Armata soon to be in service.

[Nerdwing]

Meh they may not even bail out or escape.  They may just kinda sit there and go "Lol gun's dead :(" 

 

We really need to see the finalized turret to gauge what kind of effects things will potentially have.  Its possible a penetration will hit whats part of a large intert/non-essential area and the gun may remain operative.   Or its possible it'd still lead to risk of the vehicle as a whole.  Are we even 100% positive the turret isnt going to have significant armor protection?  

 

The gun's going to be a monster though.  Would be a shame if the M1A3's weight-loss had to be undone by adding even more armor to an M1A2

Edited April 6, 2015 by Nerdwing

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Think its likely to be a mess of firepower kills and being in the awkward position of having the world's most expensive tractors.

Think jury is still out on the gun. Some commentators seem to believe the actual weapons system has not yet been fitted, and its just a mockup barrel that is mounted.

[John Kettler]

Alan8325,

 

Billions of dollars spent in order to produce a tank whose crew may survive an M829A4 hit, only to be eaten alive by AMP when they bail out? Ouch!

 

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

Earlier in the thread, you were talking about the odds against both the TC and the gunner being taken out by a single penetration of the Abrams turret. Maybe I'm misunderstanding post-armor effects, but I thought a DU penetration turned the tank into an instantaneous pyrophoric super furnace, killing everyone inside. Certainly, the GAU-8 effectiveness test photo I saw on Av Week's cover suggested that. The tank was lying on its side, and the GAU-8 was firing parallel to the ground, with shot path through the turret roof, hull floor, suspension and out the bottom. Is the Abrams fire suppression system, designed and initially built by Hughes Santa Barbara Research Center, able to stop a DU penetration pyro phenomena from killing the crew? If so, I'm truly impressed. I know it can do that with an RPG penetration, for I've seen the test footage.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

John,

 

I was referring to a hit that would result in less than total loss of tank.  If the entire inside of the turret is on fire, it's a moot point if the crew is 3 or 4 man, they're all dead regardless.  In the event of a less than catastrophic hit, like one from a conventional penetrator or even very lucky HEAT penetration, the crew alignment makes it hard to get both TC and gunner in one go.

 

Re: DU

 

I'll be honest in that I'm not 100% sure on all the details (if the shell kills everyone in the tank by injecting a swarm of very angry bees, or it's death by DU, doesn't matter, I just worry about putting the shell on target, and know with a reasonable chance it'll cause the target to cook off).  The way I understood DU to work was the penerator/spall was simply super-on fire after the strike, and the fragments themselves may or may not have found something explosive.  The instant oven thing is likely a result of Soviet tank design and 1991,* the guys that I knew who saboted real tanks generally reported a brilliant blue flash on impact, followed by a short delay, and then flipping turrets/devil's horns/potato in a microwave effects.  This seems to indicate the instant furnace may not be the case.  Some of the saboted tanks did not even cook off, simply stopping movement.  If the tank was reasonably believed to be destroyed, then it was left alone, but often (especially in 1991) the tank would get a follow up HEAT round to ensure explosive effects (the M830 stood a very good chance at achieving effects from the front, and would blow out anything Iraq had from the side).

 

Of course that doesn't make the situation any better for the crew in the tank, the one guy I knew who owned up to looking in a sabot struck, not exploded Iraq tank described it like looking into a mostly empty can of meat sauce.

 

*I do not think Soviet designers could have made the T-72s, and earlier generation tanks any more prone to catastrophic detonation when penetrated if they tried. 

[Battlefront.com]

*I do not think Soviet designers could have made the T-72s, and earlier generation tanks any more prone to catastrophic detonation when penetrated if they tried.

I sat in a running T-72 just before it was hit with a Javelin. Fortunately they let us retire to a bunker first When I was in there I noticed how even a moderate sized American with a touch of claustrophobia would not want to be in there (true for all the other Soviet era vehicles I've been in). The second thing I noticed was the ammo layout. Yesh. Sitting surrounded by big 'splody things that pretty much are guaranteed to be hit by a shot to the weak side armor. Not my idea of a fun ride. The videos of T-72s burning up in Syria sure reinforces that point.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

 

Are you telling us were in the combat loaded T-72 shown subsequently being attacked by Javelin in the video below? If so, how did you manage to snag that invitation? In any event, the excellent aftermath shots strongly suggest the BFC K-Kill model rendering needs work. We can dream, right?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VdRnY-TUb4

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

Edited April 6, 2015 by John Kettler

[Kieme(ITA)]

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

 

Thanks for pointing this out. I hope the same goes for the other new vehicles in Russian lines.

[ikalugin]

The point I am trying to make is that it appears that you have very little idea as to how Soviets were desighning their tanks and for which reasons. The maintenance part of it is but an example - Soviet tanks were difficult to maintain in the field (doing anything other than changing oil/batteries was no easy task), because they were not intended to be maintained in the field, but rather whole sets of vehicles were intended to be sent to the rear and maintained/repaired there after a set period of time (ie when the unit was expected to sustain sufficient casualties).

 

While the Soviet desighns were indeed relatively simple to produce and well thought out (having military science to back up the concept helped), they were by no means low tech, for example T64B for it's time was fairly revolutionary (integrated fire control system, first of the kind, TGM, ect). The only area in which Western tanks did over come the Soviet ones (and only during late cold war) were the thermals.

Edited April 6, 2015 by ikalugin

[L0ckAndL0ad]

The only area in which Western tanks did over come the Soviet ones (and only during late cold war) were the thermals.

 

+ defense, crew safety, powerful ammo, accuracy, C2 integration. Not a whole lot, huh?

[L0ckAndL0ad]

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.

 

Half a body is still a significant overlap IMO.

 

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.

 

Obviously. What I'm saying is, if your main gun suddenly brakes, you still got 30mm that you can use to defend yourself. Going back to my MBT vs TD point once more, I'd say that if Russians intend T-14 to be an MBT, they have to make the turret and mechanics durable enough to withstand frontal KE attacks (at least one) and still be operational. Otherwise it won't be much of a tank.

 

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.

 

Well, we can only guess as to how much would T-14 be maintainable/repairable in the field. There can be two types of components - mechanical ones, and electronics. Would it be safe to assume that electronics of either Abrams or T-90/T-14 can't really be maintained/repaired in the field by the crew? Which leaves only mechanical maintenance/repairs. And those usually depend on complexity and accessibility.

 

The biggest advantage in all regards T-14 has is that it is a successor of Obj 195, Black Eagle, etc and others that came before it. The more prototypes you build, the better you get at building stuff and finding solutions. If Armata MBT was the first time Russians ever tried making unmanned turret MBT, their chances of making it good would be small. But with all that previous experience, their chances of succeeding are much better.

 

Added:

 

Crew. How far can Platoon sections operate away from each other? Would it be true to say that for each US armor Plt section of 2 tanks, there would be the whole Russian Platoon of 3 tanks? With the same amount of personnel.

Edited April 6, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[ikalugin]

+ defense, crew safety, powerful ammo, accuracy, C2 integration. Not a whole lot, huh?

Protection levels were around the same (higher for the T64 vs M60 comparison), munitions were comparable (untill M829A1 and more so with M829A2), C2 integration was the same (untill after 1989, when USSR did not field low tactical level C3I system - extension of Manevr-M).

 

I think the mistake a lot of people make is comparing 90s tanks (such as the M1A2, M1A2SEP) with their munitions (M829A2, M829A3, that said M829A3 had some production issues) against the Soviet mid 80s desighns such as the T80U or T72B with their mid 80s munitions (Vant, Mango).

Or in fact with late 60s-70s desighns (ie the Iraqi tanks).

 

Sadly there is not much else to do, as Russian Armed Forces did not field any advanced desighns during that time period (such as Burlack), however such comparisons are still faulty and would not reflect the situation should Russian Armed Forces procure modern desighns (such as Armata).

Edited April 6, 2015 by ikalugin

[Thewood1]

"should Russian Armed Forces procure modern desighns (such as Armata)."

 

That is a big should/if.  But it isn't producing them, but producing them in numbers.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Well, we can't expect ten battalions being equipped within 6 months. Everytime a new asset is introduced,the process is done by steps, I hope BFC can model the new vehicles in the game within one or two years, even if these won't be the new backbone of Russian army in 2016.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Thewood1]

Its beyond even wishing the Armata as the backbone.  We are only two years from the scenarios in CMBS and still don't even know what the Armata looks like.  There is nothing as a foundation to even start modeling it in CMSF.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Considering the amount of information that can be generated in little time nowadays I am confindent that in two years there will be enough to make something for a videogame with an acceptable degree of reality.

[ikalugin]

Considering the amount of information that can be generated in little time nowadays I am confindent that in two years there will be enough to make something for a videogame with an acceptable degree of reality.

Yes, after parade there should be sufficient photo/video footage. Back on the topic, note how little extra space (in T90 patern turret) is required to switch from the older to the newer gun:

 

Edited April 6, 2015 by ikalugin

[Stagler]

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

 

Its not planned to be fielded until 2017. Production to equip all Russian armed forces with T-14 would not be possible until post that date anyway. First unit to receive T-14 incidentally is set to be the one equipped with T-80U still, the 4th Guards Tank Div which is western facing being based at Naro-forminsk.

 

I also don't remember T-80UM2 or Obr-195 being shown at May Day Parade. Infact, I can remember no things shown at any May Day Parade that were never brought into service. For someone who places a lot of faith in history then surely all indicators point in that direction. They built two T-80UM2 in five years, they have built upward of ten T-14 in less than two for the prototype run - significant difference.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Stagler

[ikalugin]

There were a lot of missile systems shown on parades that never made it. Esp in 60s.

 

Armata would go into experimental small scale usage soon (actually it sort of did - with the parade unit), so for the game purposes it would be ok to have Armata BTG (1 Armata tnk and 1 Armata IFV companies), if not large scale units, as those Armata vehicles have already been produced.

Edited April 6, 2015 by ikalugin

[Thewood1]

There is a lot more to than just producing a few tanks.  Spares, training, acceptance trials, deployment development, etc.  Again, we are talking about a tank that no one has even seen official line drawings on.  It is supposedly deplyed to a parade unit that was not even at a parade rehearsal.  There are articles already circulating about numbers being cut back on procurement.  It does not bode well.

[Stagler]

There is a lot more to than just producing a few tanks. Spares, training, acceptance trials, deployment development, etc. Again, we are talking about a tank that no one has even seen official line drawings on. It is supposedly deplyed to a parade unit that was not even at a parade rehearsal. There are articles already circulating about numbers being cut back on procurement. It does not bode well.

Just because nobody on the internet has seen it doesn't mean that all that hasn't already been done you know wood

In two years time we can come back to this thread and either weep at t-14 not being ingame as it drives across our screens on tvzvezda articles, or rejoice in indefatigable murican battlefield superiority in cmbs.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Stagler

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Few points regarding CMBS, time and reality:

• It's June - August 2017. Not Jan-Feb.
• There is not a single T-90AM, BMP-3M, BTR-82 (not to be mistaken with BTR-82A) in actual service, nor planned for production/modernization any time soon
• There's at least 24x Armata, 24x Kurganets and 12x Boomerang chassis-based vehicles already produced and operational, and assigned to certain RAF units

Unless they'll melt them inside the industrial melting furnace a la "T-800 thumbs up"/Fiorina 161 OMG it's bursting out of my chest" style, they have actually more chances of seeing potential combat in reality rather than non existing/not planned T-90AMs and BMP-3Ms. Pure and simple.

[Thewood1]

Again, we can see how a T-90AM comes together.  It is based on an existing platform.  Armata is not.  We are in April looking at my calendar, so lets say two years and a couple months.

 

So lets circle back on May 10th and look at the parade footage and we can see how close we really are.

 

Frankly, in the internet age, nothing makes me more skeptical than no clear pictures showing up for a tank that supposedly has 24 units deployed.  If there are 24 fully functional units, why did none of them show up in the parade?  Seems like every other modern unit was there.  On top of that the history of hyping up prototypes that never get beyond factory test grounds.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Hey, I'm just presenting the facts. Upgrades also cost time and money to make. But these things are already there. The numbers come from official documents. What we've seen so far on videos and photos is what they've allowed us to see. My take on it is that Armata-based vehicles rehearse separately, due to more secrecy around them. And there'd be a lot rehearsals in the coming days up to May 9th.

[Stagler]

There is such thing as opsec you know wood. The internet is not some all seeing eye, even if it tries to be.

They are also way beyond the test grounds. 24 platforms have been built and distributed. I'm sure we will see T14 at parade

Edited April 6, 2015 by Stagler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I sat in a running T-72 just before it was hit with a Javelin. Fortunately they let us retire to a bunker first   When I was in there I noticed how even a moderate sized American with a touch of claustrophobia would not want to be in there (true for all the other Soviet era vehicles I've been in). The second thing I noticed was the ammo layout. Yesh. Sitting surrounded by big 'splody things that pretty much are guaranteed to be hit by a shot to the weak side armor. Not my idea of a fun ride. The videos of T-72s burning up in Syria sure reinforces that point.

 

Pretty much.  The whole small size thing comes with pretty vast trade-offs.  That's always been the case (the Korean tank on tank fighting is a really good illustration of this simply because each engagement was fairly well documented, and nearly all of the knocked out T-34s/UN tanks were recovered or available for analysis).

 

 

 

Half a body is still a significant overlap IMO.

 

Just going off how we tended to lose dudes on occasions that the Abrams was penetrated in Iraq.  EFP isn't a bad model for ATGM strikes, and more than a few got hit by later RPG-7 warheads from the rear/sides (pre-ERA), and there were even a fair number of RPG-29 strikes.  Losing more than one guy usually required a massive tank destroying event like a buried aircraft bomb.  That's generally what happened, so I'm inclined to believe it's not an unreasonable result for a short of tank destruction hit.

 

 

Obviously. What I'm saying is, if your main gun suddenly brakes, you still got 30mm that you can use to defend yourself. Going back to my MBT vs TD point once more, I'd say that if Russians intend T-14 to be an MBT, they have to make the turret and mechanics durable enough to withstand frontal KE attacks (at least one) and still be operational. Otherwise it won't be much of a tank.

Even if Abrams had a 30 MM I'd still be pulling it off the line if I lost the main gun.  Even then there's a lot less to go wrong on the tank, and I've seen enough breach issues, or rounds fail to fire that I'm dubious of being unable to get at the gun to troubleshoot it, or work it in a degraded mode (manually operating the breach, firing via the "master blaster" etc).

 

 

 

Well, we can only guess as to how much would T-14 be maintainable/repairable in the field. There can be two types of components - mechanical ones, and electronics. Would it be safe to assume that electronics of either Abrams or T-90/T-14 can't really be maintained/repaired in the field by the crew? Which leaves only mechanical maintenance/repairs. And those usually depend on complexity and accessibility.

 

For the Abrams it depends pretty wildly.  A lot of the electronics are plug and play, and each company has a stock of spares with their unit maintenance team (which is generally 1X M88 recovery vehicle, 1X tool truck, 1X FRSH for lack of a better way of describing it, mobile garage, and usually a cargo truck for spare parts).  The sort of stuff you won't have in stock will be complete engines, gun tubes, entire optics assemblies etc, but most of that will be kept at Battalion level.

 

So to that end, I've watched an Abrams go from "pretty much a brick" after a small electrical fire to "ready to rock" in a few hours while sitting in a muddy field with no more assets than the tank crew and the mechanic team.

 

If the allocation of mechanics was better, or more extensive in the Russian army, I'd be less dubious, but right now it's sort of like, you want to do this amazingly complex tank with cutting edge technology....and your mechanics are still at echelons above reality? 

 

 

 

Crew. How far can Platoon sections operate away from each other? Would it be true to say that for each US armor Plt section of 2 tanks, there would be the whole Russian Platoon of 3 tanks? With the same amount of personnel.

 

We usually do not operate in sections by themselves.  They exist mostly for inter-platoon maneuver (so first section covers second section while moving through open terrain) or as attachments (1st section is attached to mechanized infantry platoon 1, while 2nd section is attached to mechanized infantry platoon 2).  We did platoon vs section training because of the size of the training space, and to give a more realistic attacker/defender ratio rather than a common deployment of sections.  Generally if you see one US tank, there's at least another three out there somewhere.

 

 

 

There is such thing as opsec you know wood. The internet is not some all seeing eye, even if it tries to be.

 

Yep, but if I claimed the US Army had ninja battle robots, but you don't get to see them because OPSEC, you'd have reasons to be incredulous.  As more than a few posters have stated the ability of Russia to crank out Armatas, and the capabilities of the vehicle itself are somewhat in doubt.