Jump to content

Armata soon to be in service.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, as a (Non US) lawyer I´ll try  :   In the case of Armata Vs. Skeptics the Court finds as follow:   - That given the complete lack of evidence to support anything resembling technical specs, th

This vid shows Armata and predecessors. It has the virtue of putting a lot of useful images and video (plus not so useful PS bull) in one location, but it lacks captions pointing out what's what and f

And know what it does with some level of credibility. I'm sure whatever armor it has according to the Russians can defeat smaller nuclear explosions and resist Captain America's sheild but combat miss

Posted Images

They are, but they're angled, the gunner is below the commander in position.  A simple penetration to one has to be traveling in a fairly difficult direction to reasonably strike the commander and the gunner.  A catastrophic strike on that side of the tank could reasonably get both, however in that case it wouldn't matter if there's three or six men in the tank, the sort of strike to get both at the same time would likely firepower kill the tank (if not vehicle kill) anyway.

 

I dunno, I still don't see too much of a diff here. Are there any pictures that describe this schematically, like from presentations or something? If these things are being discussed much, maybe there's been some studies that can be referred to?

 

Not a fan.  I'm not being a douche in the sense "RUSSIA=DUMBY" with it, nearly as much as I tend to favor an HMG type weapon.  None of the other autocannon armed tanks have had much success, and usually they have a pretty stiff ammunition penalty that goes with cramming one on.

 

I guess I'd rather just hit IFVs with HEAT, BRDM/HMMWV type targets with .50 cal and call it good.  It gets back to what Steve was saying with simplicity, and it's a lot easier to build the tank around the cannon, and focus on cannon-ing good, than give it much more in the terms of "primary" type weapons.

 

I'm also dubious of "suppressing" tanks.   Looking at the historical tank vs tank fights, there really has not been room for suppressing fire, generally the first tank to spot gets the kill (weapons imbalance generally non-withstanding).  Being able to hose down an enemy MBT while my main gun reloads because I missed on the first go isn't a "bad" idea, I'm just not sure the cost in weight, complexity and impact on other systems pays off.  Same deal with initiating with the 30 MM, why wake them up when I can just kill them in their sleep with the main gun?

 

Might be nice wit helicopters though, but uncertain of if the tank would have good enough SA on a whole to justify it.

 

Oh, well, how about those cases in Iraq when Bradleys were taking out enemy tanks with 25mm? Even if you can't penetrate it, you kill optics and degrade weapon mounts. That's suppression on vehicle level, isn't it?

 

No denying that. Just saying for the short term of "I have a tank platoon of three, but one of them has a broken turret so it's really only two" doesn't change if there's dead people in it or not.

It'd need to be taken care of between missions, but on tactical level, I think it can be useful with additional eyes, coax and possible 30mm, in both combined arms ops or in pure tank formation.

 

 

If this is going to be mounted as a secondary weapon, then you've got a LOT of issues.

1.) Secondary weapons are tough to coordinate with primary weapons. Not impossible, just difficult... See the multi-turreted tanks of yore.

2.) If it is co-axial with the main gun, then the elevation needs to be carried over to that main gun. That is HARD. Makes for a hugely tall turret.

3.) If it is not co-axial with the main gun, then it needs its own elevation mechanism outside of, and in addition to, the main gun. As well as its own sights and targeting system. That's a lot of excess baggage.

 

All the above are moot if you're not talking about having the 30mm as a secondary weapon on the Armata.

 

I am pretty sure if it would be there, it'd be coaxed with either main gun or commander's station. T-90AM commander's station coax MG has high elevation for example (was it 70-80 deg or something?).

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty funny how stereotypical nonsense even the administrators are spewing here. It is clear that western people are no more immune to nationalistic bias than any other people.

 

Looking at Soviet/Russian military designs as if simplicity was some overriding theme is just disconnected from reality, but it is pretty convenient misconception when one really wants to believe in some western superiority. Really neat way of framing the whole reality. Certainly there was some areas where a dual track system was in place. Obvious example is from MBT lines where T-62/T-72 represented the cheaper 2nd class line of machines and T-64/T-80 represented the more expensive and complex high-end line of machines. Somewhat similar system was seen in the airforce where MiG-29 was the cheaper line and Su-27 the more complex and expensive. Of course this wasn't unique for the Soviet Union, the USA had similar system in place with F-16 being the simple and cheap and F-15 the more complex and expensive. It is also rather illuminating to note that the Su-27 project was constantly being updated with new information coming about the F-15 and intention was always to surpass the american counterpart, which the Su-27 in many ways did as flight records and such show, but not obviously in everything.

 

Also there is some embarrassingly misguided views on budget issues and the nature of military industry. Comparing budgets in the US currency gives a very skewed view as for example russians don't earn wages in dollars. Even before the ruble lost half of its value the Russian wages were about 4-5 times lower than US wages. So with 10 billion dollars you could hire 4-5 times as many Russian scientists to design military products than US scientists. With current exchange rate the difference is even bigger. Also it is good to understand that budgets are not formed identically in different countries, some expenditures that go in to military budget in Norway might go into a different budget in Finland. USA obviously has a very demanding global commitments in form of literally hundreds of military bases all around the world that eat a very substantial part of its military budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I dunno, I still don't see too much of a diff here. Are there any pictures that describe this schematically, like from presentations or something? If these things are being discussed much, maybe there's been some studies that can be referred to?

 

Wish I had something better, but basically the commanders knees are at about head level for the gunner.  I had an NCO that used to actuate the 3x-10x selector on the top of the gunner's station using his feet from the commander's station during the commander's engagements on the M1A1.  It's a pretty significant height difference.

 

 

 

 

Oh, well, how about those cases in Iraq when Bradleys were taking out enemy tanks with 25mm? Even if you can't penetrate it, you kill optics and degrade weapon mounts. That's suppression on vehicle level, isn't it?

 

Yeah, but if I'm a Bradley that's my best option at close range (given the limitations on ATGMs).  If I'm a tank, my best choice against tanks is always the main gun as that'll degrade the whole tank in one go.  

 

 

 

It'd need to be taken care of between missions, but on tactical level, I think it can be useful with additional eyes, coax and possible 30mm, in both combined arms ops or in pure tank formation.

 

 I once ran my company for 22 hours straight.  Scenerio went as follows:

 

Red Platoon Attacks

White Platoon 1 section defends objective

White Platoon 2 section "screens" (basically is fully manned, on guard in defensive position, allows attacking unit forward/back after mission)

Blue Platoon Rest and maintenance

 

Each rotation the platoons would rotate (which section defended/screened was on the platoon leader).  The missions usually took about 60-70 minutes given the small size of the training area (Korea lacked for big training areas, so basically it was SP and make contact a few minutes later).  

 

This is relevant simply because of the sheer amount of technical issues that had to be fought through, combined with the strain placed on the individual tank crews in the 50-60 minutes they had of "down" time to sleep, conduct maintenance, eat, defecate, and do anything that wasn't "in the tank on mission"

 

And looking at the Armata which promises to be quite complex, with a smaller crew, and a much reduced ability to conduct "10 level*" repairs.  I'm just skeptical how well something like that would hold up to extended operations, or without significant maintenance augmentation.

 

*US Soldier skills broadly are divided up into 10, 20, 30, and I think 40 level.  10 is your basic soldier level, 20 is junior NCOs, etc, etc.  10 level repairs are things the tank's crew is expected to do without any assistance or additional equipment.

 

Re: 30 mm mounting

 

If I had to mount one, I'd have it as a remote weapons station sort of arrangement.  The real pain of the CROWS was that it was a separate system from the rest of the tank's optics, so I couldn't scan with the tank's main optics and engage with the .50 cal.  generally I had to keep the CROW aligned with the front of the tank, and I'd scan with the CITV.  If I found something that was a .50 cal type target, I'd designate the entire turret onto the target, and make fine adjustments with the  CROWS.  A better system would allow me to simply designate the weapon onto the target with the commander's optics, and make fine adjustments from the same control. 

 

This would be easier on the crew management piece.  You're still looking at a lot of internal space for the ammunition or gun mount (basically a small gun mount with internal ammo storage, or a large mount with external ammo storage).  

 

The high angle fire thing in the US Army is usually covered by Bradleys, basically the armor "pure" formation is not as commonly employed as the Company Team type formations, so usually you've got the 25 MM along for the ride.  .50 cal is pretty good for it too.

 

In scifi terms because I'm lococrazy I'd like something that was along the lines of a belt fed M25 synced into an APS system.  Basically it could be fused to shoot down missiles at standoff, while against closer targets could "double tap" first firing a round to shoot down the projectile, and a second round to hit the firing position with an airburst. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty funny how stereotypical nonsense even the administrators are spewing here. It is clear that western people are no more immune to nationalistic bias than any other people.

 

Looking at Soviet/Russian military designs as if simplicity was some overriding theme is just disconnected from reality, but it is pretty convenient misconception when one really wants to believe in some western superiority. Really neat way of framing the whole reality. Certainly there was some areas where a dual track system was in place. Obvious example is from MBT lines where T-62/T-72 represented the cheaper 2nd class line of machines and T-64/T-80 represented the more expensive and complex high-end line of machines. Somewhat similar system was seen in the airforce where MiG-29 was the cheaper line and Su-27 the more complex and expensive. Of course this wasn't unique for the Soviet Union, the USA had similar system in place with F-16 being the simple and cheap and F-15 the more complex and expensive. It is also rather illuminating to note that the Su-27 project was constantly being updated with new information coming about the F-15 and intention was always to surpass the american counterpart, which the Su-27 in many ways did as flight records and such show, but not obviously in everything.

 

Also there is some embarrassingly misguided views on budget issues and the nature of military industry. Comparing budgets in the US currency gives a very skewed view as for example russians don't earn wages in dollars. Even before the ruble lost half of its value the Russian wages were about 4-5 times lower than US wages. So with 10 billion dollars you could hire 4-5 times as many Russian scientists to design military products than US scientists. With current exchange rate the difference is even bigger. Also it is good to understand that budgets are not formed identically in different countries, some expenditures that go in to military budget in Norway might go into a different budget in Finland. USA obviously has a very demanding global commitments in form of literally hundreds of military bases all around the world that eat a very substantial part of its military budget.

Russians are importing a significant amount of technology so any shift in Russian currency compared to others is going to have a serious impact.  Cash comes in to spend on budgets from a lot of energy selling.  When energy sales lose 1/3 of their value, something has to give.  You can make up some of that in the short term, but not if it doesn't recover in the long term.  Just look at the article I posted previously.  The impact is already being felt...Armata cut back T-50 cut back, and I am sure there is more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're focusing on the combat damage because that's what's sexy, but from my exposure to both yankee imperialist and foreign designs, no armored vehicle is immune to breakdowns or mechanical malfunctions on a good day.  There's a lot that can go firepower kill level wrong in a turret, that a crew can fix in a few seconds.  An unmanned turret, especially one completely isolated from the crew seems to just be asking for broken wires, faulty sensors and the like to take a tank out of the fight but hard.

 

Not at all. I am at a loss to why they put the damn ammunition in the hull of the vehicle again. Bustle all the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty funny how stereotypical nonsense even the administrators are spewing here. It is clear that western people are no more immune to nationalistic bias than any other people.

Oh, and what a way to start off a post for a guy with only 3 to his name (including this one). Well, I'll bite...

 

Looking at Soviet/Russian military designs as if simplicity was some overriding theme is just disconnected from reality, but it is pretty convenient misconception when one really wants to believe in some western superiority.

Who said simplicity was akin to inferiority? In fact, what do you think I've been arguing for in terms of manual loaded cannon vs. autoload? I'm actually a big fan of simplicity over complexity. I also think the Soviets had their military internally balanced very well. Especially in WW2 when it really counted.

Look, if you're going to enter into a conversation with a huge chip on your shoulder, at least try to have a relevant chip.

 

Really neat way of framing the whole reality. Certainly there was some areas where a dual track system was in place. Obvious example is from MBT lines where T-62/T-72 represented the cheaper 2nd class line of machines and T-64/T-80 represented the more expensive and complex high-end line of machines. Somewhat similar system was seen in the airforce where MiG-29 was the cheaper line and Su-27 the more complex and expensive. Of course this wasn't unique for the Soviet Union, the USA had similar system in place with F-16 being the simple and cheap and F-15 the more complex and expensive. It is also rather illuminating to note that the Su-27 project was constantly being updated with new information coming about the F-15 and intention was always to surpass the american counterpart, which the Su-27 in many ways did as flight records and such show, but not obviously in everything.

I'm failing to see your point. Maybe it's because I don't disagree with what you've just said?

 

Also there is some embarrassingly misguided views on budget issues and the nature of military industry. Comparing budgets in the US currency gives a very skewed view as for example russians don't earn wages in dollars. Even before the ruble lost half of its value the Russian wages were about 4-5 times lower than US wages. So with 10 billion dollars you could hire 4-5 times as many Russian scientists to design military products than US scientists. With current exchange rate the difference is even bigger. Also it is good to understand that budgets are not formed identically in different countries, some expenditures that go in to military budget in Norway might go into a different budget in Finland. USA obviously has a very demanding global commitments in form of literally hundreds of military bases all around the world that eat a very substantial part of its military budget.

I understand economics quite well, thank you very much. I also understand that examination of military budgets isn't as simple as finding a single number and comparing it. Likewise, when talking about R&D capabilities. However, it's useful to start with common numbers for comparison.

The fact is that even when you adjust for "purchasing power" within the state, the US alone spends far more than Russia on everything military. Not only that, but the US is tapped into the military industrial complexes in Europe, Israel, South Africa, and other places. What the US doesn't develop itself it can, and does, purchase form these other sources. Russia has vastly restricted access in general, and it's now worse (i.e. Mistral). Even when it does, these sources want to get paid in USD or Euros, not Rubles. Which means they have to pay a lot more relative to their general economy.

Now, domestically Russia does have a lot lower overhead per GDP than the US or any European nation. It also has lower GDP. Currently A LOT lower due to the depression of oil prices. Russia has cut back significantly in many areas of its budget, but not defense spending. At least not publicly. But there are already signs that long term commitments are being reexamined.

Plus, as for the "4-5 times as many Russian scientists" that can be bought for the same money, the demographics aren't helping Russia out much these days. Check out the emigration figures for the last 3 years, especially the last year. It's a brain drain. And where are those brains going? The West. And how many Western scientists are going to Russia? It was pretty much none before the war in Ukraine, now it is actually a net outflow of Westerners who were already in Russia.

Now, I'm not saying that Russia doesn't have capable engineers and scientists to do very good work for the Russian government. They always have and I am sure they always will. But let's not be silly enough to suggest that all Russia has to do to make a better tank than the West is to snap it's fingers, hire a bunch of super cheap engineers, and problem solved. Even adding in industrial espionage into to the equation doesn't change the outcome.

So why is it we're going down this path again? I don't know :D

What I said was that Armata represents a major leap into a tank that is nearly totally dependent upon "high tech" to function. I am not saying that Russia can't pull it off, because it very well might be able to. But to say this isn't a major leap for Russia is foolish. It would be a major leap even for the US, and it has a lot more going for it in terms of proven technical capabilities.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Samodherzets, I'm not an economist but even I can see that pretty much nothing you said would lend itself to an economic advantage, militarily, to Russia.  By your logic, immediate-post WW1 Germany should have been the strongest country ever given how little the Mark was worth.  Especially in regards to the ability to hire 4-5 times the amount of scientists.  The problem is both countries don't work with anything even close to the same budget, negating that (According to the IMF, the American GDP is 8 times that of Russia's). 

Edit: Ninja'd and better explained by Steve.  I also direct you to the Balancing Readiness, Capability, and Capacity section of the US DOD FY2015 budget request.  Compare that to any available figure of the Russian military.  I did some "back of the envelope" calculations, dividing the given day to day budget of the US Military amongst the 1.3 million active personnel compared to the entire Russian budget of $81billion for the 700,000 Active Russians that I found from Moscow Times.  The US spends 2.24 times per servicemen as Russia ($259k/US and $116k/RU).  Russia still spends a respectable amount and has a very capable military, but common sense should dictate that that difference is going to show itself somewhere.

Edited by Codename Duchess
Link to post
Share on other sites

Samoderzhets,

 

Welcome aboard!

 

You make the sweeping assertion that essentially  we westerners are besotted by pro-western bias and therefore aren't seeing Russian military technology correctly. I think your argument suffers from your own bias, starting with a fundamentally flawed understanding of the difference between intent regarding the High Low Mix for US fighter planes vs what actually happened. The plan was to build limited numbers of the expensive F-15, plus lots of F-16s, which were intended to be the US answer to the gigantic pain of a tiny plane called the MiG-21/FISHBED. Unfortunately, by the time the Air Force's "Fighter Mafia" got done with the F-16, it was anything but the plane it was planned to be. More and more capabilities were demanded of the plane, more black boxes were added, requiring more power, more cooling, etc. Weight soared, with price climbing even faster. Net result? The less capable (barely had a radar, shorter legged, single engined, fewer missiles) Low end of the mix wound up costing more than the High end! But the Air Force had made it nuclear capable. 

 

I can't speak to the original plans for the MiG-29/FULCRUM vs the Su-27/FLANKER, but in terms of roles, it was obvious to us it was the highly capable successor to the MiG-23, but possessed of true LD/SD capability and terrifying maneuverability. Equally, it was obvious the Su-27 was intended to deliberately do what the MiG-31/FOXHOUND was sort of thrown together to do. Provide the capability to locate and destroy cruise missile carrying bombers and cruise missiles already launched before they could reach the Motherland. Those planes had us worried sick, for the first two could do unheard of things, had radar (thanks in significant measure to Polish espionage against the F-18's at Hughes) rivaling ours, had missiles we had no equivalent to  (AA-11/ARCHER), horrifyingly accurate 30 mm cannon, IRST and more. I assure you, no one was putting down the Russians for being backwards. 

 

When it came to armored warfare, I've written many times and at length of how dire the armor/antiarmor imbalance was in the 1970s (which we didn't realize) and the 1980s (when we did and were freaking out) between the US and Russia. Simply put, they could penetrate us, but we couldn't penetrate them. That the Abrams of today and to come is such a terror is a direct tribute to the genius of Russian tank designers, for it was they who fielded so credible a threat the US had to spend a fortune (and then some) to regain lost lethality and survivability. I worked at Hughes Missile Systems Group in the time period in question, and in the mid 1980s there was practically palpable panic in the hallways in that, the home of the mighty TOW. The US fielded a handful of Copperhead LG shells; the Russians mass fielded LG shells to the tune of hundred of rounds per battery. Before the US could field SFW, the Russians were already testing theirs (Bazalt), and they had an overall 3:1 tank advantage over us already. SFW was the deep strike technology supposed to redress the numerical disparity. Oops. The Russians fielded DU a year before the US  did. And when there were but a hundred or so 105 mm gunned XM1 Abrams in Europe, with the rest of the force being M60s of several types, the Russians had thousands of T-72s. Each capable of frontal kill against anything we had. I might add that the US armor specialists went practically insane when long obsolete in the Red Army 76 mm HEAT captured by the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War and not provided to the US until 1984 was found to be capable of an XM1 Abrams frontal kill. A PT-76 recon tank could wipe out the great hope of the US Army! That's how bad things were.

 

Obviously, the Russian tank equipage problem wasn't and isn't the same as the US's. The fleet size disparities were huge, likewise the wildly disparate cost, logistics, R&M and more for the two nations. The US had one failed tank program after another before it finally sorted things out. Using a much more conservative design approach, Russia fielded one scary tank after another, though it overreached on the T-64 and suffered accordingly. Our own Jim Warford wrote his thesis on the dual track Russian tank procurement system, and he called the high end tank the Premium Tank, of which the T-64 was a notably failed example. Even so, it was still a scary tank, problems and all. But high tech, a la the T-64, wasn't a good fit for Russian armor production, for it required exactly the things Russia lacked: highly skilled workers and precision manufacturing, resulting in the well-known T-64 autoloader debacle. Nor was it the greatest decision to copy the 5-cylinder abortion that was the Chieftain engine, even if the GRU had obtained one. Something similiar happened with the T-80, where the desire to adopt the gas turbine ran smack into the lack of ability to mass produce a rugged gas turbine, field it and maintain it, not to mention keep it fueled.

 

Russian tanks are designed specifically and directly to operate on the steppes, get through Russian railroad tunnels and across relatively low load capacity Russian bridges. Consequently, compared to the Abrams from the beginning, every last one has been tens of tons lighter, but nothing in engineering is free. Lightness meant giving up armor protection to a significant degree, and when the US understood that Russian ERA could not only stop HEAT but break long rod penetrators, then eventually came the thicker slower ones which could get through it. But in 1985, when hundreds of threat analysts from dozens of US defense contractors were first briefed on it in a CLASSIFIED Soviet Threat Technology Conference at the CIA, Russian ERA would've nullified our best tank cannon. Meanwhile, the US went to DU armor, rolling it out for battle in ODS after crash replacing every 105 mm gunned M1 with the then new M1A1 HA taken straight from V Corps war stocks in Europe. The Abrams and the DU XM829 "silver bullet" became legendary, but the combo wasn't used against frontline Russian armor and faced no ERA either. Outside of firing trials, there's been no real Abrams vs T-72/T-80/T-90 clash ever.  

 

Let's go back to engineering. Just as surely as the small turret ring imposed a hard limit on the ability to up arm British cruiser tanks and the Panzer III, so too does the current autoloader impose a hard limit on the ammunition Russian tanks can use. This is part of why the shoe is now on the other foot, with Russia lagging badly in the armor/antiarmor race when it comes to Direct fire KE attack and defense. And that's without factoring in the considerable advantages the Abrams has on the sensor end of things. The Abrams is analogous, if you will, to the Sherman and the Panzer IV in that it has the space, power and other factors in which to drastically expand its capabilities on all levels. 

 

The Armata MBT obviously has a bigger gun, concerning which quite a bit is known, and will have a bigger and better designed autoloader, permitting the firing of considerably more powerful ammunition, also known, than any other Russian MBT. I'm not going to discuss its armor. I am going to say that, from a historical perspective, Russia is taking a great and critical reach if the Armata is as advertised. It has a string of complex technologies throughout its vetronics, optronics, FCS, ammunition handling, gun controls and more--all of which must work flawlessly under the worst conditions and somehow be maintained by fewer men tank for tank than the US, men whose society and knowledge base is at nothing like our overall tech level. I think the general expectation here is that the Armata will be a good tank, but it runs the risk of being a cripple to a disaster if any number of things occur or don't, starting at the component level on the various production lines, through the tank production line and continuing from there. Since T-90 production for the Russian Army has been shut down, and the near term approach is to upgrade T-72s to the latest models (while putting on a happy face), the Russians are effectively betting the future of their tank force on the success of the Armata MBT. It will be the only tank theoretically able to challenge the Abrams and similar head on and at long range.

 

This tank was supposed to go into service this year and has now been postponed for three more years. Expect the buy to be cut dramatically, the costs to skyrocket, and for there to be lots of problems with the tank. If you don't believe me, just look at the troubled history of the Abrams before and after it came into service. And that was for a country renowned for high tech and not notorious for corruption. At least, not officially. For all its innovations, the Abrams was a typical tank. Turreted. No autoloader. Instantly recognizable by anyone who served on a WW II tank as a tank. The Armata MBT won't be. Indeed, practically everything on the tank will be unlike the Russian tanks which preceded it. Turretless, new gun, new armor, new powerplant, new autoloader, new ammo, new vetronics and optronics, to name but some. What could possibly go wrong?! I freely grant that some of what we're seeing is evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, and that relative to what Russia wanted to build, the T-95, the design is detuned, but no matter how you slice it, it's still a huge reach. It'd be a huge reach for the US, and the US has an awful lot more to draw upon, in practically every area, than does Russia. Frankly, barring an entire mass formation of miracles, I believe the Armata MBT is facing a long ugly road to FOC and might ultimately wind up being like the T-80 or, even worse, the T-64. Modern day Russia is operating under drastically different objective conditions than was Cold War Russia. Consequently, Armata must deliver, for there will be no way to hide it, as was done for the T-64. This is a prestige project, one to which Putin has tied himself and his regime as part of his intended vast rearmament program. 

 

I have enormous respect, as I've shown above,  for Russian weapon designers, but weapon design must be driven by actual capabilities to build, maintain and fight with what's created. To my mind, and clearly of many others here, Russia is not playing to its strengths. It is planning to build and deploy a tank which is, in many ways, the antithesis of Russia's typical approach to tank design. The Armata MBT may be a success, but a wealth of bitterly won data very much support the opposite view. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia still spends a respectable amount and has a very capable military, but common sense should dictate that that difference is going to show itself somewhere.

Yup. Russia is not immune to the laws of economics. Even the Soviet Union couldn't control basic economic principles.

The problem for Russia's devalued currency is that it imports a LOT of very important stuff. One example is medicine. Domestic production is pretty much limited to fairly routine and inexpensive things like cold medicine and aspirin. The sorts of drugs and medical supplies that are responsible for keeping people healthy and alive are imported. The Russian government provides healthcare for its people, therefore it has to pay more as a % of GDP to keep its citizens in good health than two years ago. The increase in healthcare costs must come from somewhere or the government has to cut back on what it provides its citizens. And history shows that the latter choice is not sustainable over time. When people perceive their loved ones suffering they will question the need for shiny new tanks.

Anyway, the relevance to Armata is that it is pushing Russia's abilities and capabilities in terms of design, production, maintenance, and operations. Even when economic times were better this was the case. Now that economic times are not good, and some say could rival the 1990s in a year or two, the negative pressures put on Russian defense spending have certainly increased. Only a fool would think this new reality won't have a negative effect on Russian defense capabilities.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, that's one of those songs yours truly used to love to sing drunk at home-based karaoke during parties. Fits the mood.

 

Где-то там в дали родной Техас,

Дома ждут меня отец и мать.

Мой Фантом взровался быстро,

В небе голубом и чистом.

Мне теперь вас больше не видать...

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1018

 

Murakhovski mentioned about new Russian thermal. Resolution upgraded. I heard those new thermals were already developed, but it seems that now they are just about to supplied. It will be installed in T14

 

Освоено:
Агат-МДТ - 320х256, ФПУ 3-5 мкм, арсенид галлия - индий, Россия.
Ирбис-К - 4х288, ФПУ 8-12 мкм, КРТ (кадмий-ртуть-теллур) , Россия.
Сейчас получили литеру О1 для:
ФПУ 3-5 мкм 1280х960, арсенид галлия - индий, Россия
ФПУ 8-12 мкм, 768x576, КРТ, Россия

Link to post
Share on other sites

....uh.  No.  I just think comparing it to an off the shelf system that can be bolted on in a few hours is dumb.  Having the T-90AM and BMP2M is already reasonable magic fairyland procurement.  For the Armata to go in there really needs to be:

 

1. A reasonable number of them somewhere near actual service or reason to believe they'd be available in 2017

 

2. Some decent understanding of just what they have and are capable of.

 

There's enough question to just what the Armata has at this point, or its ability to enter service on time to make an Armata addition a worthy start to the science fiction Combat Mission game rather than a realistic inclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it was more difficult to conduct any significant maintenance than on the M60.

Ah, so you're talking about engineering flaws that increase maintenance issues. There's plenty of horror stories about poorly designed military vehicles in every country's history. Listening to British Ferret owners complain that it takes 2 men 5 hours to change the oil always stuck with me :)

Anyway, I do not understand what your point is. My point is simply that the more the Soviets and Russians have moved away from straight forward, low tech, well thought out designs the less likely they had a good outcome. I don't know about the technical issues of the T-62, but I do know very few countries felt it was worth what the price the Soviet Union asked for. They found the T-55 to be all around better.

 

The difference is the trophy system exists and is entirely within the ability of the US government to buy in bulk. Its a small leap.

Yup. It didn't take the leap because it didn't want to, not because it couldn't. People can question the wisdom of the decision, but anybody that thinks Trophy isn't mounted on Abrams because of engineering or manufacturing reasons is not very well informed.

The Armata is not a small leap.

 

Yes, and I fear this fact will have to be repeated over and over again. Russia does not have a good track record when it comes to even attempting to break with traditional designs. It doesn't even have a good track record for creating its own equivalents to long produced Western technologies. Or at least in a timely fashion (i.e. before the West has moved beyond already).

Skepticism about Armata's future is warranted.

 

....uh.  No.  I just think comparing it to an off the shelf system that can be bolted on in a few hours is dumb.  Having the T-90AM and BMP2M is already reasonable magic fairyland procurement.  For the Armata to go in there really needs to be:

 

1. A reasonable number of them somewhere near actual service or reason to believe they'd be available in 2017

 

2. Some decent understanding of just what they have and are capable of.

 

There's enough question to just what the Armata has at this point, or its ability to enter service on time to make an Armata addition a worthy start to the science fiction Combat Mission game rather than a realistic inclusion.

Yes. This is the same logic why we didn't have the E-100, Panther 2, Maus, IS-3, Centurion, etc. in any previous Combat Mission game. THey are fantasy vehicles or they came out after the time period covered by our games.

If the Armata is actually produced and fielded within the next year then we will include it. If it is another Black Eagle then we will not.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see Armata in the game, but it seems most CM-relevant improvements over current Russian tanks are to crew survivability, which in CM terms means combat will play out very similar to the way it does now but with less Russian casualties.  I see it going something like this:

 

The way CM is now - M1A2 SEP spots T-90AM before T-90AM spots M1A2 SEP.  M1A2 SEP fires APFSDS round through turret of T-90AM, causing catastrophic explosion.  3 Russian casualties.

 

CM after T-14 is added - M1A2 SEP spots T-14 before T-14 spots M1A2 SEP.  M1A2 SEP fires APFSDS round through turret of T-14, causing catastrophic explosion.  T-14 crew bails out and escapes.  Possibly gets mowed down by MG or airburst HE.

Edited by Alan8325
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...