T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

quinn whitsitt said:
than its only purpose is as propaganda like the armata cant you see general dynamics wants money so they used the tank as a bragging sorta so they can get more buyers.
Click to expand...
The concept of a technology demonstrator is totally different than a "Propaganda" tank as you seem to imply.
 
Anduriel said:
Because it provides little that T-90M already in mass serial production does not. Both vulnerable to FPV and precision artillery.
Click to expand...

Armata should have better softkill measures and smoke screen generation.
 
Firefinder said:
And we only know for sure that 3 work and thats by the Victory Parade last Year.
Click to expand...
We only saw a dozen Tigrs in last years Victory Parade, this does not mean Russia only has a dozen Tigrs working.
Which had one of them breaking down at the time.
Click to expand...
Parking brake issue, they tried to tow it and it wouldn't move, and a few minutes later it started moving again which doesn't typically happen if your engine breaks down.
Firefinder said:
The tank was never made in numbers with it failing to met every production start since 2016 til now. Like that 1500 order was to start by 2017, and it got pushed back every year til it gotten cancel.
Click to expand...
It's not canceled.
Firefinder said:
The engine sounds sick as hell. There was something fundamentally wrong with that engine that likely what killed it.
Click to expand...
I've heard claims about the reliability being a bit mixed but I've yet to hear a single thing about the engine being so flawed that they've have to cancel the tank over it.
 
I'm not going to exclude the possibility that they are having some rather typical reliability troubles with the new engine but the idea that it's fundamentally flawed seems a bit far-fetched to me. Considering the long lineage of MBT prototypes prior to the T-14 I don't see how they'd have ended up selecting an engine that simply will not work right.

The fact that the T-14 is somewhat heavier than prior Russian MBTs and the advanced electronics does mean that Russian logistics will have to adjust and that probably poses a major challenge given the wartime situation. I do believe the program has been de-emphasized and considering events that is probably a reasonable choice, but I do not believe it has been cancelled despite the claims that it has, claims which seem to occur multiple times a year now.

Even if trials were to find deficiencies requiring major redesign, I think it would be unlikely for Russia to cancel it and start with a new prototype simply because of the pride/propaganda/reputation factor that has become attached to the T-14 and the other AFVs in its family.
 
The Armata family of vehicles concept actually built vehicles that other countries (including US) left on paper because of cost and complexity.
If Rissia gets even a few units equipped with them it is an achievement (just as one has to acknowledge German equipment at the end of WW2 which broke new ground).
 
uk 75 said:
The Armata family of vehicles concept actually built vehicles that other countries (including US) left on paper because of cost and complexity.
If Rissia gets even a few units equipped with them it is an achievement (just as one has to acknowledge German equipment at the end of WW2 which broke new ground).
Click to expand...
I think the primary problem in the US has been due to the constantly shifting political environment leading to an ever changing analysis of what the Army wants/should have. Even when most of the developmental work has been completed on some programs they've been cancelled in favor of some new grand vision that ultimately gets cancelled later. It seems to be some miserable cycle. The Russians seem more determined to see some of their programs through although the challenges these programs face due to the economic, political, and military situation keep piling up.
 
My two cents on this is that the Ukraine war will trigger a rethink for all world powers on what a tank is and what will be its role on the battlefield of the future. The Armata was designed with a view of the future in mind that has been proven outdated. I'd say even if they were to fix it, and get the production lines running, that doesn't bode well for its future.
 
A key aspect of Armata seems to be the integrated crew compartment seperate from the weapon system.

That does seem sensible in terms of weight reduction and crew protection and is something the next gen tank is likely to have.

The west seems more leery of fully automated turrets, the US walked away from MGS for the manned M-10, although less so at autocannon level.

As for armour, defence against IEDs and handheld threats imposes a need for it, albeit not to defeat incoming 120mm perhaps, and active defence if reliable is lighter although needs ammo and complicates close work with dismounts.

Issues with Armata seem more likely to be electronics given Russia is a backwater wrt producing these, and software integration of modern complex systems which the Russians have never really done before (they have shed loads of systems, but not integrated). I’m sure they’d use it they could, embarassament at losing it would be trivial given the embarassment so far!
 
Purpletrouble said:
The west seems more leery of fully automated turrets, the US walked away from MGS for the manned M-10, although less so at autocannon level.
Click to expand...
M8 was just too freaking small inside with all the new stuff that had to be added.

While as I understand it, M10 is using the old 105mm Abrams turrets, so lots more room inside for the extra stuff added.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom