Armata soon to be in service.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

6 hours ago, antaress73 said:

Not especially the boomerang but i was talking more about the Kurganets-25. That should be a priority for the army to replace the BMP-2s and 3s and easier to produce no ?

Frankly, I've stopped paying much attention to the news regarding military developments after I've stopped collaborating with BFC in yearly 2015, so I had to do some digging now. And it turns out there's been an article in TASS (dated September 2015) that said that they've extended the R&D phase by another year, because the army does not like the size of the vehicle, saying it's too big of a target, and that field trials should start only in 2017. Dunno if it's another smoke & mirrors hoax or not, but I do believe that Kurganets has too little defense for its size and purpose. Any vehicle would, as long as it keeps its amphibious capability, there's no way around that with current technologies.

And that's not surprising. I've personally become a proponent of heavy, tank-based, infantry carriers. IMO, if the vehicle is supposed to advance on enemy positions next to the tanks, it should have the same amount of protection as tanks, or, actually, more than that, because the amount of people inside.

So there's that.

Edited May 17, 2016 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Kinophile]

8 hours ago, L0ckAndL0ad said:

IMO, if the vehicle is supposed to advance on enemy positions next to the tanks, it should have the same amount of protection as tanks, or, actually, more than that, because the amount of people inside

Hear hear. Otherwise it's just a fuel & explosives filled taxi, ie every BMP ever. 

The Namer seems a little too heavy. Bradley can at least move in tandem with the MBT big boys  

 

[L0ckAndL0ad]

59 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Hear hear. Otherwise it's just a fuel & explosives filled taxi, ie every BMP ever. 

The Namer seems a little too heavy. Bradley can at least move in tandem with the MBT big boys  

Yeah, especially BMP-3 with all those 100mm rounds. I think I've already posted this image of BMP-3's turret from Chechnya. Speaks louder than words really.

As for being too heavy, I dunno about Namer, really. But generally speaking, when you remove the MBT's turret, you free up quite a lot of weight, so I see no reason why a good tank-based infantry carrier should be worse mobility-wise than the tank on the same chassis.

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, L0ckAndL0ad said:

As for being too heavy, I dunno about Namer, really. But generally speaking, when you remove the MBT's turret, you free up quite a lot of weight, so I see no reason why a good tank-based infantry carrier should be worse mobility-wise than the tank on the same chassis.

Yes.  The mobility is a function of chassis design, weight, and horsepower.  If you use the same chassis design with properly balanced weight and horsepower then mobility should be exactly the same as the MBT it is based on.  Mobility might be worse than other IFV options, but relative to the MBTs it would be the same.

The big problem with MBT type IFVs is the cost of building, maintaining, and deploying such a huge number of beasts.  This is especially true for the US and UK which regularly deploy their heavy forces abroad.  Even the US, with it's massive defense budget and focus on survivability, has repeatedly rejected this concept.  In fact, it introduced the Stryker into the mix explicitly because it found the existing heavy IFVs (Bradley) posed significant cost, readiness, and deployment problems. 

An old saying is 90% of success in life comes from showing up on time.  Another one is possession is 9/10ths of the law.  In warfare the force that is more certain to regularly show up and takes a spot before the other side is more likely to be successful.  MBT type IFVs are more likely to show up a "day late and a Dollar short", strategically and even tactically.

Steve

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by kinophile

[Kinophile]

35 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes.  The mobility is a function of chassis design, weight, and horsepower.  If you use the same chassis design with properly balanced weight and horsepower then mobility should be exactly the same as the MBT it is based on.  Mobility might be worse than other IFV options, but relative to the MBTs it would be the same.

The big problem with MBT type IFVs is the cost of building, maintaining, and deploying such a huge number of beasts.  This is especially true for the US and UK which regularly deploy their heavy forces abroad.  Even the US, with it's massive defense budget and focus on survivability, has repeatedly rejected this concept.  In fact, it introduced the Stryker into the mix explicitly because it found the existing heavy IFVs (Bradley) posed significant cost, readiness, and deployment problems. 

An old saying is 90% of success in life comes from showing up on time.  Another one is possession is 9/10ths of the law.  In warfare the force that is more certain to regularly show up and takes a spot before the other side is more likely to be successful.  MBT type IFVs are more likely to show up a "day late and a Dollar short", strategically and even tactically.

Steve

Good point. Following from that, one factor the Namer is locally successful could be due to the very short travel distances to the borders. Which I believe  is why the IDF is looking at a stryker equivalent, to prep for possible wide area desert warfare. Getting into fast, long distance manoeuvre warfare would quickly place  the Namer at a disadvantage (logistics and speed). 

Also,  I imagine a MBT force needs IFVs that can at least go faster than the MBT's,  as recon,  screening or precipitous/opportunistic assault forces? 

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Good point. Following from that, one factor the Namer is locally successful could be due to the very short travel distances to the borders.

Exactly.  It's one thing to have a force tailored to fighting within a few dozen KMs of home base against a fairly predictable foe that isn't very larger.  That can work.  But over specialization means inflexibility.  For large nations, with large scale and less predictable needs, this isn't feasible.

14 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Also,  I imagine a MBT force needs IFVs that can at least go faster than the MBT's,  as recon,  screening or precipitous/opportunistic assault forces? 

There will always be a need for smaller, lighter, nimbler forces.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Well, yeah, there's always a need for faster vehicles, but these are different roles we're talking about here. This role difference should be recognized accordingly, it is very important. And, speaking of mobility, I should say that Boomerang looks quite promising. Except that I haven't seen anything about possible increase of protection (ERA, APS) for it. There are certain mounting spots on the lower part of the hull, on the sides, that I think might be intended for side panel add-on installation, but it's only my wild guess, no info whatsoever. Technically, due to turret commonality, APS should not be a problem (the same one that Kurg has), the only question is if Boomerang can actually withstand such explosions near it. It looks quite vulnerable from the top hemisphere. Oh, and btw, here's a better picture of the Boomer's bottom hull, if there are any experts around.

I should also remind you that military vehicles don't travel large distances on their own wheels/tracks much these days. They are transported by other vehicles/trains. Even light wheeled APCs. They would move on their own only in enemy territory, in the time of war.

Edited May 17, 2016 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, L0ckAndL0ad said:

I should also remind you that military vehicles don't travel large distances on their own wheels/tracks much these days. They are transported by other vehicles/trains. Even light wheeled APCs. They would move on their own only in enemy territory, in the time of war.

Yes and no.  In Iraq a Stryker Brigade moved a huge distance on its own (IIRC 300 miles) while at the same time the Bradleys tasked for the same operation were still getting loaded onto transports.  The recent movements of SBCT elements from Estonia down to Romania also shows what can be done with reliable wheeled armor that isn't feasible with tracked armor.  Simply put, they have more strategic movement possibilities both inside and outside of theater.  It's often better to be there first than to be there strongest. 

Let's also not forget that the heavier the vehicle being transported the heavier the transport has to be.  To move large quantities concurrently or within a small window of time, therefore, requires a huge logistics tail.  That adds even more cost to the concept beyond just the vehicle itself.  Such practical constraints are the primary reason nations don't have MBT type IFVs.

Steve

[arjuna_r]

Armata's primary deployment is in the information war, especially since the propaganda value of the T-xx tanks has been compromised 

Especially in non-western/NATO countries, Russia's prestige is all out of proportion to it's capabilities, and 'weapons' like the Armata are really effective in securing that.


 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

On 5/14/2016 at 0:20 PM, VladimirTarasov said:

Panzersaurkrautwerfer is never wrong, and you should never question him.  He has terrible powers.  

 

 

Why thank you Vlad!  Also does anyone know how to clear a quote?  I might have changed my mind on actually posting something back on the 14th, deleted it, and yet, the quote box remains without text within it.

 

3 hours ago, arjuna_r said:

Armata's primary deployment is in the information war, especially since the propaganda value of the T-xx tanks has been compromised 

Especially in non-western/NATO countries, Russia's prestige is all out of proportion to it's capabilities, and 'weapons' like the Armata are really effective in securing that.


 

This is definitely true.  I once ran into a dude from India who believed earnestly the MIG-25 could best literally every western plane ever built.  F-15?  Easy meat.  Typhoon?  Handily.  F-22?  CRUSHED BY FOXBAT SUPERIOR.  

[VladimirTarasov]

43 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Why thank you Vlad!  Also does anyone know how to clear a quote?  I might have changed my mind on actually posting something back on the 14th, deleted it, and yet, the quote box remains without text within it.

While clicked on the quote box I press backspace and it clears the quote. XD BTW you're welcome.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Just now, VladimirTarasov said:

While clicked on the quote box I press backspace and it clears the quote. XD BTW you're welcome.

Yeah.  Tried that a few times over.  I think the issue is the forum saves whatever you wrote before hand if you walk away before posting it, and once it's saved it will let you delete the contents of the quote box, but you can backspace all you want and the quote box itself will not disappear.  

[sburke]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Yeah.  Tried that a few times over.  I think the issue is the forum saves whatever you wrote before hand if you walk away before posting it, and once it's saved it will let you delete the contents of the quote box, but you can backspace all you want and the quote box itself will not disappear.  

Nah I delete 90% of what I think about posting as essentially being useless.  So I am an expert at deleting my own drivel. It can be done!  Try refreshing your screen after you delete the quote box. 

[c3k]

9 hours ago, sburke said:

Nah I delete 90% of what I think about posting as essentially being useless.  So I am an expert at deleting my own drivel. It can be done!  Try refreshing your screen after you delete the quote box. 

Huh. Funny. I delete 90% of what you post, as well.

[c3k]

C'mon. THAT was funny!

 

[Codename Duchess]

13 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 I once ran into a dude from India who believed earnestly the MIG-25 could best literally every western plane ever built.  F-15?  Easy meat.  Typhoon?  Handily.  F-22?  CRUSHED BY FOXBAT SUPERIOR.  

There is now coffee all over my monitor.

[Sublime]

Lmao a foxbat would lose vs a mig 21 methinks.

[AttorneyAtWar]

4 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

There is now coffee all over my monitor.

Muh supersonic intercept speeds.

 

[sburke]

6 hours ago, c3k said:

C'mon. THAT was funny!

 

Yes but does the quote still show?  

Your intern still reads all my posts as she know how to cipher the secret messages within. (Ovaltine)

Back to to the quotes I tried this again with ken's comment. I am on a iPad so ymmv on this. I double tapped the top of the quote till a plus appeared and backspaced. It removed the whole quote and it did not reappear in my comment window. It also had the odd effect of making Ken's beer disappear as well, but most considered that a bonus. 

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

That anyone remotely up to speed on warplanes (was this guy Indian Air Force?) should say such a things about the MiG-25 FOXBAT shows simply astounding levels of ignorance. Even if we credit him with misidentifying the MiG-31 FOXHOUND as the aircraft, to be charitable, if he's talking dogfight (still like the term), then he's past clueless. What the MiG-31 could conceivably do is blow those listed out of the sky if it had the drop on the foe and had the opposition in the sweet spot of the Phoenixsky (Russian ripoff; what we called them at Hughes, which then built the mighty Phoenix), then potentially it could kill any of them. This is absolute best case.

Codename Duchess,

Glad I didn't see the MiG-25 remark while eating, for I could've choked and had a big cleanup project, too!

sburke,

I've found your problem. Double tapping killed the quote. Happens all the time to bad guys who encounter our SOF, right?

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

Yes but does the quote still show?  

Your intern still reads all my posts as she know how to cipher the secret messages within. (Ovaltine)

Back to to the quotes I tried this again with ken's comment. I am on a iPad so ymmv on this. I double tapped the top of the quote till a plus appeared and backspaced. It removed the whole quote and it did not reappear in my comment window. It also had the odd effect of making Ken's beer disappear as well, but most considered that a bonus. 

Huh. All this time, I've been docking her pay, meager as it is, for all my missing beer. I shan't tell her.

[arjuna_r]

On ‎29‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 3:32 AM, John Kettler said:

That anyone remotely up to speed on warplanes (was this guy Indian Air Force?) should say such a things about the MiG-25 FOXBAT shows simply astounding levels of ignorance.

The IAF operated the reconnaissance version of the Mig-25, in a unit called the 'Trisonics'. One of the dads at school had flown/been a backseater in one during the early 80s, and was quite impressed by its performance. 

Also, the USA (and its hardware) was the 'enemy' for military and political backing of Pakistan, a country which was quite a security threat. Russia on the other hand was treaty bound to defend India from external aggression, and had done so to prevent the US turning the tide in the '71 war for example. 

So it's understandable how Indians from that era would wish to believe certain things about Russian military hardware, some of it was quite cool for the time, and which they were relying on for their defence.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

On 5/29/2016 at 7:53 AM, Codename Duchess said:

There is now coffee all over my monitor.

What made it even more epic was it was in response to the photo of a M1 running over an Iraqi MIG (which is why I came across it, I was looking for something to spice up a powerpoint).  Dude was acting like the most logical course of action was to totally restore it and use it as America's only way to defend against MIG-25s.

Small exaggeration, but the reaction was certainly SOMETHING should have been done to save a totally obsolete fighter that had been buried deep in sand because just destroying it was totally wasteful.

 

 

28 minutes ago, arjuna_r said:

The IAF operated the reconnaissance version of the Mig-25, in a unit called the 'Trisonics'. One of the dads at school had flown/been a backseater in one during the early 80s, and was quite impressed by its performance. 

Also, the USA (and its hardware) was the 'enemy' for military and political backing of Pakistan, a country which was quite a security threat. Russia on the other hand was treaty bound to defend India from external aggression, and had done so to prevent the US turning the tide in the '71 war for example. 

So it's understandable how Indians from that era would wish to believe certain things about Russian military hardware, some of it was quite cool for the time, and which they were relying on for their defence.

In the event I did offend, it's certainly not an Indian only phenomena.  There's the Mike Sparks "Gavin" fracas which never fails to amuse, and I've run into folks who insisted the M60 was a vastly superior tank to the Abrams, and only with a few modest upgrades would it be totally up to modern standards.  Hell, when the Abrams goes to the scrapyard I'm going to have a hard time accepting it's really truly obsolete and gone myself.

But people tend to hold onto weapons as more than just a capability, but as an icon.  And it's hard often to accept it is just a machine vs the literal strength of the nation or something.  
 

[arjuna_r]

 

4 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

In the event I did offend, it's certainly not an Indian only phenomena

None taken, just thought it interesting how...

6 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

But people tend to hold onto weapons as more than just a capability, but as an icon.  And it's hard often to accept it is just a machine vs the literal strength of the nation or something.  

... these weapons become such emotive icons. I didn't want to derail the topic into this area, just thought that it relevant in discussion of the Armata. Because it seems particularly just about perceptions and patriotism than actual need/capability.