Russia to receive advanced tanks to replce T-72 and T-90

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Jowade, Apr 5, 2015.

  1. Jowade

    Jowade New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2015
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Russia will receive 2,300 T-14 Armata tanks to slowly replace the T-72 and T-90s.

    http://thesentinel.ca/russias-new-main-battle-tank-t-14-armata/

    The T-14 is part of the Armata Universal Combat Platform (AUCP) and Russia is considering building 13 different armored vehicle models on the AUCP.

    The first public appearance of the T-14 will be on May 9th Victory Day parade in Moscow.

    Pft8769.jpg
     
  2. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they will be very useful against Latvia.
     
  3. Jowade

    Jowade New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2015
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Not really.
    [​IMG]

    [video=youtube;nA0A1A0IHbs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA0A1A0IHbs[/video]
     
  5. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The T99 [this is the code of the Armata, to be accurate] is a typical product of the Russian doctrine about ground superiority. Personally I think that at Moscow they are wasting time and money since they have chosen the wrong way. Ground superiority doctrine is an aged conception, NATO privileges air superiority and ground units more suitable for aimed tasks. Stealth light tanks will erase T99 without effort in case of a real conflict ...
     
  6. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think that invalidates the Armata. If NATO has air superiority over a battlespace that includes the Armata, than yes, it won't be much different than if the Russians had deployed T-72's. However I don't think the Russians are thinking that every possible engagement includes a NATO level opponent. If they are engaging in military operations against break away republics like Chechnya or near abroad countries like Georgia or The Ukraine, this certainly seems to provide an extra punch that a likely opponent will find difficult to match.
     
  7. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    May be ... in this context they should pay attention to personal anti-tank weapons, like double RPG ... I know about the techs Russians have developed to make a tank not so easy to target, I know they have developed smart RPG [double shell ... the first one makes the active armor explode, the second one passes through the hole in the active armor ...], so I guess they have thought to suitable countermeasures.

    Anyway, some characteristics of the Armata makes me think to a major usage: the possibility to launch rockets, quite long range rockets, from the main cannon and that big gun on the turret is not above suspicion [it doesn't look like a standard anti infantry weapon for a tank].
     
  8. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    >Says ground superiority is an aged doctrine
    >US possesses 8000 MBT
    >China possesses 7000 MBT


    Go figure.


    And, by the way, code for Armata-based tank is T-14.
     
  9. Jowade

    Jowade New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2015
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As a combat veteran of Afghanistan that served 14 years in a Canadian light infantry battalion, I do think that mechanized warfare is still the way to go for ground ops. This mean ALOT of IFVs and MBTs.

    The Armata Universal Combat Platform is ideal for Russia since spare parts will be easier to find. Adding to that, the chassis allows different configurations such as mobile artillery, IFVs, engineer platforms and amlances.

    The key is speed. Of course air superiority is ESSENTIAL but to control the battlefield, you still need ground troops.
     
  10. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tanks production is a fantastic engine for the military economy ... so it's not that said we need all those tanks, it may be a matter of economical dynamics ...

    T-14 is a variant of the T99 platform, usually I refer to the main platform.
     
  11. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Absolutely, but if you want the best, the path to follow is the Israeli one: the Merkava, with that odd rear entrance. As I said in an other forum, the tanks are no more to be decisive to win a war, but they will keep their role in controlling the territory. So that they will have to carry troops in a quick and functional way. The Merkava solution is the most functional as I can see around.
     
  12. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Military industry is generally profitless, so it would be nice to see any kind of proofs for that. Anyway, this argument doesn't really works for US army.
    They havn't ordered a single tank since 80-th, they are merely upgrading old M1 platform. Apparently they think it is sufficient against current threats. Or, should I say, they thought so until now?
    Air superiority is nice until you have it, when you don't ground forces have to do the job and nothing provides that much firepower to the frontline units as a tank.


    There is no "T-99" platform. I don't know where you got it. Codename for the platform is Armata. T-14 is a name for the tank on that platform, T-15 is a name for heavy IFV on that platform.


    Yeah, right, that oversized and overweight tank with paper-thin armor and a capability to carry like 4 troops with half of it's ammunition thrown out is a functional way.
     
  13. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This discussion shows the basic difference in the tank doctrine between Russia and generally the West. US are no more ordering wide quantities of tanks for the same reason we are going to develop light stealth tanks ... heavy MBT are no more the main idea in the Western doctrine about ground forces and their usage. They come after and to gain control of the territory, to do that you don't need a superpower tank [imaging the Armata having to enter a town to patrol it and to engage against little groups of terrorists or guerrillas hidden among the civilians. I know that Russians tend to be a bit more brutal that us in preserving civilians from combats, anyway, the Merkava will always be better than the T99 family [I like to use this code!] in such a context.

    P.S. Military industry is profitless for the government, but it's a "structural investment" for the system and it's a huge business for private societies ... at least in market economies.
     
  14. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Riiiight. Care to eleborate what makes you call those wheeled unarmored parody of a tank a "stealth tank"? It is not that they are less noticible in visible band or have an RAM coatings.
    Dropping classical tanks only shows that European armies are not going to fight or win a conventional war against a serious opponent, they are merely planning to engage in figthing insurgents, thus a switch to cheaper "tanks", which offer sufficient protection against IEDs and old RPGs but don't have any against anything better than this.
    On the other hand, US, Russia and China are not withdrowing classical tanks from service for obvious reasons.

    Well, Merkava is perfectly well fitted to fight civilians and guerillas, no argue about that.

    Why you are so entusiastic about non-existent code? That is like calling AK as "AK-47".
     
  15. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When our unstoppable [and sure invincible ... a bit of good old military rhetoric makes the discussion spicy] light stealth tanks [which are also stealth in the sense that they have got a very little signature on ground radars] will infiltrate Russian territory without that your defense will be able to detect them you will realize something ...

    Rhetoric a part, there is a general consideration about how will wars be in the future. Now, it's clear that Western powers are more focused on the projection of the power by means of Navy and Air Force than on the direct projection of power through land. Ground invasions, in Western doctrine, are a consequence of a victorious first strike [run by Navy and Air Force], there is even the case when this ground attack is even not necessary [think to the NATO war against Serbia].

    Now, Russia is suggesting to NATO that Moscow could run a wide ground war with a real old Soviet style invasion of near territories using entire armored divisions made by futuristic heavy tanks.

    Well ... since the time of the Cold War, when USSR enjoyed a disproportion about armored divisions, in the West we have worked a lot on air superiority, anti tank weaponry and long range artillery [missile included] just in the eventuality to face a Soviet invasion based on giant armored divisions.

    So that, also in case of conventional war, we've got cards to play ... and honestly I don't see this Armata [which in Italian means "Army", btw] to change a lot the offensive capabilities [in the perspective of a long range invasion] of the Russian armored divisions.
     
  16. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Up until those filthy western tanks will be detected by our glorious Eyeball Mark I detection system.
    Seriously, you havn't answered why do you consider, say, M1128 Mobile gun system being any kind of "stealth"?

    Only works when you have air superiority.

    There hardly was a "victorious strike" in Serbia. While those strikes messed up infrastructure and airforce, there were no serious blow to their ground forces.

    Do we?

    So did we in terms of air defence.

    It is your business. For me the shift in firepower and survivability is pretty obvious.


    GOD TIER
    Т-14

    GOOD TIER
    K2
    Type 10
    T-90MS

    MID TIER
    T-90A
    Leopard-2A7
    Leclerc
    M1A2SEP

    BAD TIER
    Challenger-2
    T-72B3
    T-80U
    C1 Ariete

    SHIТ TIER
    Merkava IV

    KHOHOL TIER
    BM Oplot
    T-64Bulat
     
  17. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Glorious! I knew you had to use that term ... in Soviet age all was "glorious" ... you're great!

    Now, M1128? The last Western light armored vehicle coming from West you received [Russian Army bought it, erasing the second order since Russian military industries copied it ...] was the Italian Lince. I cannot say if we supply it to you with anti radar systems [Italian Lince is a vehicle with stealth capabilities, just to say].

    The M1128 is a further evolution of the Italian Centauro [Americans copied us creating the striker, nothing else]. The Centauro is a quick tank hunter, but on in a defensive perspective. We won't attack Russia using Centauro units ... be serious! Make an other try ...
     
  18. Jowade

    Jowade New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2015
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the T-14 is pretty good, especially with the multi-layered capsule and the remote weapon systems.

    The Merkava is incredible in urban operations!
     
  19. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We didn't copied it. There was a license production line here, but the second order was erased due to Lynx being unfit for service in Russia or something along these lines.

    Can you provide a prooflink for that? I havn't found anything about "anti-radar" systems being installed on the Lynx.
    Anyway, ground forces rely on termal and optical sights, so it won't help it much. Not that I think it will help it against AESA radar on T-14.

    And again, you havn't answered wat is so stealthiesh about wheeled shiт of a tank, which costs like a tank, armed like a tank but with little to no protection and little to no passability.
    Conclusion: they are useless and are no match for a real tank.
     
  20. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Americans put too much confidence in air superiority and stealth. Just because the US has had air superiority for the past 50 years, and the US thinks its technology is superior to the rest of the world, the US thinks it will always dominate the air.

    To think that in a major war a handful of US stealth fighters are going to roam the air with impunity shooting down 1,000's of clunky boxy enemy planes is foolish. Stealth planes are not invisible, some enemy air forces are not helpless. People are smart, they will find weaknesses and ways to exploit those weaknesses - that goes for the US and other nations.

    The US might have the best, but better not assume it has the best. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

    And what good has air superiority gotten the US? Lost Vietnam, lost Afghanistan, lost Iraq. Air superiority is just one piece of the puzzle, if you don't have the will to win then it does not matter how great your air force is or how wonderful stealth is.
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then there is this.

    [​IMG]
     
  22. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If there was a time when at London they said "Britannia rules the waves",
    today at Washington they can say "America rules the winds".:flagus:

    The wars you list were wars of attrition, on the borderlines of US sphere of influence, so not "full war". In a LSW [Large Scale War] scenario, the United States would unleash all their military power and without limiting the usage of the force within political purposes and international diplomatic interests. It would be a well different matter.

    Something similar has already happened, when Clinton administration, despite and beyond UN, to prevent worse developments at geopolitical level in the Balkan region, decided to lead NATO in a real "air war" against Serbia. NATO [I could say "we", since Italy had involved in that operation] showed to be able to send Serbia back to Middle Ages with a very little effort.

    Stealth units are not invisible [if there isn't Harry Potter in the cockpit!], they are well more difficult to target [also using IRST]. This gives them an advantage: they can lock an enemy target from more far than the opponent can, in a air combat the pilots of the hostile units, if not stealth, will have to pay attention to the incoming missiles activating countermeasures well before than they will be able to lock the stealth target ... estimates say a F35 could have an advantage up to 80 seconds against a 2mach fighter. 80 seconds are an eternity in an air combat.
     
  23. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    About the Lince, I note that the English Wikipage doesn't report stealth characteristics, try this: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/iveco-multirole/ but anyway it's not complete
    It doesn't mention radar absorbing paint. The Italian wikipage reports this, so it's public, so I can mention it here [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iveco_LMV#Caratteristiche_stealth]

    The low thermal signature, obviously, is given by the usual tricks used also by MBT [position of the engine, systems to keep the temperature of the vehicle similar to the environmental one ... not colder, not hotter ... and so on].

    P.S. about incoming Western stealth tanks ... don't be so impatient ... sooner or later ... you will not see them arriving ...
     
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, there are easier ways to minimalize tanks on the battlefield.

    The main way is to go after their logistical chain. This was seen in WWII against Germany, when the Battle of the Bulge petered out not because the Germans were defeated, but because their fuel supplies were targeted leaving their tanks sitting on the side of the road out of fuel. This would be the main way a modern military would go after defeating tanks and other armored forces. Deny them fuel and ammunition, and the tanks can not advance.

    The second way is to use terrain to your advantage. South Korea has this as one of their main strategies, with pretty much every bridge in the nation rigged to be blown with little warning, denying their use to an invasion by North Korea.

    [​IMG]

    What you see here are not just billboards, they are camouflage. What is behind them is multi-million ton concrete blocks, with places for explosives already inside of them. In the event of an invasion explosives are placed inside then blown up, dropping the blocks across the roadway, denying it's use for an invasion. And they are literally everywhere.

    [​IMG]

    Without roads, advancing tanks are slowed to a crawl if they can advance at all. And all of the bridges in the country are similarly rigged. South Korea's entire military defense system is designed to slow down any invasion with such tactics until help arrives.

    Yet another is to use terrain to funnel the forces where they can be attacked at will. The Fulda Gap was such a point in the Cold War. Really the only place that an invading Warsaw pact army could invade West Germany, it was literally a killing ground designed to take out as much of the advancing enemy as possible before they were able to break out into Western Europe. Tank traps, mines, prelaid artillery positions with targets carefully prepared, reverse slope tank positions so that tanks can fire from cover before scooting back and firing again.

    But as was already said, the biggest threat to most tanks in modern warfare would not be the Infantryman with a shoulder fired rocket, but from light anti-tank specific vehicles (like the Bradley or HMMWV with TOW missiles), or in anti-tank aircraft, like the A-10 and Apache. In modern warfare, an infantryman going after a tank on the ground is pretty much suicide. Tanks never operate alone, and they have systems to pinpoint where the incoming shot came from, even if it does score a kill. Expect HE rounds to fall upon that position in seconds after firing it's shot, and the crew to be dead.

    The Battle of 73 Easting shows how effective the US is in such operations. The Republican Guard was the finest armored force in the Iraqi Military, using top of the line T-72 tanks. And an outnumbered Coalition force (US and UK) literally cut through them like a hot knife through butter, killing around 1,000 Iraqi soldiers, destroying 85 tanks and 40 armored personnel carriers, and around 100 other pieces of military equipment (from trucks and fuelers to artillery pieces and anti-aircraft vehicles). And with the loss of only 1 killed, 1 vehicle destroyed (a Bradley IFV, not a tank), and less then 70 injured (57 of them from friendly fire).

    Considering that the Iraqi military was using a slightly modified battleplan following Warsaw Pact Doctrine (and top of the line Soviet export tanks), a great many have actually looked to this as the potential outcome if the NATO-CSTO ever came to blows. Russian doctrine has not measurably changed since the 1960's, while that of NATO is continually evolving, and they have been involved in various conflicts for over 2 decades.

    This may be a great tank, but a tank is only as good as the army that is able to use it effectively.
     
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Stealth on a tank is really rather worthless to be honest.

    The vast majority of anti-tank weapons do not use RADAR at all, but visual targeting. TV cameras, optical amplification, heat amplification, and targeting with LASER designators.

    Since very few (in fact, I am not aware really of any) anti-tank weapons operate on RADAR, I don't see how stealth would be of any use at all. Yes, making a lower profile will make it harder to spot and target, but the majority of stealth (RAM, angles to shed RADAR signals) would not really be of any use here. Every anti-tank weapon that I ever trained on (LAW, SMAW, AT-4, DRAGON, TOW, MULE-COPPERHEAD) operated either by direct visual means or by a weapon following a LASER designator at the target. And stealth will be of absolutely no use against any of those.

    Now there are some things that are "stealthy" that can help however. One of them was trying to minimalize the turret as much as possible. One of these was the RDF prototype.

    [​IMG]

    And there are others, like the Merkava, the Leopard 2A4, and there has been occasional research into "disappearing cannons" as well. These all go to minimalize the profile and make the tank harder to see and recognize.

    Sound is the next thing to overcome. The M1 amazed a lot of people, not only because of how quiet it was, but because it was shown to be hard to pinpoint their location based upon sound alone. It's turbine engine sounds nothing like what a tank should sound like, and it's sound was quickly lost in the background noise.

    Heat baffling for the exhaust may be of some use, but not a lot. This would be only minimally effective, since the body itself shows up clearly in thermal imagers, even if the tank is at ambient temperature (the simply mass of all that metal means it will always be warmer or cooler then the background temperature).

    So I really can't see how "stealth" will really help out when it comes to tanks.
     

Share This Page