Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

True. Even 99% confidence != 100% objective certainty. Therefore you're right, what I'm saying is my personal speculation. And everyone should treat it as such.

 

However, Steve was expressing his own speculations and skepticism, based on his own logic and knowledge. Which turned into a discussion. And in this discussion, so far he wasn't able to counter my arguments. Seeing that he can't do that, he then said "lets just wait and see", and stopped. Nothing wrong about that too, it's just that my arguments still stand.

 

That leads to an interesting question: Is it reasonable to ask for counterproof in a discussion of which both parties agree that it is a purely speculative matter?

 

I should've used a word "confident". In Russian, "certain" and "confident" can be translated by the same word "уверен".

 

Personally i would recommend you to stay away from words like "certain" or "impossible" in general. It is often too easy to attack statements that claim that something is certain, impossible, etc. Arguements based on probabilities are, on the other hand, much harder to attack, because constructing a single situation that contradicts the initial statement wont collapse the whole arguement. You can always claim it's an exception or just anecdotal evidence and the burden of proof that it's not will lie with your opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh heh, the BBC had some fun this morning reporting on Russia's new supertank stalling out during parade practice and needing assistance. The Russians claimed it was deliberate - training for the recover crew, which got chuckles from the assembled journalists.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. Even 99% confidence != 100% objective certainty. Therefore you're right, what I'm saying is my personal speculation. And everyone should treat it as such.

Finally :D That's what I, and others, have been trying to get out of you for several pages now.

 

However, Steve was expressing his own speculations and skepticism, based on his own logic and knowledge. Which turned into a discussion. And in this discussion, so far he wasn't able to counter my arguments.

Er, not from where I sit. Your arguments, thus far, have been "Russia has learned its lesson and therefore it will, with certainty, produce amazing vehicles on time, on budget, and with no significant hiccups. It will then put these into service and reap amazing benefits and have all of its significant, long standing problems solved".

My counter arguments simply boil down to "maybe, but I'm skeptical".

Seeing that he can't do that, he then said "lets just wait and see", and stopped.

No, I came to the conclusion that the core of your position is more "faith based" than it is a detached assessment of the facts. Just as I don't try arguing about religion with a believer, I am not going to here either. And just like someone who is trying to argue that Jesus will rise again this Easter, I'm perfectly content to sit back and wait to see how the development of A/K/B progresses. Because, believe it or not, I'm not convinced it will be a failure. I'm not even sure it will be a disappointment. I'm pretty sure it will be, but I have no problem admitting that's just a guess.

I should've used a word "confident". In Russian, "certain" and "confident" can be translated by the same word "уверен".

Ah, so I was not wrong to give you some benefit of the doubt that you were using the wrong English word to express yourself. I'm glad I could at least get that cleared up.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I saw this before. If Afganit is same with quckkill, this means the rocket or projectle turns his head and fly to intercept, therefore launchers doesn't need to face all direction, which supports "Afganit is big cylinder" claim. 

Do you also think that big cylinders of the turret neck are Afganit APS? Thanks to let me know anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh heh, the BBC had some fun this morning reporting on Russia's new supertank stalling out during parade practice and needing assistance. The Russians claimed it was deliberate - training for the recover crew, which got chuckles from the assembled journalists.  :)

 

As far as I read, it is because of driver's mistake. He was T-90A driver from Tamanskya Guard, and only had few hours of driving practice for the T-14. He did something wrong about gear, so T-14 stopped. Engineer from UVZ solved the gear issue and it goes his way. 

Edited by exsonic01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the points addressed as 'certain' are to be expected on a new IFV fielded by Russia, if only because of L&L reasoning that they all have been realizes on vehicles already in service.

Language matters, therefore the choice of specific words matters (or at least can). Even without the word in play, the list that LnL posted is not guaranteed to happen. There are all kinds of things that can crop up to alter that list, including Russia developing a BETTER replacement for one of those sub-systems. Which means I'm arguing that in reality the production vehicles might have a BETTER feature set than this list. So if we use LnL's logic, what he is saying is that there is no chance of Russia developing and deploying anything better than what is on that list now, as well as not being worse. I say that's simply not something that can be known.

If I had to put a bet down, right now, I would bet that the whole list LnL posted will be included on the production vehicles. But it's not "certain".

 

Regarding the whole new AKB range of vehicles I am of a see first, believe second opinion myself. But I wouldn't place a bet on either outcome, so much variables out there. Still it is interesting to see what they have come up with and the discussion here has been interesting to follow though, certainly thought entertaining!

I think the conversation is better directed towards analyzing what we can see. To that end...

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really looks like the outer shell is more a mock up than anything. Look how thin it is on the lower-left part, there's a hole where the first tube ends (the one pointing forward), it's not even 10mm of plate to make up that ugly shaped turret, and behind the metal sheet there's just nothing.. The real turret is much much smaller, and has a different shape.

Why do you think they added all that shell outside?

It is intriguing. One would think that if those pieces are there to protect things like sensors from shell fragments, small arms fire, tree branches, etc that they would be thicker. However, it is early days so they could have just used some inexpensive "placeholder" materials before investing in something more rugged.

If it is intended to keep the covers thin, and therefore not offer significant protection, I'm really puzzled. It doesn't seem logical to put the manufacturing effort into something that is basically window dressing.

Regarding the "cutout" on the right side of the turret, now I can clearly see a hatch there. It's hinged at the bottom. It's too small for Human access, so I'm still unclear what it could be. Casing ejection is not likely as the casing would have to be turned 90 deg to be ejected.

 

 

Heh heh, the BBC had some fun this morning reporting on Russia's new supertank stalling out during parade practice and needing assistance. The Russians claimed it was deliberate - training for the recover crew, which got chuckles from the assembled journalists.  :)

Heh. In American pop culture, the saying is "I meant to do that!" after an embarrassing accident that clearly wasn't the intended result.

The vehicles are experimental, so although it's worth a chuckle I don't think it's important.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That leads to an interesting question: Is it reasonable to ask for counterproof in a discussion of which both parties agree that it is a purely speculative matter?

I'm not sure "counterproof" is a proper word. Counterargument, yes. If one wants to counter someone's argument regarding anything, he has to come up with his own.

 

Personally i would recommend you to stay away from words like "certain" or "impossible" in general. It is often too easy to attack statements that claim that something is certain, impossible, etc. Arguements based on probabilities are, on the other hand, much harder to attack, because constructing a single situation that contradicts the initial statement wont collapse the whole arguement. You can always claim it's an exception or just anecdotal evidence and the burden of proof that it's not will lie with your opponent.

 

Let me again assure you that I was not trying to forward a case of a solid fortunetelling :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, not from where I sit. Your arguments, thus far, have been "Russia has learned its lesson and therefore it will, with certainty, produce amazing vehicles on time, on budget, and with no significant hiccups. It will then put these into service and reap amazing benefits and have all of its significant, long standing problems solved".

 

I've never said anything like that.

 

My counter arguments simply boil down to "maybe, but I'm skeptical".

 

That's not an argument.

 

No, I came to the conclusion that the core of your position is more "faith based" than it is a detached assessment of the facts. Just as I don't try arguing about religion with a believer, I am not going to here either. And just like someone who is trying to argue that Jesus will rise again this Easter, I'm perfectly content to sit back and wait to see how the development of A/K/B progresses. Because, believe it or not, I'm not convinced it will be a failure. I'm not even sure it will be a disappointment. I'm pretty sure it will be, but I have no problem admitting that's just a guess.

 

Uhm, nope, sorry. My position is mainly based on the knowledge of existing Russian tech, facts and logic. If you want to counter it, please start by quoting the exact words, followed by a proper counterargument.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LnL wrote: "Uhm, nope, sorry. My position is mainly based on the knowledge of existing Russian tech, facts and logic. If you want to counter it, please start by quoting the exact words, followed by a proper counterargument."

 

 

October-18-2011-20-12-49-DoubleFacePalm.

Edited by BlackMoria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this before. If Afganit is same with quckkill, this means the rocket or projectle turns his head and fly to intercept, therefore launchers doesn't need to face all direction, which supports "Afganit is big cylinder" claim. 

Do you also think that big cylinders of the turret neck are Afganit APS? Thanks to let me know anyway. 

 

I might be wrong, but in my understanding, big cylinders on both T-14/T-15 and other vehicles are APS kill munitions, that work similarly to Quick Kill. The difference between T-14/T-15 and other vehicles are smoke launchers and APS radars.

 

On Kurganets, new smoke launchers can be seen, mounted on the turret itself (both IFV and APC). I'm talking about long rectangular boxes with two circles ("exit holes") on each, here: 1, 2.

 

On T-14 and T-15, there are 4 boxes with 3x4=12 small cylinders, that look similarly to the usual Rissian 81mm smoke grenades Tucha and Shtora. But not identicall. But even the boxes appear to be different a little bit. Out of four on each vehicle, two are static, and two can rotate. Can be seen on photos in this post:

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1605769

 

And I talked about radars in this post:

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1605765

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it was a quote...its known as a paraphrase.  A quote typically is stated as a quote or with "".  I read that as a paraphrase.  If this is where you are at this point in the debate, you should call it quits.

 

You specifically used the wrong words in a very big way that completely changed your arguement.  You failed to understand that is what people were arguing about, So now you are down to arguing about how people are quoting or not quoting yet.

 

Let's net this out...You shouldn't have used the word certain or certainty?  Yes or no?  If you meant to use "certain"...let the arguments continue.  If you didn't mean to use certain, well then I don't know what to say since the last 10 pages discussions have been about the certainty of Russia producing the Armata in numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we have in game an immobilised red flag icon... :)

 

_82833794_0f2580ec-2f8c-4cdf-a5b7-23d8cd

 

 

http://rt.com/news/256437-armata-stuck-moscow-parade/

 

 

Russia’s military will be glad it was only a dress rehearsal, as its new state-of-the-art tank broke down in the Red Square. One of the T-14 Armata tanks ground to a halt, before finally rumbling away after the Victory Day parade rehearsal was over.

In a dress rehearsal for the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II on May 9, a parade of the new tanks, which were getting their first public viewing, rolled towards the very heart of the Russian capital.

All seemed to be going to plan until one of the mighty machines unexpectedly stopped right in front of the Lenin's mausoleum. Its engine was still running, but the tank would not move. An attempt to tow it away failed, before the T-14 eventually managed to restart and rumble off around 15 minutes later. 

The announcer of the parade said it was a ‘planned’ event.

“We wanted to show how an evacuation of a tank would take place. It was planned that the tank would stop,” he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god the propaganda machine for Russia is mind boggling. Planned event? When the attempt to tow the tank away failed? I dont understand how the average Russian doesnt see this all as an insult to his intelligence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL IS WELL AND THE ARMATA LOOKS GOOD.  IT IS PERFECTLY FINE HERE.  HERE IS IT WORKING FINE.  PLEASE TRUST ME WHEN I SAY THAT WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN, BUT IT IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL AND WITHIN STANDARDS OF PRIME FUNCTIONALITY AND SURELY IS GOING TO ENTER SERVICE ON TIME.

 

Or basically....yeah.  Makes you wonder.  I can't think of many ways to kill a tank like that via operator error that wouldn't be easily done with the tank in motion.  Clearly there's something wrong enough to make it go down in the middle of a parade, now if that's a system problem, or a individual vehicle problem, we don't know, but it certainly begs some questions.

 

The turret shell thing is interesting.  It really offers about zero protection.  And given the stuff attached to it, a lot of capability will be lost if a sabot or even a HEAT round strikes it.

 

Worst case: 

 

The turret isn't ready.  Really, really isn't ready.  It's basically a gun which works, but the rest of it?  Whoa boy no.  The shell is there to make it more presentable or as a stand-in until something more solid pans out.  Actually makes sense in terms of the current layout, it's much easier to get and and access if something in the turret goes massively sideways if you don't have to dismantle the entire turret to get at systems...but again offers no realistic protection (and the "pass through" thing is stupid, only way it doesn't end with sabots going into the gun/autoloader is a direct head on hit, but towards the sides of the turret, please not the front or the optics, which isn't much of a protection plan).

 

Best case:

 

It's pretty much the tank destroyer thing.  The heavier APC/IFV type vehicles close with the enemy, but the tanks are to stay back out of easy direct fire of anything with sabots, and rely on the APS to deal with RPGs and ATGMs.

 

It's likely somewhere in the middle.  It is however a very good illustration of how certain you can be about anything from the whole program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last 10 pages discussions have been about the certainty of Russia producing the Armata in numbers.

 

Are you certain? :lol:

 

 

 

 

Maan! That's sick! They'll have to hurry up with new eng-evac vehicles on the new chassis, if they wanna start field testing T-14.

 

 

My god the propaganda machine for Russia is mind boggling. Planned event? When the attempt to tow the tank away failed? I dont understand how the average Russian doesnt see this all as an insult to his intelligence

 

Seriously? Have you ever been on a wedding with a wedding attendant running the show or something? The guy made the crowd laugh:

 

 

The parade announcer said the stoppage had been planned to show how to "evacuate weaponry".

This prompted laughter from the crowds who gathered to watch the rehearsal in the Russian capital, Reuters reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it was a quote...its known as a paraphrase.  A quote typically is stated as a quote or with "".  I read that as a paraphrase.  If this is where you are at this point in the debate, you should call it quits.

 

You specifically used the wrong words in a very big way that completely changed your arguement.  You failed to understand that is what people were arguing about, So now you are down to arguing about how people are quoting or not quoting yet.

 

Let's net this out...You shouldn't have used the word certain or certainty?  Yes or no?  If you meant to use "certain"...let the arguments continue.  If you didn't mean to use certain, well then I don't know what to say since the last 10 pages discussions have been about the certainty of Russia producing the Armata in numbers.

 

lets not go off the rails here. LnL's  native language is Russian, its easy to get hung up on the nuances  of a second language, especially english which has more exceptions than rules. :)

 

The main purpose here is to find out more technical  details about the T-14. LnL is a huge help since he can actually speak Russian.

Edited by Sgt Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="L0ckAndL0ad" post="1606224" timestamp="1431026221"

Seriously? Have you ever been on a wedding with a wedding attendant running the show or something? The guy made the crowd laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never said anything like that.

I was paraphrasing. Very accurately, I think.

 

 

That's not an argument.

No, it's a summary of my arguments.

 

 

Uhm, nope, sorry. My position is mainly based on the knowledge of existing Russian tech, facts and logic. If you want to counter it, please start by quoting the exact words, followed by a proper counterargument.

I already did this. Extensively. It didn't work so I don't think it's productive for me to continue. Your position isn't going to change, neither is mine. You can try to stay on a high horse about it, but I feel the record is pretty clearly in my favor as to how this debate actually went.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...