L0ckAndL0ad

ikalugin You've said "long range AT threats". These are either tanks/TD rounds or ATGMs. Tank/TD shells can only be fired in direct attack mode, unless we're talking howitzer ballistics, at which point it's not a tank/TD anymore. ATGMs are the only ones that can be fired in top-attack mode. There are only two axis in which you can have armor installed on a tank - frontal/side armor, which protects against direct attacks, and roof armor, which protects from top attacks. You can theoretically have thick enough frontal/side armor that will protect you from direct attacks, but you simply can't expand armoring to the same extent when doing roof. Unless you want to build a 4 meter high tank, which is not an option. So, while you can have decent passive armor to protect you against direct attacks, there's no way you can have the same amount on top to protect from top attacks. And since the only source of serious AT top attacks is ATGM, then I say that APS is pretty much the only way to go here. Re: politics Not here, please. Haven't you said that you don't want to argue?

A good example of the same catastrophic rapid unplanned disassembly that Russian tanks are prone to, but with BMP-3, in Chechnya. They've used it for direct fire support, when they've ran out of tanks. Most likely cause of explosion is either a mortar strike (mentioned in the article that comes with the picture), or an RPG hit. Having it as a direct fire support might be good, but putting a full infantry squad inside? That's what I call awful.

Trying to solve modern ATGM threat, especially top-down ATGM threat, with passive defense only is completely impossible. This is why Israelis came up with Trophy APS and are the first ones in the world who employ such APS in active service. This is their solution to ATGM problem that you're referring to. This is why Russians also keep creating Active Protection Systems. And if Afghanite's potent description is true, then Afghanite, contrary to Drozd and Arena mechanics, is based upon Trophy principles. Not to mention the fact that absolutely nothing is known regarding how good T-14/T-15 against modern ATGMs actually is.

This is the kind of claims that creates stereotypes about Russians. But being constructive and all, the only difference between Namer APC and T-15 IFV (given information currently known) I see is weapon systems. Even more, Namer can be made an IFV by mounting 30mm AC and ATGM launcher. So how exactly do you see them different concept-wise?

I wasn't twisting anything, I was clarifying your rather vague initial statement which did not specify whose claims you were referring to. I get your point now, and yeah, you're right, Russian military fanboys are very unfortunate and unlucky in this regard, being led down all these years. Ouch. This actually brings up a point that "cost-effective" tanks were not so "cost effective" to use and train with in the first place. Unless they've considered that there's not much training needed if the crews will just blow up in 24 hours of conflict (or what was their lifeframe again? don't remember). Like, why bother with training much at all?

Your exact words were: Military developments = a work between MoD and manufacturers. These are the official figures that can claim specifications. But then you say "fanciful specifications", which are not backed by hard evidence. So I am asking you, where did you see something like that? And then you say "best tank in the world". Are you still talking about official claims, or about fan's claims?

Your exact words were: Hype is not the same as official claims regarding exact vehicle specs that turned out to be false. Did they ever trick anyone into buying something that turned out to be not working at manufacturer's stated specs? Hype is just a dirty marketing, but I do not remember hearing about them actually lying. Lying means making an official statement that turned out to be false. And so far, there were no official statements regarding new generation of vehicles. If you've seen anything like that, please do provide. What I have seen in this thread is how western people laugh at some fan made pictures and 3d models as if they were from Putin himself, and how they are laughing at "Russian claims" that are in fact rumors and not official statements, or misinterpreted official statements. I disagree. After WW1, front lines can shift fast. This means that IFV role is to protect infantry while carrying it around the front line (knowing that you can be fired upon at any time), and to support infantry in combat. That's why IFVs have better protection than APCs. APCs are just taxis, but even taxis can have better doors, you know. Moreover, lets go back to BMP-2D. This side armor upgrade: It came out of necessity during Afghanistan war! BMP-2D needed that upgrade. But what did they do with all those BMP-2Ds when they came home? They've UNUPGRADED existing BMP-2Ds back into the usual base models. Like, infantry suddenly stopped needing more protection while riding inside that vehicle. They wanted their amphibious capability back. To hell with protection. And then came Chechnya war. And people had to come up with side armor upgrades again, in the field. Why? Because IFVs are riding around battlefield and face danger. Their passengers face dangers.

Before jumping into numbers, I must ask a simple question - do you really want to argue about Soviet designs being bad at protecting crew and passengers at all cost? BMP-2 with worthless side armor that can't help against HMGs, which had to be increased in Afghanistan in 1981 at the cost of it's amphibious ability, but never actually been upgraded this way in large numbers at home, because they value amphibious capability more than lives of the passengers? Cramped BMP-2, with unprotected fuel tanks in doors. BMP-3 with 100mm rounds in the middle of passenger compartment? BTRs that can protect only against small arms and also have crazy designed doors? There's a reason why these are called "Братская могила пехоты". There's a reason why people started riding on top of them, and not inside. So, do you really want to challenge that opinion?

Bad ergonomics is a bad design. Mines, RPGs and urban combat existed long before terms "IED" and "asymmetric warfare" came into existence. Soviet designs might be cost effective, but their cheapness comes at a price of lives. It's that simple. M1 Abrams is 1980s product, and for some reason, it does not explode violently with it's crew and turret flying away when hit. M2 Bradleys are also from 1980s. Here's what Wiki says about them: Now compare this to both Chechnya wars. Ergonomics, huh? 2 John Kettler: Metallurgy. You mean the usage of the new "44С-св-Ш" steel? As for "a la Russe" training, I don't know what you're talking about. There's been a lot of mass scale maneuvers in both SU and Russia. With Russia in particular, there came the new kind of surprise readiness checks that lead to large scale training maneuvers starting from like 2011, few times a year.

Oh, come on! "Traditions" don't appear out of thin air. People started doing it because they don't want to die inside. Because in their infinite wisdom, Soviet designers went for mobility and amphibious capabilities, rather than crew/passenger protection and ease of disembarking. There's always too little space, and BMP-3s passenger exit in particular is a crying shame. You know how they use BMP-3 in Venezuela? One might have thought that it's harder to ride on BMP-3..

Russian IFV/APCs don't serve their purpose, really. If they did, Russian infantry wouldn't be riding ON top of them more often than inside, which nullifies the whole purpose of having an armored vehicle in the first place. You can ride on motorized carts with weapons mounted on them with the same success. At the same time, there's quite a few articles that talk about why T-90 is bad, why T-72B3 is bad, while they could've been made better, but they weren't.

There's a lot of people who're simply envy western military for their better equipment. It creates a certain moral need for stuff that's better. Russian defense industry is supposedly envy modern German military equipment, cuz they mention it a lot, including when comparing their own new generation things. I've said it quite a few times, but I am crazy about Puma IFV and latest Leopard 2 versions myself. As for those pictures, they must have been taken by either manufacturer, or by military personnel, specifically to create a hype. There's Vitaly Kuzmin with his high res military photos, so lets take a look at dates when some of the rehearsals took place in Alabino in previous years: April 13th 2012: http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/449 April 12th 2013: http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/496 April 9th 2014: http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/557 But these are high res professional photos, and not some Cold War Spy kind of images that we've seen so far.

Hype? I can't say for everyone, but I'm personally hyped because Russia's been stuck with awful tanks and IFVs/APCs for ages. Despite what some of you might think they know, Russian media are full of critical articles and discussions about how bad Russian military equipment is. Including criticism regarding the new stuff. So, when there are developments that can potentially make things better, people get interested and hyped. Also note that Kurganmashzavod, Uralvagonzavod, KBM, Kalashnikov Concern, Arzamas, etc, these are not State owned, but they are all JSCs/private corporations that make money by selling arms, both export and locally. They also create a lot of hype, as a part of their marketing. Cuz they need to make a living.

That can be done via scenario editor. Main menu -> Scenario editor -> Units -> Select a vehicle/team in Activated troops tab -> Rename (below, near asset properties tab) Same can be done to rename formations, if you select formation, and not a particular unit/vehicle.

Generalizing "Russian" as a single entity that claims something is one of the most serious mistakes I've seen so far.

Hardly the first time I see incompetent western analysis. How many of them know Russian as good as I know English and Ukrainian? And even if they did know it on the same level as I do know their language, doesn't mean they suddenly can figure out stuff as accurately. And even I can't always be accurate with my own analysis. The guy in the article says that that video was made in Moscow. But it is from Nizhniy Tagil, in fact. He published it with a certainty anyways. The overall level of journalism is kinda meh nowadays. I even had to stop reading BBC as often as I did a year ago. With Photoshop/CorelDraw etc, even I can make that sort of cutaway picture. More talented people go for 3D models with Maya/3DsMax. Next day you know it, half the internet is gonna be discussing it as if Putin himself published it. Hell, even drew it himself. At the same time, it doesn't mean that some of the rumors are not true. But as long as T-14 is classified, it's classified, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And then there's Counterintelligence.

Any graphics/charts/specs predictions you see are fan-made, based on scaled down mock up models that were shown here and there at expos, and pure rumors. As far as I understand, there's been zero official information given neither by MoD or by manufacturer regarding T-14 exact specs.

See my post here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1597361 Also, a reminder: ГВП-2020 is planned to be changed in 2018 into ГВП-2025. Depends on how monolith the turret is. Russian designs are usually known to be maintenance friendly. There's also higher emphasis on modularity these days. Combat aircraft backup systems tackle these kind of problems very good. A-10C Warthog is a good example, if you're familiar with DCS A-10C. You can control it even with all electronics out.

T-90A and T-72B3 are similar in capabilities, but I'd say that T-90A is better, especially defense-wise. Т-72B3 upgrades are cheaper than buying a new T-90A. They've cancelled T-90 procurement due to price of a new T-90. Is the same is true about T-90->T-90A upgrades for older models - I don't know, that's just my speculations here. They've just stopped procuring them and said "we want to go cheaper before Armata MBT". At the same time, there was a word in 2014 regarding possibility of returning to T-90 procurement if Armata MBT project will fail. Also note that T-90 is actually a deep modernization of T-72 design. And T-72B3 did not exist at the time of it's creation. B3 is seriously criticized by Russian public and experts for being too much bare bones cheap. Who loves T-90A more than T-72B3 in CMBS? I do, personally. LWS makes a world of difference, and T-90 armor is somewhat better.

According to wiki, there's 120x T-90, 32x early T-90A and 337x late T-90A. Mothballed ones are older, early models. They've stopped buying/upgrading them in 2010-2011 (production for export keeps going) because they wanted newer and better MBT of their own (T-14), while not spending too much on old stuff. This is why they went for cheap T-72B3 upgrades instead, before T-14 is ready for mass production. Another reason for keeping some amount of T-90s in storage might be - spare parts/replacements.

Those numbers are part of the old GPV that's already being planned to change in 2018, so don't bother with them. The emphasis is on BMP-3, which is consistent with prior claims. BTR-90 claim is puzzling for everyone, like I've said.

You're right. I'm wrong with the timings. However, there's been this, along with infamous BTR-90 statement: http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12004849@egNews As for T-90s, I'm simply being generous

There are also 200+ T-90s mothballed, which makes a total number of around 600. Also, BMP-3s are currently in production. To support production lines/workers, I suppose.

You still haven't said what would you do with 800K strong Armed Forces (that's including all branches, with Ground Forces being at, what is it, 400K now?). And how much tanks would you allocate, and which vehicles you'd use. If using 9 MBT/13 IFV per Company, 600 T-90s and 600 BMP-3s would suffice for 46 Companies (15 Battalions/5 Brigades?), with around 200 T-90 tanks left free. That's while not touching thousands of T-72/BMP-2s, and not getting into BTRs/VDV vehicles. If you want BTRs, there is like 400-600 BTR-82As, and you can expect the same amount of 82AMs (80s upgraded to 82A level). Pure 80s are available in thousands as well. You've said you want them to cover possible enemy axis of advance, and defend key facilities. That's what they do already. What does it have to do with Maginot line? Notice how awfully soft-skinned BTRs are. I'm pretty sure that the reason why they did not get bigger weapons was the same as why Stryker ICVs didn't get big weapons - to discourage their use as IFVs, and not APCs. BTR-90 did not get more armor at the time, while it had a firepower of IFV, so it makes sense why they haven't adopted it.

Uh-oh.. We don't take kindly to this kind of tirades in here. https://youtu.be/ITi7lG0x0IE Should every country that does have nuclear weapons disband it's military now? What tanks would you use to make it "armor heavy", Commander? And by "keeping it all under the same BDE/REG", do you mean like having BTR-based BDEs have tanks in them? "Good stuff", and forces overall, are dispersed along the most threatening axis. These are the exact words from Ru MoD. That's a very constructive point. BTRs are not intended to move rapidly into enemy's territory. BTR-90 should have had ATGM, Boomerang will have ATGM, but those BTRs in actual service indeed do not have ATGMs. There's BRDM-based ATGM (and the one on Tigr-M chassis in the production as well), but AFAIK it's used in separate anti-tank formations that can be attached where it's needed. Nona is a versatile mortar/light arty system, it is not intended to be used against tanks. ps: To comrades https://youtu.be/yX_AvU7B1y4