flank AT 4 killing it.

Yeah, minimum top attack range is something like 170m.  Going horizontal means hitting reactive armor and thicker base armor.  I don't know the details, but since the Javelin is designed to kill from the top I can see it being weak against sides/front.

Steve

[sburke]

yep.  I was actually planning on something longer range but some dastardly scenario designer abruptly shortened the range.

[BTR]

According to Ministry of Industry and Trade press release three days ago, both T-14 and T-15 are being trialed with 152mm guns in FSV configuration. 

[Abdolmartin]

No, that would be silly.  They do exist as sacrifices to the tank god though so that he might be appeased to pour his majesty on more deserving platforms.  

TANKS FOR THE TANK GOD TURRETS FOR THE TURRET THRONE.

Twilight of the Tanker God?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

According to Ministry of Industry and Trade press release three days ago, both T-14 and T-15 are being trialed with 152mm guns in FSV configuration. 

So, are we talking self propelled gun artillery piece, or direct fire support?

Twilight of the Tanker God?

The light doth not dwindle from Him, but from His coming.  When the Tanking occurs all who that mocketh the Tank will be cast unto the eternal foot movement, their heretical way lit only by the burning hulks of T-72s.  

[Battlefront.com]

The light doth not dwindle from Him, but from His coming.  When the Tanking occurs all who that mocketh the Tank will be cast unto the eternal foot movement, their heretical way lit only by the burning hulks of T-72s. 

 

And some say that too much exposure to fuel fumes in a confined space doesn't have health consequences

Seriously... that's some funny stuff!

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Verily I hath bathed in His Holy Ether of the JP-8 and returned a new Man of Steel and Wrath.

Preaching aside, I'm interested to see what this Armata FSV is supposed to be.  If it's just artillery, well, still doubtful but at least it makes sense.  If it's a direct fire FSV, whoa boy am I going to be deeply amused.  

[Battlefront.com]

Verily I hath bathed in His Holy Ether of the JP-8 and returned a new Man of Steel and Wrath.

Apparently!

Preaching aside, I'm interested to see what this Armata FSV is supposed to be.  If it's just artillery, well, still doubtful but at least it makes sense.  If it's a direct fire FSV, whoa boy am I going to be deeply amused.  

Yeah, I think it's been shown that the utility of something like an ISU-152 on the modern battlefield is not such a good idea.  I can see a dual purpose use of the 152, such as an indirect support vehicle which retains an ability to fire directly as a secondary use.

Steve

 

 

[BTR]

So, are we talking self propelled gun artillery piece, or direct fire support?

Direct fire support. Although with 152mm caliber, the line between direct and indirect is blurred. Especially in light of precision artillery rounds being inter-compatible between multiple systems now. 

Edited February 22, 2016 by BTR

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In terms of FSVs, they have utility in the following manners:

1. They're able to go where you cannot send a tank.  So they're air transportable, able to operate on more limited infrastructure, or otherwise are part of a formation that could not use an MBT (see Strykers, BMDs etc)

2. The country in question does not have need for an MBT, or does not have the resources for an MBT and the FSV is the cheaper option (good examples would be countries that still include World War Two armor in their military forces, they need a machine gun proof cannon, not a full on tank, or the M113 FSVs in Vietnam, Australia wasn't going to buy more MBTs, but having a tank-like thing had local utility).

A hybrid direct/indirect weapon is sort of cool...except for I'd pose some questions about ammunition transportation.  Either you need a platform that's big enough to carry a good load of 152 MM shells (which likely comes at reduced armor and mobility like most SPGs), or you need something else to carry the ammo for you (which seems rather silly to have in something within direct fire range of the front).

Having looked at BTR's response though, lawl.  The dual purpose 120 mm breech loading mortars make sense in the wider context of something that's light enough for a good ammo load, and also can be mounted onto lighter platforms, becoming sort of a light tank-mortar carrier hybrid.  As presented it's inventing a position that frankly is just...god like I have to wonder if I'm missing something because I don't think the Russians are that dense.  In an airborne type formation you get utility from that dual hat system because it's only one vehicles you need, no need for a direct fire FSV and a mortar carrier, you've got a Nona or whatever.  In a "heavy" formation you already have, and will need to have MBTs in number so there you go direct fire support.  You already have SPGs doing the indirect aspect, although with the Russian coms systems maybe they just can't control that level of fire locally effectively, but then that opens wormcan on giving precision missions to an FSV.  You have mechanized mortars and something like a baby 152 isn't going to fill that role effectively. 

I guess if you added in a "cannon company" sort of analog it makes some sense, but a country in terrible economic conditions, that has to replace a wide selection of armored vehicles for the Armata's economic argument to take off, it seems like misplaced effort.  

[BTR]

Everyone's pretty much expecting a "Heavy" FSV based of T-14 chassis which really is just 152mm MBT. T-15 is perhaps an investigation into total platform compatibility. Also, in light of T-15 planned "Assault engineer" heavy formations, a T-15 152mm FSV incorporated very low down the food chain starts to make more sense. 

Edited February 22, 2016 by BTR

[Battlefront.com]

Which gets us back to some of the points Panzerkraut raised.  The bigger you make something the more it strains logistics, the more it strains logistics the fewer you can field.  The concept of FSV seems to favor systems which are readily available at a low tactical level.  The Stryker MGS, for example, is a Battalion level asset with enough strength on hand to support all three companies simultaneously.  The vehicle shares similar characteristics and supply components with the other vehicles within the Brigade.

If a T-15 FSV were created it would really only make sense to be either an independent support unit (like Soviet SU/ISU-152) that was tasked to a specific sector of front for a specific operation or it would be kept within a Russian Tank Brigade to back up the Mech Inf Battalion.  The latter makes me scratch my head because how much benefit would the FSV bring considering the infantry is supposed to work with tanks which are capable of providing effective fire support.

I dunno... it seems to me this is going backwards to older Soviet specialization practices and I don't think that's a good idea.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

A 152 MM MBT makes fairly little sense in the wider spectrum of things.  There will need to be a complete ammunition family invented for it, a new autoloader, and it'll carry like 15-20 rounds tops.  If you put in some sort of, like Tiger tank battalion in which it was only briefly committed as needed I guess that'd make marginally more sense, but I remain unconvinced the development side and production of same will balance out economically.  Also just the sheer size of a 152 MM tank gun rather boggles the mind, the 140 MMs of the 80's and early 90's were pretty challenging to say the least, while the unmanned turret seems to offer some relief, it's still a lot of weight, space, and ammo.  Virtually everyone else on the planet is looking to longer 120 MM, or more advanced rounds simply because the bigger gun option hits diminishing returns pretty quick.

The T-14 is ambitious enough that it's got a lot of eyebrows raised in terms of practicality.  A 152 MM armed model looks very much like the F-35 also announced to have a two seated dedicated space combat platform model in the works level of "lolwhut?"

What a 152 FSV would offer to mechanized type formations is also open to debate.  The smaller more common 120 MM already reliably chews up the sort of things dismounts need to worry about, while it doesn't appear to offer much in the realm of anti-armor.

Either way this is yet another moment in which I have to wonder about the realism or practicality of Russian rearmament, and how much of it is purely for show.  If the US military announced a similar scaled program and then kept inventing new variants, I'd be just as dubious of the capability to accomplish it, and that's with a lot more money and much fewer obstacles.  This also rather quickly torpedoes the whole concept of the Armata being "cheaper" in regards to replacing  a wide selection of specialist vehicles by replacing it with a newer, more expensive set of specialist vehicles.

It's not april 1st but I do have to wonder if this isn't some kind of prank.  

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, this is what I was saying about a step backwards.  The Soviet Union fielded specialized Brigades that were armed with the massive SU/ISU 152 assault guns.  They were used for breakthrough and reduction operations, otherwise were useless due to poor performance and extremely limited onboard ammo supply. Even if they managed to figure out the challenges of turret and ammo supply, the question is... why would you want to?  As I said in my previous email, there's nothing this thing can do that a tank couldn't do just as well.  And if you really need to bust something heavy... suppress the hell out of it as an SPA draws a bead on it.  Problem solved.

Given this I have the same feeling Panzerkraut has... this is either purely for show or some group siphoning off funding for a "bridge to nowhere" project.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Lets recall 15 years(?) ago there was a considerable push for NATO to replace their 120mm guns with 140mm. The US had designed and prototyped the T58  automatic loader 155mm oscillating turret assault tank more than half a century ago! Sure, the vehicle was a monstrosity, but we still built it. 

A 152mm tank is a terrible idea if our current tank/warfighting doctrine is correct. But what if we're never going to fight 'old-fashioned' wars again and our doctrine is obsolete? I'm reminded of the Iraq war when Stryker Brigade was using its TOW vehicles as close infantry support (see CMSF), often firing from minimum arming distance straight into buildings. They even produced a dedicated squash head HE TOW round for close infantry support purposes. It stood long range ATGM fighting doctrine on its head. So maybe bad ideas are really good and good ideas are really bad... maybe.

[Battlefront.com]

In that case maybe they should dust off an old recoilless designs, scale it up (US used to have a 106mm) then stick it onto something small and heavily armored with a turret that is either fully enclosed or is along the Stryker TOW's "hammerhead" design with reloading from a hatch.  You could store a ton of ammo and for infantry support it could be a devastating platform that is relatively cheap and easy to maintain vs. the monster we're talking about.

Steve

[sburke]

Yeah but it just wouldn't have the same impact at the monster truck rallies. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

152mm FSV sounds like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, as others have pointed out. 152mm on a tank is, I suspect, a bridge too far until there is some revolution in tank cannon technology (railgun?), but the Germans are beginning development of a 130mm cannon for the Leopard 3 so I'm sure we'll continue to hear about Russian efforts along those lines. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Lets recall 15 years(?) ago there was a considerable push for NATO to replace their 120mm guns with 140mm. The US had designed and prototyped the T58  automatic loader 155mm oscillating turret assault tank more than half a century ago! Sure, the vehicle was a monstrosity, but we still built it. 

A 152mm tank is a terrible idea if our current tank/warfighting doctrine is correct. But what if we're never going to fight 'old-fashioned' wars again and our doctrine is obsolete? I'm reminded of the Iraq war when Stryker Brigade was using its TOW vehicles as close infantry support (see CMSF), often firing from minimum arming distance straight into buildings. They even produced a dedicated squash head HE TOW round for close infantry support purposes. It stood long range ATGM fighting doctrine on its head. So maybe bad ideas are really good and good ideas are really bad... maybe.

1. The 140 MM push was largely because of a gross overestimation of what the Soviet armor arrays actually were, and an assumed logical conclusion that Soviet armor circa 1995 would be even thicker.  As the case was, no armor outside of things like the late model Abrams/Challenger II and Leo 2A6+ approach the realm of needing such things, and even worse, the various 140 MM experiments frankly showed just how bad the idea was.  It was too large, quite unmanageable, with a just a little into double digit ammo load.  The trade offs did not justify the extra power, and it made for an unmanageable tank.  A lot more progress was made in propellant, projectile and precision that allowed for smaller more manageable guns to remain the standard.  Same deal with the T58, there's a host of reasons why it proved to be a poor idea, and frankly those ideas are still just as valid now as they were then.

2. The employment of TOWs is worth dissecting.  It happened mostly because the Stryker MGS was not ready to be fielded, and the SBCT did not have significant direct fire weapons systems outside of the Stryker ATGM.  This is a good argument for a FSV as it's a not-tank vehicle on a chassis common to a lighter organization that operates in tank-like direct fire roles.  It's also why the various HE TOWs exist, it's for formations that lack tank like vehicles and need a tank's hitting power.

If there's anything an armored formation does not lack, it is tank like vehicles.  While there's something to be said for a larger direct fire weapon, historically specialist armored vehicles (US Tank Destroyers, Russian SU series SPGs etc) rarely find their way to the right place, and right time.  The practical reality, and a big deal on why the MBT remains the armored combat vehicle vs light/medium/heavy tanks, tank destroyers, assault guns, tankettes whatever is that having an 80% right answer to the problem that's available in number is the right answer more than trying to find the right time and place for an assault gun, or a tankette, or a tank destroyer.  /

So if the problem requires a big, armored thing on tracks with a large direct fire weapons system, then the answer is going to pretty much be a tank.  If you cannot have a tank, then something that's pretty much a tank with a bigger gun is not going to be the solution.  

It's certainly another reason to take what Russians say vs what they accomplish as totally different topics though.  I have to wonder if this isn't a sort of cover for other Armata issues, like please, let's not talk about the MBT, let's look over here at this new thing!  LOOK AT THE NEW THING IT IS MAJESTIC PLEASE DO NOT ASK WHERE T-14 IS RIGHT NOW LOOK AT THIS MODEL.  

[VladimirTarasov]

Yep Russians are so stupid! We barely provide any logical points! 100% of our media is Putler controlled  

The 152 mm cannon on the T-14 is a IF needed upgrade, Its already tested and designed from the T-95, Probably newer stuff are being looked into on it. But the Russian army service armatas that will enter production in 2017 or 2018 will be equipped with the 2A82M1 a 125 mm cannon, Which will be firing newly developed ammunition for it, As well as being able to fire the older rounds. Information given from it isn't much, We can always point out mistakes but there isn't much information given too. 

If T-14s are to be upgraded to 152mm then it would be in the 2020s, The 2A82M1 is enough for modern western armor for now. I don't think there will be 152 mm FSV on the armata series. Probably a Kurganets with the 2A82M1, Which would be for fast reaction units.  

Edited February 23, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I heard all of those have been delayed in favor of the T-22 SPSSV.

[Battlefront.com]

Yep Russians are so stupid! We barely provide any logical points! 100% of our media is Putler controlled  

We have a saying in English... "if the shoe fits, wear it"   If an idea doesn't make sense, then maybe it doesn't make sense?

The 152 mm cannon on the T-14 is a IF needed upgrade, Its already tested and designed from the T-95, Probably newer stuff are being looked into on it. But the Russian army service armatas that will enter production in 2017 or 2018 will be equipped with the 2A82M1 a 125 mm cannon, Which will be firing newly developed ammunition for it, As well as being able to fire the older rounds. Information given from it isn't much, We can always point out mistakes but there isn't much information given too. 

If T-14s are to be upgraded to 152mm then it would be in the 2020s, The 2A82M1 is enough for modern western armor for now. I don't think there will be 152 mm FSV on the armata series. Probably a Kurganets with the 2A82M1, Which would be for fast reaction units.  

I just finished watching Season 2 of Utopia (Dreamland in US/UK).  It is an Australian TV comedy about an organization responsible for building major infrastructure projects.  The problem is politicians always interfere because they want something newer, bigger, and more impressive to "announce".  The "announcement" is more important than completion.  Although the show is satire, many of the things they make fun of are factually accurate.  I don't know why you're so quick to think that Russia doesn't do this sort of thing, especially with the long history of canceled military projects since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I heard all of those have been delayed in favor of the T-22 SPSSV.

Is that the one with the freak'n laser beams on its turret?

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Self Propelled Soft Serve Vehicle.  It ensures the polite men have much ice cream for novorussians and liberated comrades!

Soviet, and Russian equipment is often announced to much fanfare, sabers are rattled, hopelessly optimistic claims are made. and then most of the time something down the road that's much more modest appears, if anything at all.  Often new systems or capabilities are promised, and then forgotten in favor of the next way in which this system will change the face of war.

And honestly there's the same crap from western contractors too, but there's a lot more external attention, and rarely is the weapons producer as in bed with the actual government who also owns all the various media outlets for one of those countries.  It feels like the lack of reality checking often leads to never ending waves of Russian systems that are on the verge of taking over whole world, only to disappear into smoke and mirrors.