Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A little humor....ūüėé

I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and

Guidance helicopters VKS RF to strike at ISIS.  

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/10/2019 at 3:54 PM, ikalugin said:

small contracts should not be both seen as a consequence of Russian inability to produce Armatas and at the same time the cause for it

May be I missed something but there's not a single video showing Armata with gun stabilizer on. T-80, T-90 - they show them with gun stabilizer but not Armata. Plus have a look at how Armata wiggles when shooting. You can say all these troubles gonna be fixed later on but UVZ may just as well produce and MoD may buy a limited batch of plywood mockups as call it a LRIP. But it's still gonna be no more than a LRIP of plywood :)

 

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, the "plywood Armatas" myth.

So the video of a T14 firing in 2015 (4 years ago) is used as evidence that the new LRIP (under the larger and later contract) Armata is a plywood mock up. And nothing about say nature of the suspention system is mentioned, or the increased muzzle energy of the gun, or the higher mounting of the gun or any other number of factors. As to the T14 firing with a stabiliser on, how many videos of T14 firing exist? :)

So you seriously want to use that as your argument?

Edited by ikalugin
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ikalugin said:

So the video of a T14 firing in 2015 (4 years ago) is used as evidence that the new LRIP (under the larger and later contract) Armata is a plywood mock up

  1. Do you have any videos of Armata shooting with stabilizer on?
  2. How do you explain the fact that all other Russian tanks are demonstrated with stabilizer on and only Armata shows no sign of having one? Gun stabilizer is not a breakthrough technology, there's no sensible reason to hide one.
14 hours ago, ikalugin said:

And nothing about say nature of the suspention system is mentioned, or the increased muzzle energy of the gun, or the higher mounting of the gun or any other number of factors.

  1. According to the information in the open sources Russian industry is unable to produce 2A82 in quantity so far.
  2. I believe designers should have thought about higher mounting of the gun BEFORE they built the tank, not after. This wiggling reduces practical ROF by 2-3 times if one times Armata videos vs Abrams. That's a IMMENSE disadvantage in combat. You use convoluted logic like someone constructed a huge aircraft carrier but it would sunk once it set sails because it's huge. Yet it's the best carrier in the world because it's so huge.
Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Lets remember Armata is an overhead gun design closer to Stryker MGS than a normal tank turret. Much of what we see of the turret is simply sheet metal covering sensors and smoke dischargers. So it would have a bit of a 'plywood mockup' look to it, regardless.

 It is a plywood on the turret and on the top. Armata weighs 48 tons - the same as T-90MS. Now compare T-90 dimensions and Armatas'. To fit into the same weight class they had to weaken the armor like hell.

1432463958_1035265139.jpg

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember there's nobody in the turret. All the armor's gone into the hull which looks very much more robust. US is (was?) looking into an M1A3 Abrams (also called M1 'Thumper') with reconfigured turret armor and reduced passenger count that knocks a whopping ten tons off the vehicle weight, at least according to one source.

 

M1A3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I believe that's the chassis weight, not the weight of the complete system:

https://rg.ru/2019/06/28/ves-tanka-i-bmp-na-platforme-armata-rassekretili-na-armii-2019.html

48 was stated as total weight before. Thanks, it's new information and the numbers now look closer to what the weight should be. I guess we'll see a slow weight creep as new systems will finally take shape. But my uneducated guess, it's up to a decade before we'll see Armata the way it was promised to be. If ever... It's hard to imagine an exports market for Armata. The price tag will rival if not exceed Leclerc, K2 and Abrams. Russian tanks are competitive on the market because of the low prices and only when equipped with French thermals. As long as we sell T-90s at half or even one third of the price of Leclerc - these are completely different markets. But it's hard to imagine French will continue supplying their thermals when Armata is gonna be in direct competition with Leclerc. Once Russia shoots into the the premium ladder the questions about the quality of thermals, gun stabilizer, engine will be tabled in no time. And without export sales Armata will always be too expensive for Russian MoD due to low production rates. And European and US producers can always jump ahead of Armata by mere switching to 140mm or electro-chemicals at one tenths of what Russia spent on Armata.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is a plywood on the turret ÔĽŅand on the top.

To me that pict looks like Russian reactive armor panels over the 'guts' of the overhead gun system with sheetmetal covering everything else. Perhaps it could be faux reactive armor because you don't want explosives rolling around Red Square during a parade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

To me that pict looks like Russian reactive armor panels over the 'guts' of the overhead gun system with sheetmetal covering everything else. Perhaps it could be faux reactive armor because you don't want explosives rolling around Red Square during a parade.

The blocks are too large for ERA, imho. Might be NERA or SLERA or glorious rolled homogeneous sheet metal :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding recoil and shots - in that specific clip they were firing from a stop at close range and a single round, there is no need for the stabiliser to be on. Yet you somehow use that as basis for the plywood theory (which silly due to welded construction). Recoil management uses both the stabiliser and chassis. The high line of fire was selected intentionally for tactical resons.

About comparisons - what you are looking for is armoured volume and frontal cross section T14 has little of either in the armoured gun mount.

https://rg.ru/2019/06/28/ves-tanka-i-bmp-na-platforme-armata-rassekretili-na-armii-2019.html

You may also check your mass sources.

Edited by ikalugin
Link to post
Share on other sites

With Spec Ops troo apparently coming at some point, this offers, I think, some great scenario possibilities. It is a look at the equipment and capabilities of what was then Naval Spetsnaz. Since, like US SEALs, these guys have been known to arrive from the sea and do nasty things once ashore, I felt this was both appropriate and most informative. This article, and the to me incredible amount of material on inshore ops on the rest of the site, too, is pure gold and would've gone straight into my intel fies in my Threat Analyst days. That good!

http://www.hisutton.com/Naval Spetsnaz in Hybrid Warfare.html

On a separate note, judging by some of the posts here, I need to do some serious back reading.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
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...