Jump to content

Armata soon to be in service.


Lee_Vincent

Recommended Posts

Could you be so kind as to read my post entirely? I have indirectly mentioned Namer (and other Israili designs) in it (in fact you have quoted that passage).

However if you insist - Namer differs from Armata is the selection of armour protection scheme, while Armata provides top end protection in the safe angles of manuever (against long range AT threats), Namer goes for all round protection against CQ AT threats and hence would be classified as an assault APC (the destinction has blured ofc, but it is still there).

P.s. If you have questions about the content of my posts, feel free to ask about them in private.

Edited by ikalugin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

bmp3_podbitaja.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ikalugin,

 

Am working on your request. He graduated from Kharkhov Guards Tank Commanders' School in April 1967 and was assigned to 41st GTA, where he was, I believe,  first a Motorized Rifle Company CO. Working from memory, that's what he was at the time of the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Subsequently, and am unsure of the date, he wound up heading a T-55 Tank Company, which is how he came to the attention of the GRU. By smashing through a brick wall when a tank stalled at the only exit from the kaserne, trapping almost the entire Tank Regiment. The needed info is in his book The "Liberators," which I don't have with me at present.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the quality analogy with German Tiger tanks in WW2 needs to be looked at from a different angle - someone said T34/85s were the right tank and Tigers werent.  This is true, for their countries - Tigers weren't right for Germany in it's situation perhaps.  But a country such as the US can afford to have its 'Tigers' and be able to produce the numbers.  The US is more or less able to have its cake and eat it too - and much more so if in situation where the nation is compelled to feel its survival is at stake...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't twisting anything, I was clarifying your rather vague initial statement which did not specify whose claims you were referring to.

Got it. I thought I had clarified my point enough, but obviously not :D

 

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.

It is not an uncommon Human psychological problem amongst people who have a very strong view that is not based on a rational position. Nationalism is just one way this comes out. I used a sports team analogy a few posts ago so it's more than just that.

 

 

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?

 

In WW2 the Soviets realized in the 1941/42 timeframe that the average life of a tank and its crew was measured in days once contact was made. This produced an "echo effect" in Soviet training and production quality control. Meaning, because the life expectancy was so short they figured they didn't need to improve training or quality, but of course this greatly hindered the possibility of increasing life expetency. Eventually the Soviets figured this out, but how many dead and burned up vehicles did it take?

 

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.

 

Two very good points, which I will summarize:

1. So far nobody has deployed an IFV that can defend itself as well as the best MBTs

2. T-14/T-15 hasn't been tested, so we don't know that this reality has been changed

I think the quality analogy with German Tiger tanks in WW2 needs to be looked at from a different angle - someone said T34/85s were the right tank and Tigers werent.  This is true, for their countries - Tigers weren't right for Germany in it's situation perhaps.  But a country such as the US can afford to have its 'Tigers' and be able to produce the numbers.  The US is more or less able to have its cake and eat it too - and much more so if in situation where the nation is compelled to feel its survival is at stake...

Yes. However, the pressure to reduce military spending in the US Congress is always a threat to this strategy. At some point the US might find it can not afford to have cake and eat it too. Until then, though, Russia is unlikely to ever come up with a design and the numbers necessary to challenge the US dominance of the tactical battlefield. Russia's entire modernization budget comes in at around $800b. The US spends that much each year.

Given the US' long track record of delivering the highest quality/capable weapons systems in the world, there's really no practical way for Russia to come out on top. The best it can hope for is "good enough", which I think it is capable of achieving within the next few years if the state economy can hold together long enough to keep the budget where it needs to be.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russian economy will completely implode if these(low) oil prices last eighteen months.  It will be detrimentally for affected for most of a decade if they last for a year.  Six months they might get away with.  If the Iranians and the U.S. reach a deal oil is going a lower still.  That would be 500,000 barrels a day in an already saturated market immediately, and probably a great deal more in a few years.  Prices could halve again for a while.  Russia, and a great many other major exporting countries couldn't cover a quarter of the planned budgets if that happens.  It is an argument for giving the Iranians a better deal than makes sense otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lock&load, except AT weapons are not limited to ATGMs.

Dan, what percentage of Russian GDP is oil/gas based? What percentage of consolidated budget?

P.s. I forsee that this thread would go into political/economical OT and get locked by the administration.

Edited by ikalugin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is inevitable that it does so, at some point. (This thread going OT...)

 

Tanks cost money.

 

Better tanks cost more money.

 

Money comes from economic activity. Economic activity (and the money squeezed from it) is, to a large extent, determined by centralized governments (at least, that's how it is working lately).

 

The Tiger II was a better tank than most...once it reached the battlefield. But the Germans could not build many of them, nor adequately support the ones they had. It was too expensive for them. Plus, thanks to the pressure exerted on them, they could never afford to shut down the PzIV facilities to switch over to something better. That's the effect of economics and how it filters down to the battlefield.

 

The current "run what you brung" attitude on modern large scale war may or may not be correct. However, that does drive some production figures and planning.

 

The US military (US Army and USMC) have about 8,100 delivered Abrams of various models. That's a lot of tanks. Not all of them are M1A2 SEPv2. But they all could be upgraded to that level relatively cheaply. Supposedly they cost around $7 million (that seems low to me and is probably an old number).

 

 

The latest figure I found is that the TOTAL Russian economy produced about $2 Trillion in goods and services. The US was listed as $16 Trillion. 

 

The cost to compete is prohibitive. As good as the Armata may be, there cannot be the numbers needed to seriously compete with US dominance without destroying the Russian economy... (Of course, that "US dominance" is a paper exercise. Tanks in the US do not have any battlefield influence were there to be a fight in Europe...unless the tanks get shipped.)

 

Then there are the M1A3 rumours...

 

 

Economics do play into it. That brings geopolitics into it. 

 

 

Meantime, I'm very curious to see what this new tank may look like and what innovations it brings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 

Er... nobody is interested in discussing my numbers anymore?
 
That's sad :(

Haven't you said that you don't want to argue?

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are 3 main areas:

- frontal protection within safe angles of manuever (from high end, long range AT weapons).

- side protection outside of those angles (from CQ AT weapons).

- top protection. (side note - improvements in passive protection are required, as APS could be easily saturated with things like cluster submunitions and EFPs they could fire, hence a degree of passive protection improvement is waranted there).

 

The difference between a heavy IFV and assault APC is that former has emphasis on the protection in the first category, while the later has emphasis on the protection in the second category. Note that Namer (other Israili and Russian desighins, especially the ones converted from older tanks) does not offer frontal protection (within the safe angles of manuever) against long range AT threats, such as KE tank rounds, but does offer good all round protection against RPGs and such. In fact it's armour protection does not show significant differentiation between sides and front.

Edited by ikalugin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are 3 main areas:

- frontal protection within safe angles of manuever (from high end, long range AT weapons).

- side protection outside of those angles (from CQ AT weapons).

- top protection. (side note - improvements in passive protection are required, as APS could be easily saturated with things like cluster submunitions and EFPs they could fire, hence a degree of passive protection improvement is waranted there).

 

The difference between a heavy IFV and assault APC is that former has emphasis on the protection in the first category, while the later has emphasis on the protection in the second category. Note that Namer (other Israili and Russian desighins, especially the ones converted from older tanks) does not offer frontal protection (within the safe angles of manuever) against long range AT threats, such as KE tank rounds.

 

I'm talking about planes (along X/Y and Z axis), not specific areas, in which you can theoretically put armor. I'm talking "theoretical", because both Namer and T-14/T-15 armor specs are classified.

 

So you can't claim that Namer does not offer frontal protection against KE rounds. And, being based on a Merkava chassis, which is a tank, one can expect frontal armor to be capable of withstanding frontal attacks.

 

Also, wiki says:

 

 

Namers took part in Operation Protective Edge. During the fighting, Namers (which are currently not fitted with an Active Protection System) were hit multiple times by RPGs and ATGMs, including suffering direct hits by Kornet ATGMs, but the vehicles emerged undamaged and in no instances was the armor penetrated or injuries caused.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the vertical armour is also differentiated. If you spend to much mass reserves on your sides (to protect them against hits from outside safe angles of manuever) - you won't have mass reserve for a good level of protection against frontal threats (within safe angles of manuever).

 

Have you seen lower hull of Mk4/Namer? Or in fact top hull thickness? Sure it gives you great protection against RPGs in CQC type situations, (and that side/top protection weights a lot), but with large internal volume (partially due to low density power pack) it came at the cost of large mass (which is ok for their theatre) and low protection against high end frontal threats.

Edited by ikalugin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have. But I've suggested another form of communication :)

In order to communicate successfully, I think it's best to establish a base at which we both agree upon first, a common point. This is why I've asked those questions before going into numbers. Numbers alone don't mean a thing, if there's no basis that they are discussed upon.

 

 

The problem is that the vertical armour is also differentiated. If you spend to much mass reserves on your sides (to protect them against hits from outside safe angles of manuever) - you won't have mass reserve for a good level of protection against frontal threats (within safe angles of manuever).

 

Have you seen lower hull of Mk4/Namer? Or in fact top hull thickness? Sure it gives you great protection against RPGs in CQC type situations, (and that side/top protection weights a lot), but with large internal volume (partially due to low density power pack) it came at the cost of large mass (which is ok for their theatre) and low protection against high end frontal threats.

 

Yeah, I've seen the pictures of Namer. Not X-ray scans or schematics, though. What are you basing your assessment upon, that Namer can't take frontal hits from MBTs?

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lock&load, except AT weapons are not limited to ATGMs.

Dan, what percentage of Russian GDP is oil/gas based? What percentage of consolidated budget?

P.s. I forsee that this thread would go into political/economical OT and get locked by the administration.

RUSSIA

Its oil and other energy exports total approximately $300 billion annually. TheInternational Energy Agency estimates that 68% of Russia's foreign currency earnings come from the oil-export business, and around 50% of its annual budget is underwritten by the industry. 

Edited by dan/california
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is significant ammount of open source information (imagery) to make those conclusions.

http://g.zeos.in/?q=%D0%BD%D0%BB%D0%B4%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0

 

So do you elect not to comment about the differentiation of armour protection?

 

Differentiation of armor protection is possible when trading between frontal and side armor. But when it comes to roof armor, you trade armor space for internal ceiling height. Unless you wanna compromise bottom armoring.

 

As for the initial link to the photo that you've later changed to a google search, what I see is just a frame. Frame does not represent anything really, IMO. Especially knowing that there's an engine in the front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M1s seem to be near the upper limit in terms of size and weight, on bridge limits, logistics, and a number of other factors.  They can only withstand first line ATGM and saboot hits to the frontal arc, and then not always.  Unless you are predicting a major materials science breakthrough that comes pretty close to setting an upper limit for what can be accomplished. For a real war as opposed to counterinsurgency that seems to be the price of admission for a heavy IFV.

 

 APS is going to be standard on the tanks and IFVs of a first line fighting force very soon. The difference is makes is too big to ignore.  It all but obsoletes a LOT of current munitions.

 

So the entire discussion becomes what level of threat can your side/ top armour deal with.  A 25mm apdsdu round like the bushmasters? A 50 mm shaped charge submunition? You pretty much have to fill out your budgeted limits in terms of mass and cost and hope its good enough most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

RUSSIA

Its oil and other energy exports total approximately $300 billion annually. TheInternational Energy Agency estimates that 68% of Russia's foreign currency earnings come from the oil-export business, and around 50% of its annual budget is underwritten by the industry. 

 

You did not answer the question.

 

Another one - what is the non oil and gas deficit, what is it's level in the current budget?

Edited by ikalugin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On T-14, top attack will only be at its most effective if it detonates over the crew compartment. There is a lot of inert space on the T-14 it seems. Top attack would probably cause weapon subsystem failure at worst, and M-Kill or ammunition storage detonation at best. Still the crew could probably drive the tank away after this or get out themselves. It is probably quite short work to drop in another modular turret after this.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...