Armata soon to be in service.

[Battlefront.com]

Self Propelled Soft Serve Vehicle.  It ensures the polite men have much ice cream for novorussians and liberated comrades!

Oh yeah!  I often get my designations confused.  I now see I was thinking of the T-23 FLBOT.  They share a common chassis, which makes it economically and engineering wise totally viable, so we should probably speak no more about it.

Soviet, and Russian equipment is often announced to much fanfare, sabers are rattled, hopelessly optimistic claims are made. and then most of the time something down the road that's much more modest appears, if anything at all.  Often new systems or capabilities are promised, and then forgotten in favor of the next way in which this system will change the face of war.

Unfortunately, pointing out this sort of past history only makes us seem like "Russian haters" or something other than objective observers.  We saw a lot of that earlier in this thread when we dared to call the T14/15 project into question.

And honestly there's the same crap from western contractors too, but there's a lot more external attention, and rarely is the weapons producer as in bed with the actual government who also owns all the various media outlets for one of those countries.

Yup.  And no matter how may times I've pointed this out, even naming specific US examples of political nonsense or engineering failures, I'm somehow biased against all things Russian.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Self Propelled Soft Serve Vehicle.  It ensures the polite men have much ice cream for novorussians and liberated comrades!

Oh yeah!  I often get my designations confused.  I now see I was thinking of the T-23 FLBOT.  They share a common chassis, which makes it economically and engineering wise totally viable, so we should probably speak no more about it.

Soviet, and Russian equipment is often announced to much fanfare, sabers are rattled, hopelessly optimistic claims are made. and then most of the time something down the road that's much more modest appears, if anything at all.  Often new systems or capabilities are promised, and then forgotten in favor of the next way in which this system will change the face of war.

Unfortunately, pointing out this sort of past history only makes us seem like "Russian haters" or something other than objective observers.  We saw a lot of that earlier in this thread when we dared to call the T14/15 project into question.

And honestly there's the same crap from western contractors too, but there's a lot more external attention, and rarely is the weapons producer as in bed with the actual government who also owns all the various media outlets for one of those countries.

Yup.  And no matter how may times I've pointed this out, even naming specific US examples of political nonsense or engineering failures, I'm somehow biased against all things Russian.

Steve

[John Kettler]

The videos continue to fascinate me, Cold War period  cognitive dissonance issues on my end not withstanding. In the videos I noted several things of interest, starting with nomenclature. We are emphatically told in the first that Armata isn't a tank, yet over and over again, and not just in those videos, "tank" is overwhelmingly what we hear. I continue to be amazed that we are not only at the proving ground, at the gun calibration station and inside the thing (while operational no less), for I guarantee you the US and NATO intel types, in their various departments and specialties, are going nuts for joy over having this fabulous material. Of course, the possibility must be considered that the GUSM (Strategic Deception Directorate) may be pulling a con job on everyone watching the video. If the spooks are on the ball, someone's looking into that in terms of tech base, known examples of flat panel displays, software capability, manufacturing capacity, etc., in order to determine whether there is a con being pulled here. If such assessments are not being done, then heads should roll, for not to do so would be grossly derelict. How many of you noticed all of the Armata AFVs neutral steer? That is a big change from nearly a century of Russian tracked vehicle design, which had always, I believe, had one braked track to pivot. As the segment showed to those paying attention, this has real tactical implications if Armata ever enters CMBS or other BFC sims.

Finally, I believe this piece from The Intercept revealing via hacked E-mails Russian efforts to acquire "no cooling required" microbolometers (key component for thermal systems) via technological espionage conducted through shell companies is highly pertinent to this discussion. Here is the report on what was found. While things may well have gotten better since for Russia since then (e.g., licensing the Thales Catherine FC), I believe it perfectly depicts one of of the key issues we've been talking about here for many months on end--critical technological deficiencies with major impact on Russian military capability in modern warfare. In light of this, Putin should be grateful he had the license done before Russia waltzed into Ukraine. The report is grog central for those of you interested in a look at Russian military industry at the system and subsystem levels, for they are broken out by category at the back--with websites.

The Russian Federation Military Industrial Commission is the current day version of the Cold War VPK of the same name. This entity decides what the Russian armament machine needs in terms of tech and tasks the FSB to obtain it. An example of this is the less well known William Bell case at Hughes Radar Systems Group. There, Marion Zacharski, of Poland's intel service the Sluzhba (KGB equivalent), working under KGB control ath the direct behest of the VPK,compromised and recruited a key manager with access to a host of military-technical goodness. If memory serves, the information gained on the APG-63 LD/SD radar (another critical technology Russia didn't have and had to steal) on the F/A-18 saved Russia 3 years of development time and prevented wasted effort on several other technology paths which wouldn't have worked. I forget what the cost savings were, but this should serve to give some idea of the damage done to US security and the stupendous influx of cutting edge tech Russia got as a result

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited February 23, 2016 by John Kettler

[BTR]

A 152 MM MBT makes fairly little sense in the wider spectrum of things.  There will need to be a complete ammunition family invented for it, a new autoloader, and it'll carry like 15-20 rounds tops.  If you put in some sort of, like Tiger tank battalion in which it was only briefly committed as needed I guess that'd make marginally more sense, but I remain unconvinced the development side and production of same will balance out economically.  Also just the sheer size of a 152 MM tank gun rather boggles the mind, the 140 MMs of the 80's and early 90's were pretty challenging to say the least, while the unmanned turret seems to offer some relief, it's still a lot of weight, space, and ammo.  Virtually everyone else on the planet is looking to longer 120 MM, or more advanced rounds simply because the bigger gun option hits diminishing returns pretty quick

152mm technology is mature enough at this point. In fact it was mature enough for planned state trials with over 50 vehicles commissioned in 1992 with obj. 477A (unfortunately never received a T-XX GABTU designation). By 1992, the 152mm system had been in development for 8 years. 152mm guns are actually not that much more massive if you look at obj. 292, a T-80U chassis mounting a LP-83 gun which later trickled down to 2A83 variant being tested on the T-14.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

And the 140 MM was mature enough to put onto trials vehicles too.  I'd still be just as eyeroll if someone claimed that a M1A4 was around the corner with that gun, or if it was even a reasonable requirement.

Doubly so if it was a vehicle that cannot do a lap around the block without a blue screen yet.  Not to mention the gun itself is not the issue, nearly as much as the loading/ammunition end of it.  And that was the messy end to both the 477 and the CATTB.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm still curious to know what the intended purpose of putting a direct fire 152mm on ANY vehicle might be.  Then I want to have someone explain to me why it is better than other options.

As far as I can see it is a solution in search of a need.  That usually means someone is trying to get something out of this project that has nothing to do with increasing the quality of Russia's tangible defense capabilities.  I don't care what country we're talking about, I'd say the same thing.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

That too.  It doesn't seem like it offers much more than just a normal every day MBT would be able to handle.  If it offered better AT performance that's cool and all, but looking at a history of tank destroyers/heavy tanks, they went extinct for a variety of reasons, but one of the key ones I'd contend is their better performance in some missions (at a cost in other areas or just sheer expense) did not justify their existence in the face of having more MBTs. 

The 140 MM school of NATO tank designed died off for a reason.  The 152 MM tank designs the Soviets dreamed up also faded away.  There's not much that has changed in the last twenty years that has re-balanced the math on big tank guns.  

[BTR]

As we've reached all sorts of limits (volume, pressure tolerance, length, breach size, etc) higher calibers are the only way forwards that current levels of reliable technology allow. There has not been an incentive over the last 20 years to increase calibers in the west, and no political or economic will in the east which is why the discussion moved into the realm of theoretical. However, over the last year or so I've seen enough official western information that very much revives the idea of 140mm guns, especially from Germany, which leads me to believe they are not sure if 120mm guns can reliably achieve a mission kill over prospected Russian heavy equipment. 

There is also a question of export marketing, and it is a lot easier to sell something that can vaporize everything in its path then a long discussion about supply and efficiency. 

[Sublime]

Vlad I hate to say it. I dont know whether all of Russias media is controlled by the state however every link you.ve ever provided that Ive seen (RT, Sputnik) are almost universally always derided as state mouth pieces by everyone who isnt living in Russia. So maybe all the media in Russia isnt controlled by Putler (I like that btw) but if you.re not working in the ones for the state theres a really high chance you.ll be shot in a 'botched robbery' if you criticize the state, and all the Russian news you.ve posted generally doesnt make non Russians feel convinced that the Russian media isnt state controlled. It.d be like using Pravda as a 100 percent unbiased source in the 40s or 80s or anytime to 91.

I certainly dont think anyone here is blathering on about " those dumb russians" and I have to admit I dont know where this fanatical "you have to be 100 percent for Russia no criticism or you.re a Russophobe has a base in reality"

Certainly you.ll see Americans get nationalistic but I honestly feel you see Americans bash their own govt and actions and agree with foreigners about say the idiocy of some Bush moves or bad things their govt has done without the immediate leap to "you think America sucks and Americans are dumb because you pointed out a flaw in our history or policy!"

Idk. Just rambling thoughts. I dont get it.

[A Canadian Cat]

Vlad I hate to say it. <snip>

<snip> I dont know where this fanatical "you have to be 100 percent for Russia no criticism or you.re a Russophobe has a base in reality"

Certainly you.ll see Americans get nationalistic but I honestly feel you see Americans bash their own govt and actions and agree with foreigners  <snip> without the immediate leap to "you think America sucks and Americans are dumb because you pointed out a flaw in our history or policy!"

Where is my +1 button when I need it

Idk. Just rambling thoughts. I dont get it.

Me neither.

[sburke]

America bashers.  Here let me give you some links from Fox News to prove America strong. . . .oh damn no all those links say America weak and blame Obama.  Time to call in The Donald.. Oh wait no he likes Putin and also blames Obama cause America weak.  What the hell, wonder if we can hire away some of those RT guys for an American version. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

As we've reached all sorts of limits (volume, pressure tolerance, length, breach size, etc) higher calibers are the only way forwards that current levels of reliable technology allow. There has not been an incentive over the last 20 years to increase calibers in the west, and no political or economic will in the east which is why the discussion moved into the realm of theoretical. However, over the last year or so I've seen enough official western information that very much revives the idea of 140mm guns, especially from Germany, which leads me to believe they are not sure if 120mm guns can reliably achieve a mission kill over prospected Russian heavy equipment. 

There is also a question of export marketing, and it is a lot easier to sell something that can vaporize everything in its path then a long discussion about supply and efficiency. 

Oh lard jebus.

Firstly just for the entire class, here's what a 140 mm round looks like next to lesser shells.

This is clearly something that's frankly and obviously offers virutally no engineering challenges, so I have to imagine converting an Armata to fire something even bigger will be simply a matter of hours spent after work by loyal comrade engineers.

Also interesting enough, so okay, 20 years ago the 152 MM was perfected and it's ready to go.  However over the last twenty years we've reached the upper limits of what a 120 MM is capable even after upgrades.  So riddle me this: How is a 20+ year old unproduced prototype not already obsolete in a 2016 world?  It's not like the US went right back to the old 120 MM gun from the M103 for the M1 (despite having a 120 MM gun as one of the design goals.  Also worth noting that it was only a pretty much 20 year old gun when the Abrams started to take shape).

Speaking as someone who's pretty close to the western armor community:

There's virtually no push for a 140 MM from reasonable sources.
 Here's how the old "Soviets have a new thing they're making!" dance goes:

1. Soviets reveal a thing.  Claim it is impossible to destroy by HATO, will liberate French communists from bondage within 48 hour of HATO aggression via spetznaz troops against Soviet people.  It is frankly invincible and oh wow the gun is 5 MM bigger than anything we have!

2. Defense contractors in the west start building plans for a HATO design that's got a gun that's 10 MM bigger.  And it's sheathed in pure unobtantium.  And it's personally piloted by a clone of Captain America, and maintained by a team of specially trained surgeons!  WE HAVE TO BUY ALL OF THESE NOW

3. Simultaneous with 2, the one guy who believes whoever is change of the Soviet Union is the anti-christ emerges from his closet and starts screaming and throwing around products showing how doomed we are if there is allowed to be a tank gun gap, and it is only a matter of time before our freedom rests only on the efforts of our scrappy teenagers in the mountains of Colorado.

4. If the military actually wants the capability that is listed in 2, and likely has wanted it all along, then it starts parroting the "WE ARE DOOMED" line and pushes for whatever the new widget is, normally with the understanding that it's going to not actually have unobatnium (as that'll get cut by the first prototype) and the Captain America clones will be replaced by mere ninjas because the cloning process is another defense project no one wants.  The end result is generally the same piece of hardware that the Army/Marines/Air Force wanted all along, independent of actual Soviet capabilities.  If it's a capability/system the military does not care about, the scared guy is placed back in his closet, and more money gets shoveled into whatever military pet project is in the works.

5. Sometime later the Soviet piece of equipment is captured by the Israelis, BRIXMIS engages in sexual congress with it while the Soviets aren't looking, and it turns out it's pretty much the same piece of junk from 5 years ago with a funny hat.

Right now we're at phase 2/3.  Some folks are predicting the Armatageddon.  Overwhelmingly the response from the folks I've encountered has been abject derision.  I don't think anyone is planning to build something to counter the Armata simply because it's still well within the realm of unzipping by conventional systems, there's a lot on it that frankly doesn't seem to be well thought out, and it's being made by a country that has major financial problems.

If this was 2009 or so and there was absolutely no perceived threat from the Russian military at all, that'd be one thing, but post Russian aggression against Eastern Europe, and continued saber rattling, there's been a serious amount of time and money spent into preparing for a Russian invasion (because let's be honest, that is the only way NATO goes to war with Russia, and it isn't like recent history makes that look unlikely!).  Even the National Guard is getting in on it as part of a combined response plan.

And I can tell you the Armata has exactly zero impact on the planning, risk assessments, military procurement, or inability of strategic planners to sleep at night.  We're by far more worried about some sort of "polite men" BS, another astroturfed "rebellion" by imported Russian hooligans, or massing enough NATO folks to kill all those T-90As and T-72s that will inevitably be the primary tank of the Russians until likely well after I retire.  The Armata is just another high profile Russian weapon that has yet to overcome the sort of friction that has killed every high profile Russian weapon that wasn't invented with the Russian flag had way more red.  It may happen, but by god until the basic model is out and in service beyond whatever crappy knockoff of Top Gear you guys keep posting videos from, I'm not holding my breath on seeing a 152 FSV/heavy tank/magic school bus variant. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by panzersaurkrautwerfer
I don't know what year it is.

[Battlefront.com]

That too.  It doesn't seem like it offers much more than just a normal every day MBT would be able to handle.  If it offered better AT performance that's cool and all, but looking at a history of tank destroyers/heavy tanks, they went extinct for a variety of reasons, but one of the key ones I'd contend is their better performance in some missions (at a cost in other areas or just sheer expense) did not justify their existence in the face of having more MBTs. 

The 140 MM school of NATO tank designed died off for a reason.  The 152 MM tank designs the Soviets dreamed up also faded away.  There's not much that has changed in the last twenty years that has re-balanced the math on big tank guns.  

That's the key right there and why I called this a "step backwards" several times.  No nation on Earth used the specialized "heavy armor" concept in practice more than the Soviet Union.  It was abandoned in the 1960s because the technology available for making "medium tanks" basically made them as good as the previous "heavy" vehicles.  Not 100% as good in terms of armor, but good enough.  As for negatives, the new tanks were vastly superior to the heavier types in pretty much every single way (mechanical reliability, off road performance, production cost, tactical flexibility, etc.).

My expertise is primarily with WW2 armored warfare and my opinion is that there was a small window of need for them and after that the doctrine was just stupid.  On the German side the King Tiger showed the doctrine to be failing, the Jagdtiger showed that it was a failure.

As we've reached all sorts of limits (volume, pressure tolerance, length, breach size, etc) higher calibers are the only way forwards that current levels of reliable technology allow.

Except that we've also reached all sorts of limits in terms of mobility, stress on a turret ring, storage space, etc.  Sure, if none of these realities existed people would have 270mm guns mounted on tanks next year, but it's not going to happen any more than 140 or 152..

There has not been an incentive over the last 20 years to increase calibers in the west, and no political or economic will in the east which is why the discussion moved into the realm of theoretical. However, over the last year or so I've seen enough official western information that very much revives the idea of 140mm guns, especially from Germany, which leads me to believe they are not sure if 120mm guns can reliably achieve a mission kill over prospected Russian heavy equipment. 

Don't mistake Western defense contractors trying to make payments on their boats and fancy cars for serious projects any more than you should confuse the 152mm gun for a serious possibility for Russia.  These contractors sell the idea based on each other.  "Russia is working on a 152mm gun, we need to upgrade!" and "the West is working on a 140mm gun, we need to upgrade!".  Some people think these guys get together in a dark alley every so often to coordinate scare tactics for each other to use.

That said, there is an engineering argument to keep pushing for something bigger/better.  Long term R&D is the only way limitations will be overcome.  So yes, it is true that maybe in 20 years there will be some breakthrough on some critical limitation, such as a new propellant that allows a 152mm shell to take up the same volume as a 125mm.  But I wouldn't bet on it and I'd certainly not bet on it happening by 2020.

There is also a question of export marketing, and it is a lot easier to sell something that can vaporize everything in its path then a long discussion about supply and efficiency. 

Oh good lord... here we go with the export market argument again!  It seems that whenever someone can question the sanity of a Russian design for Russia's own use there comes the argument that it's still viable for the export market.  This is such flawed thinking that I'm not even going to bother to go down that road again.  Suffice to say "pipe dream".

Vlad I hate to say it. I dont know whether all of Russias media is controlled by the state however every link you.ve ever provided that Ive seen (RT, Sputnik) are almost universally always derided as state mouth pieces by everyone who isnt living in Russia. So maybe all the media in Russia isnt controlled by Putler (I like that btw) but if you.re not working in the ones for the state theres a really high chance you.ll be shot in a 'botched robbery' if you criticize the state, and all the Russian news you.ve posted generally doesnt make non Russians feel convinced that the Russian media isnt state controlled. It.d be like using Pravda as a 100 percent unbiased source in the 40s or 80s or anytime to 91.

I certainly dont think anyone here is blathering on about " those dumb russians" and I have to admit I dont know where this fanatical "you have to be 100 percent for Russia no criticism or you.re a Russophobe has a base in reality"

Certainly you.ll see Americans get nationalistic but I honestly feel you see Americans bash their own govt and actions and agree with foreigners about say the idiocy of some Bush moves or bad things their govt has done without the immediate leap to "you think America sucks and Americans are dumb because you pointed out a flaw in our history or policy!"

Idk. Just rambling thoughts. I dont get it.

Here's a quick example:

American - "This Russian program is not very wise/practical/necessary because of these reasons in detail"

Russian - "Just because you think Russians are stupid doesn't mean you are correct.  And no, I won't counter you points because that would be engaging in a debate instead of trying to shut it down".

American - "I also think this American program is not very wise/practical/necessary because of these reasons in detail"

Russian - "I agree!  Americans are stupid!  It's obvious there's no need to discuss your points"

The idea of mounting a 152mm gun onto a tank chassis as a FSV might not be as dumb or wasteful as something like the American SDI program, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea.  Each project should be viewed on its own merits and defended/criticized within that context.  Doing anything other than that is pointless as there's too many people here who know the difference between critical thinking and blind patriotism.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Here's how the old "Soviets have a new thing they're making!" dance goes:

Heh... we crossed posted on this subject, but you did a much funnier rendition

Anybody around during the 1980s, and aware of these sorts of issues, can remember Senate hearings of American military and defense officials talking about the "tank gap".  Saner people, without something to gain from increased military spending, pointed out that this was utter nonsense.  After the Soviet Union collapsed it was found that even the worst case "tank gap" theories were laughably overstated.  But boy oh boy did it make for good fear mongering theater for a while!

And I can tell you the Armata has exactly zero impact on the planning, risk assessments, military procurement, or inability of strategic planners to sleep at night.  We're by far more worried about some sort of "polite men" BS, another astroturfed "rebellion" by imported Russian hooligans, or massing enough NATO folks to kill all those T-90As and T-72s that will inevitably be the primary tank of the Russians until likely well after I retire.  The Armata is just another high profile Russian weapon that has yet to overcome the sort of friction that has killed every high profile Russian weapon that wasn't invented with the Russian flag had way more red.  It may happen, but by god until the basic model is out and in service beyond whatever crappy knockoff of Top Gear you guys keep posting videos from, I'm not holding my breath on seeing a 152 FSV/heavy tank/magic school bus variant. 

Anybody who has read my posts from the start of this thread know I agree with this +1

The undermining of civilian and economic stability within the borders of an enemy of Russia is definitely vastly more concerning to the West than tanks with freak'n laser beams on their turrets.  Why?  Because it is a true Western vulnerability at present and it is something Russia can do relatively well, relatively cheaply, and relatively effectively compared to anything militarily (against the West, that is).  Unfortunately for Russia, like all methods of warfare it can be countered and the longer it is used the less effective it becomes.  Russia is already finding out that this strategy has its limitations and can be effectively disrupted when the target country puts in some effort.  So in 3-5 years I think Russia will have to figure out something else.  And 152mm guns ain't it.

Steve

[BTR]

-

I am aware of what 140 and 152mm shells look like, and if I recall correctly, compartmental problems have been addressed, at least for Russian systems. A big bonus to that are two part munitions which conserve space. Still, the one and major problem, as you have been pointing out is the comparative lack of carried munitions. Which is why 30mm canons have not left the picture when speaking about 152mm FSV.  A pure 152mm MBT that Obj. 195 was, allegedly carried a full load of 40 rounds though. 

152mm guns have not stayed the same over the course of the past 30 years, what makes you say that in the first place? 

-

Right, we have reached all sorts of limits on old chassis, which is why this thread is all about new ones. If the platform is designed from the bottom up with larger calibers in mind, I don't see any aforementioned limitations come in play. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

152mm guns have not stayed the same over the course of the past 30 years, what makes you say that in the first place? 

You misunderstood his point.  Here's an analogy... computer technology has not stayed the same over 30 years, neither has robotics.  But we are still faced with major obstacles to having viable Human form robots for even limited tasks.  If someone said that they were going to have robots fighting wars in the next 2-3 years we'd all laugh very hard, wouldn't we?

Right, we have reached all sorts of limits on old chassis, which is why this thread is all about new ones. If the platform is designed from the bottom up with larger calibers in mind, I don't see any aforementioned limitations come in play. 

Russia has known about the dangers of top attack missiles for 20+ years, yet Armata doesn't appear to offer much in the way of defenses against it even though it is a brand new design.  Simply clearing a desk off and saying "we're starting from scratch" doesn't mean the practical issues working against a successful design (engineering, physics, costs, tradeoffs, etc) magically disappear.  They still exist and unless there's some reason to think that they have been overcome then they must be presumed to still exist until proven otherwise.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I am aware of what 140 and 152mm shells look like, and if I recall correctly, compartmental problems have been addressed, at least for Russian systems. A big bonus to that are two part munitions which conserve space. Still, the one and major problem, as you have been pointing out is the comparative lack of carried munitions. Which is why 30mm canons have not left the picture when speaking about 152mm FSV.  A pure 152mm MBT that Obj. 195 was, allegedly carried a full load of 40 rounds though. 

152mm guns have not stayed the same over the course of the past 30 years, what makes you say that in the first place? 

1. I'm confused if you're aware how different they are, how easy you think it is to convert a vehicle to use the larger weapons system.  Why yes, I am aware these two tortoises are male THIS DOES NOTHING TO SLOW MY BREEDING PROGRAM.  

2. Very large two part munitions are still very large two part munitions.  Also factor in the significant size difference between propellant and projectile and you start looking at a loader that is going to need to be reinvented vs rescaled.  

3. A much larger CATTB wasn't able to fit a full load of 40 rounds.  Wonder what else ya'll had to leave off.  I imagine if the auto-driver or something works you could just skip him.  Or perhaps the gunner because Russian AI is just that advanced.  Maybe just skip the armor because the tank doesn't really exist, it's actually a patriotic Russian trapped in Estonia's bus, and shooting it is a warcrime!

4. I don't get this.  Either the 152 MM is mature because hey look it was mounted on an actual platform 30ish years ago, or that's an interesting place to start with a whole host of engineering challenges to overcome.  Hell, a 140 MM Leo 2 or Abrams is a lot closer in terms of being combat ready given that the engineering work for that mess is already done, drop in some SEP v3 parts and roll the M1A4 out to murder entire Russia supreme!

Look.  Again, there's a reason the collective response of the western military establishment has been largely eyeroll to the Armata.  Once there's less reason to doubt the T-14 will ever make up a meaningful portion of Russian ground forces, then I think the capability let alone the need (which still frankly, goes entirely unaddressed at this point) for a 152 MM armed version becomes less laughable, but oil is low, sanctions are on, Russia is still paying for the Ukrainian mess, and the attempts to build an economic union to Russia's benefit remains a shambles.  

So in other words, good luck with your vanity project, I'm going to go back to researching how to detain your motorcycle gangsters without giving you knuckleheads casus belli because that's the real threat, instead of the majick Obj. 404 not found dance we used to do circa 1988.

Addendum:

On the other hand, what is interesting to think about is technology has caught up to the point where reviving the old STAFF round is entirely reasonable, and Russian roof protection being what it is, and velocity being less relevant for a STAFF type round, I imagine it'd be good times supremo just to issue the whole lot to anyone with Leo 2s east of the Rhine.  

[Battlefront.com]

If I were Russia, I would be developing a tandem system of UAVs with laser designators and a fleet of cheap, highly mobile vehicles armed with top attack missiles.  Fly a bunch of quad copters over a NATO tank formation and pop a couple dozen fire and forget missiles, then run away to fight another day.  This is far more viable way to beat NATO's quantitative and qualitative battlefield superiority than pipe dream armor projects.  Also, the argument for "export markets" works very well because it means a tinpot dictator on a shoestring budget could acquire the means of making any incursion into its territory very, very costly.

As a member of NATO, I'm glad that the solutions Russia keeps pursuing are the ones least likely to pose a significant threat.

Steve

[BTR]

You misunderstood his point. 

Alright, I'm fairly sure I got it at face value, but perhaps that is the language comprehension barrier people talk about. Now, I'm not sure where you have made a connection that I was ever claiming these 152mm systems being en-masse deployed in 2-3 years. I think the new platforms are to be operation by 2020, but I have no idea to what degree they've been budgeted.  

We never successfully developed counter TDA capabilities (as far as I am aware), but we have successfully developed 152mm carrying MBT's. I'm not sure where you are going with the analogy.

I'm going to go back to researching how to detain your motorcycle gangsters without giving you knuckleheads casus belli because that's the real threat

Have fun!

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

It sorta kinda is.  It's interesting as far as leveraging conventional and unconventional assets against a threat, historically it's just been limited to "how do I use this tank to win at COIN" which is a bit tricky, but looking into hybrid threating right on back is an interesting avenue.  Like we'd all studied it prior to the Ukraine largely with an eye towards Iran, but the limitations of it have borne out and there's some definite lines of effort and weak spots that make it a lot less deadly than we'd imagined. 

Anyway.  In any event it's much more pressing than pretend tanks, although pretend tanks are more interesting to talk about.  Regardless the fact I haven't seen a good explanation of why a 152 MM exists beyond trying to impress Arabs into a sale because they're "dum and lik big guns" continues to give me the impression this is not a serious effort and likely remains someone's attempt to milk the Armata cow for dacha money.  

[cool breeze]

Hey guys I feel a little out of place commenting here... seeing as my knowledge of this stuff comes largely from this series of games...  but from playing this game it seems pretty clear why the Ruskies WOULD be interested in fielding a 152mm gun armed heavy tank.  They can't seem to get their 125mm to do the job well enough against western/USA unobtanium uber armour, so they gotta go bigger.  I'd much rather have 20 shots that will kill vs 40 shots that will blow up in my ammunition rack after my first shot pings off the armour.  Plus the APS systems are bringing missiles down a notch and I've been under the impression the Ruskies relied on missiles to be a much bigger part of their firepower 125mm and otherwise.   Now that they are starting to lose a lot of that edge they gotta make up for it with bigger guns.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Then it'd make sense to have the 152 MM MBT as a starting point vs a heavy gun tank.  If you look at historical heavy tanks, or other anti-tank tanks, you never reach the proliferation required to make an impact.  Or to go to a historical example:  the M36 was quite capable of knocking out most heavier German tanks.  However getting those German tanks to show up where there were M36s and not just M4s with 75 MM was another trick.  If you need a 152 MM gun to accomplish knocking out a tank, then you'd better start with the 152 MM gun instead of wasting time on a 125 MM.

As the case is the Russians are starting over with a different 125 MM divorced from the old autoloader which put most of the constraints on round length and thus kept Russian shells only a bit more potent than their Soviet predecessors.  The fact they're investing in an improved 125 MM at all should be taken as a measure of expecting it to be up to most anti-armor tasks.  

But there is not really a point to having a split fleet.  Again even historically speaking, the 75 MM Sherman despite being better at infantry support tasks lasted only as long as there were vehicles in storage with only the 76 MM version enduring.  The British method of having good AT guns on tanks, backed up by CS howitzer type tanks died off pretty quickly when it was apparent a good tank gun needed to do both (with the Firefly/Challenger purely being holdovers until a full on shoots all comers 17 pound gun armed "medium" tank could be produced).  The closest you get is the M1 Abrams with the 105 MM out of the box, but the base tank was still designed with a 120 MM to be designated at a later date (and even then it still took more than a little doing to make the gun match up with the tank).  And the intent was always go to a zero 105 MM gun fleet and an all 120 MM.   

If the Russians are well and truly starting from scratch, and they NEED a 152 MM, it makes zero sense at all to field a 125 MM version of the tank, especially again, if it's simply a matter of magic away from being fielded.   

[sburke]

  Why yes, I am aware these two tortoises are male THIS DOES NOTHING TO SLOW MY BREEDING PROGRAM.  

 

rotflmao - I am gonna steal that line. 

[cool breeze]

But it seems to me that they might think the current new 125 mm is up to the challenge of facing the current generation on western armour but not whatever the next generation is going to be, and they think they are at or at least nearing the the limit with what they can do with 125 mm.  So they want to be ready to move to 152mm for MBTs when it becomes necessary, but since it is still a system that hasn't been field tested it would be an unnecessary risk to make that the initial MBT configuration.  And it would also mean that whatever armour the west came out with next would be an attempt at being 152mm proof.  By releasing it first with the new 125mm for MBT and 152mm as unimportant accessory, it makes it o the west is more likely to respond to the 125mm threat than the 152mm threat with their next generation of armour.  This allows the Ruskies to still have a western armour beating weapon at their disposal after the next generation of western armour is released.  And if they cant get the next new generation of 125mm to penetrate the next generation of western armour then they can modular-ly switch out the turrets of the 125mm armatas with the 152 turret and make it the new MBT.

[Kinophile]

  Why yes, I am aware these two tortoises are male THIS DOES NOTHING TO SLOW MY BREEDING PROGRAM. 

Holy **** that made me laugh so hard....