How do you feel about heavier IFV like the T-15 variant of the Armata? Will these heavier IFV become more widespread with time? How different will be their role compared to older IFV and how their deployment will impact the tank and infantry formations?
>>29646624
The trend is that vehicles are getting bigger and bigger. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't also apply to IFV. Of course, there are disadvantages to being bigger, but generally, the side arguing for more armor and bigger guns wins.
>>29646624
Oh hell, did that parade happen again?
t-15 we're calling it? Ok.
Russia, can you please stop pretending like you're gearing up for Cold War 2.0? Everyone knows you want to work with the west against the orient.
>>29646664
Russia and China are on good terms with each other and they have been for a while. This idea that they don't like each other doesn't have any relevance today.
>>29646664
>Russia, can you please stop pretending like you're gearing up for Cold War 2.0?
Cept they haven't? They lost a ton of shit due to the collapse, if anything they're regaining what they've lost and even then it isn't even close to what the USSR was.
The parades happen every year and they work with the Chinese more than the West by a large margin.
>>29646686
This, although a war between the two in the late 60s would have been great to watch. For once the Soviets would be on the business end of human wave tactics.
>>29646731
How many human waves are there in a chinese infantry platoon?
Its a BMP with no performance increase, twice the silhouette, and 25% more armor. Its fucking retarded.
>>29646686
>>29646723
>Not getting it.
>>29646967
A gorillian
>>29647044
>BMP with no performance increase
>tank level armor
>1,500hp engine
>>29646686
They're friendly, but they're not buddies.
It's a alliance by convenience.
>>29647251
>increasing the weight of the vehicle
>proportional increase in engine power
no discernible increase in performance anyway.
>>29647044
So, it's 200% more effective.
Heavy IFV's seem like the future to me. What's the point of lighter APC's when you just end up bolting a bunch of shit armor on top of it, only for it to be overloaded and still shitty protection?
>>29647365
>no discernible increase in performance anyway.
Where did you come to that conclusion?
The speculated weight of the vehicle is 42 metric tons.
With 1,500hp engine it has power to weight almost 36 hp/t. It blows turbine-engined Abrams out of the water ffs.
With 42 tons it still weighs less than legacy Russian MBT's, so it can go through anywhere they could and then some.
And the silhouette? It's marginally bigger than BMP-3 while having much more spacious troop compartment and much more armor on it.
Fair trade if I've ever seen one.
Lastly, this isn't even a classic continuation of BMP line, it's much more like BTR-T with new and better solutions.
Pic related is BMP successor.
>>29647550
>42 metric tons
Don't the Puma and CV90 weigh upwards of 35-40 tons?
>>29646664
>Upgrading your army is calling for war.
Nigger, what.
>>29647550
You can talk up anything that is bad, to sound better then what it really is.
>>29647578
it's not outlandish, the MBT supposdly weighs 49 tons. Take off the multi-ton gun and multi-ton autoloader/magazine for 125mm shells, some armor and you will end up with something like that.
>>29647621
Do you happen to have any classified data?
>>29647621
Fome things which areplain visible it's already better than what russians used up to this point.
The troop compartment with a ramp is already a huge step forward compared to crawling through the engine bay in BMP-3
Friendly reminder that the Armata family will run their engine at 1200hp because of the issues X cylinders have.
>>29647550
>And the silhouette? It's marginally bigger than BMP-3
The BMP-3 is the same size as a T-90.
The T-14 is substantially bigger than the T-90, ergo the T-15 is substantially bigger than the BMP-3.
>>29647792
You have issues.
The engines are capped to 1,250hp in peacetime to prolong service life. Name one thing wrong with that reasoning.
>>29647599
No, but threatening/starting proxy wars with your neighbors while building up your army is cause for alarm.
>>29647866
>>29647855
Your defensiveness implies you have a hard time facing reality.
>>29647878
Your made-up reality?
Yes I do.
>>29647870
http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-arctic-base-miles-from-finnish-border-2015-1
Reopening an airbase next to Finland and stationing strike aircraft there after screaming at Finland that they have airbases too close to the border.
>>29647886
No, we are talking about yours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSjDUZDOVto
>>29647916
I don't have a special version of reality, I speak from observation.
Every time something rolls out of assembly line in russia, the cockends here already have all technical documentation sitting on their desk, gave it a test drive through active warzone, can list all the failures of the system, even those unknown to the manufacturer itself, and can safely proclaim it's shit.
I'm sick of it. I'm fucking sick of it.
>>29647905
>now being retrofitted to fit a garrison of 3,000 radioelectronics experts.
>strike aircraft
You lying pile of shit.
>>29647960
Damn, sounds like every new US project.
You reap what you sow.
I doubt it is the final look of the vehicle. The Bumerang that will take part this year has been changed so much that it looked like a CV90 copy instead of the last year Bumerang.
>>29647866
This
I bet Nuland did nothing wrong
It's good that the russians are finally catching up to the capabilities of existing western vehicles
Combined with their superior troops, not having shitskins & women, and better doctrine, i'd say they have the stronger fighting force dollar for dollar & man for man.
The US still has no plans on replacing their old as shit M1's or M2's, and the M113 will only be partially replaced by the AMPV.
Which is still better off than all their damn light brigades running around in humvees & strykers
>>29648552
>old as shit M1's
Anon, the operational Abramses are on average like 4 years old.
>>29648552
>their old as shit M1's
The M1 is 5 years old, with a new version coming out as soon as this year.
>>29648822
>>29648990
It's a 70's design that has been repeatedly upgraded.
The fact that they keep building new copies of a tank from the 70's is not a pro.
Since it would have been just as easy to build a completely new tank with new cannon, new engine, new electronics, better protection, etc
>>29649019
But what do you want to change on a fucking steel tub with threads?
The thing you named do get replaced with new ones all the time.
>>29649026
Disel electric engine, sensor fusion, digital displays, aesa radar, IRST, a cannon capable of penetrating frontal armor of modern MBT's, a crew cabin, cutting 20 tons of weight off the turrent by making it unmanned, quad tracks.
You know, making an actual next gen tank
>>29649026
Do I really have to tell you features that define 4th generation of armor engineering? Nevermind, being utterly outmatched and devastated by more technologically advanced opponent will put to rest all of your questions in due time.
>>29649065
>Disel electric engine
Less powerful than a gas Turbine.
>digital displays
That's been there since the 90s.
>aesa radar
Why so you can see buildings and hills? That's not a benefit.
> IRST
Another technology that has been in the Abrams for years now.
> a cannon capable of penetrating frontal armor of modern MBT's
The M829A3 is currently the hardest and deepest hitting penetrator in the world currently. The German DM53 is a close second.
>You know, making an actual next gen tank
>implying like the T14
Which still has its own issues to include using an unmanned turret, which effectlivley removes the human compenent for making "real" modern MBTs reslilient.
Do you know anything about tanks? Cause you sound like you got your argument out of a crackerjack box.
>>29649074
Daily reminder that the T90M is a decade or so behind the Abrams tank. The T14 only improves on it by about 5 years, while sacrificing other attributes.
>>29649144
>source: my jingoistic asshole
>>29649148
[ ] Post a counterargument at all
[x] attack the poster
So in other words, nothing I said you can prove wrong, since I "made it up" it should be easy enough for you to do? Or perhaps you don't because your original comments were just shitposting on /k/? I am going to assume that.
If you want to learn about tanks kiddo, please get back to me with something beyond a 8th grade level of arguing.
>>29649161
You say something is ahead of something else by years technologically out of fucking thin air.
What's there to argue about?
>>29649161
You did not make anything up, you just posted and unargumented opinion, so there is nothing to counterargument at all.
It's interesting how nobody, not even newer tanks, use gas turbine. Everyone who has tried it, has ditched it but the US. The main obstacle is that it has nothing in common with civilian engines and thus, the only research for gas turbines is niche and of military nature.
>>29649137
>Why so you can see buildings and hills?
So you can see choppers, other tanks. infantry, you know, everything that could be a threat to you.
>Another technology that has been in the Abrams for years now.
FLIR isn't an IRST
>Less powerful than a gas Turbine.
Diesel Electric engines are in fact more powerful, and have half the fuel consumption, also would remove the need for an APS
Fact: If you need to physically stick your head out of your tank for better vision/situational awareness, then you aren't in a modern tank.
Have you driven or used the T-14? Why do you assume the unmanned turret somehow means it has issues?
Do the unmanned machine guns on top of every tank have issues compared to manned guns?
>which effectlivley removes the human compenent for making "real" modern MBTs reslilient.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
But trying to operate a dead tank by hand is suicide vs any working MBT.
>>29649180
>The main obstacle is that it has nothing in common with civilian engines and thus, the only research for gas turbines is niche and of military nature.
More like it's an incredible bitch to keep fed and maintained compared to diesel engines, but it doesn't matter in America, where corporate lobbying wins over logic.
>>29649137
>Less powerful than a gas Turbine.
Not necessarily. And it is much more reliable, with less IR footprint and comparing its fuel economy to a gas turbine is retarded.
>That's been there since the 90s.
A couple of small low resolution displays as compared to what is basically a glass cocpit for all crew members.
>Why so you can see buildings and hills? That's not a benefit.
No, so you can see enemy vehicles, personnel and incoming missiles.
>>29649202
America can spend 200% on an engine that is 125% better. That being said, the Abrams is incredibly fast.
>>29649183
>AESA Radar
>Detecting Infantry
>Detecting anything at all with any accuracy
Or you know, you could just use one of the several thermal optics on the tank, not that those are effective or anything.
>FLIR isn't an IRST
Nice catch with that straw grab, but I didn't say FLIR. I defenitley 100% meant IRST
>Diesel Electric engines are in fact more powerful
Sure they are. Yet I am waiting for anyone to post a tank where that is actually a thing, cause it defenitley isn't the Challenger, Leopard II, Leclerc, T90 or T14. Basically, the best tanks of this decade.
>have half the fuel consumption
Even though the Abrams carries almost twice the fuel as other tanks, and doesn't have a logistics problem.
> remove the need for an APS
Except western tanks don't need APS because we don't rely on 3 half assed forms of protection for our tanks, even a T90/T14 with ERA is still less protected than a western tank's standalone armor. And seeing as the number of Abrams lost to ATGM fire can be counted on one hand, I am going to let the argument defend itself.
>inb4 Monkey models
>inb4 I have to post tens of thousands of T72s littering the Desert across the world
>If you need to physically stick your head out of your tank for better vision/situational awareness, then you aren't in a modern tank.
This is probably the most retarded thing I have read so far today. Where you even trying? Or are you going to say a 2 person crew is better then 3 now next? Its painfully clear you have spent 0 time in the TC seat of a tank, and know nothing about the responsibilities a TC has in his job. The level of autism in this comment would require me to break the char limit twice.
>Have you driven or used the T-14?
Have you any knowledge outside wikipedia or world of tanks? Like, do you have any time on tanks, or even the military at all?
>>29649019
If it isn't broken don't fix it though, and definitely don't create a whole new beast. You're not moaning about the M2 Browning so don't moan about a tank that works.
>>29649247
>America can spend 200% on an engine that is 125% better. That being said, the Abrams is incredibly fast.
Are you are here questioning people's knowledge?
A tank is not a fucking race car. What's top speed good for when you run out of juice in four hours? Or even better, have to crawl forward so that those HEMTT trucks with JP-8 can keep up with your fat ass?
>>29649183
>Why do you assume the unmanned turret somehow means it has issues?
No, it does mean it has issues, why do you "assume" it doesn't? Its not an opinion unmanned turrets suck, its fact. There's no one to reload machine guns, remove stuck rounds from any of the guns, manually traverse or fire the gun, provide situational awareness (oh wait that's right, sitcking your head out of a hatch is frowned upon, even though its been doctrine for the entire life of tanks and some autist on /k/ shut down 10 decades of practice, gee sorry....), command and control, and my favorite providing route clearence at the most basic level for the driver. Among several other issues, those are the big ones. TLDR the T14 turret removes mission capacity, and this is unarguable.
>Do the unmanned machine guns on top of every tank have issues compared to manned guns?
Yes. At least with a manned turret the jams can be cleared in seconds without exposing the crew. In the case of the M1A2 SEBV2 w/ CROWS II (standard feature on most SEPs) the gun can be auto cycled.
>>29649229
>much more reliable
You mean, just about as reliable, when the Abram's turbien doesn't actually suffer issues.
>less IR footprint
In a forward assaulting force, or hulldown position the IR Footprint equates to 0% of an issue. If you are attacking the sides they probably deserved to get spotted and engaged as that's a retarded tank unit.
> small low resolution displays
lolno, when the T14's monitors have that exact issue, and have frame stitching issues that render propper image making a problem.
>>29649183
>I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
Because you are retarded and don't know anything about tanks.
This whole thread has developed into a circle jerk of misinformation of the perpetuation of fallacy, yall can go fuck yourselves till I get off work and have to set you all straight again.
>>29649271
Ok, why don't we put 4 bangers in tanks? We obviously don't need to go anywhere with any speed at all, on a mobile battelifeld
fucking idiot
>>29649247
>America can spend 200% on an engine that is 125% better. That being said, the Abrams is incredibly fast.
Better in what? There are pleny of diesel engines matching AGT-1500 power.
>Or you know, you could just use one of the several thermal optics on the tank, not that those are effective or anything.
Tell that to the jews, after all Trophy detects targets as big as RPG-7 missile with enough accuracy to shoot it down.
>Sure they are. Yet I am waiting for anyone to post a tank where that is actually a thing, cause it defenitley isn't the Challenger, Leopard II, Leclerc, T90 or T14. Basically, the best tanks of this decade.
Leopard 2 and Leclerc, actually. They both match Abrams in power and beat it in hp/tonne.
>Even though the Abrams carries almost twice the fuel as other tanks, and doesn't have a logistics problem.
Considering Leopard and Leclerc both beat Abram's range by ~100km, and considering Abrams eats jet fuel instead of fuel used by literally every other army vehicle it definitely has a logicstics problem.
>Except western tanks don't need APS because we don't rely on 3 half assed forms of protection for our tanks
Thats why they made TUSK and are making Quick Kill, while considering using Trophy.
>This is probably the most retarded thing I have read so far today.
Not getting a bullet in the head is retarded?
>>29649288
You are a fucking idiot here.
I've just named real situations that happened during invasion of Iraq. The engine hasn't changed since then.
>>29649281
>There's no one to reload machine guns
How about making the belt
>remove stuck rounds from any of the guns
We wont make unmanned turret because we suck at making guns. Alright.
>manually traverse or fire the gun
No one does that, its not WW2.
>even though its been doctrine for the entire life of tanks
Poking each other with a wooden stick was humanitie's doctrine at war for much longer than shooting each other. Should we return to the stick?
>provide situational awareness
>and my favorite providing route clearence
WTF is camera.
>You mean, just about as reliable, when the Abram's turbien doesn't actually suffer issues.
Except all issues that all gas turbines suffer when at ground level.
>In a forward assaulting force, or hulldown position the IR Footprint equates to 0% of an issue
So we do not actually need IR sights, right?
>lolno, when the T14's monitors have that exact issue
No they do not.
>and have frame stitching issues that render propper image making a problem.
Probably a prototype issue.
>>29649334
You are retarded. And still wrong on all your points.
>>29649384
Astonishing level of argumentation. You basically a modern equivalent of Aristotle, swear. Especially this part:
>You are retarded.
Flawless, just flawless.
>>29649281
So you mention a whole buncha shit that is only necessary because the Abrams is a really old design.
And you claim that the obvious future of tanks "has issues" simply because the US isn't doing them yet?
Going to digital everything is simply the future, it'll happen eventually. Digital maps showing positions of all friendlies/spotted enemies, video feeds from other vehicles/UAV's, integrated scouting drones, C-RAM lasers on top of the tank, and a helmet display system like in the F-35.
You going to stick your head out of the tank in a combat zone ? When you are under fire?
>TLDR the T14 turret removes mission capacity, and this is unarguable.
In your opinion, you mean.
>>29646664
It isn't till later this year.
Do you not know when WW2 ended? baka tovarisch
>>29649392
No I am not taking the time (on mobile now) to teach someone who is willfully retarded to be brought up to speed on how tanks work when you're so pre occupied and being stupid you don't care to learn.
As I said, all your points are still wrong. Let's look at the first one. "Make a belt to solve the reloading issue" and what happens when that jams? It's 100% ineffective at fixing the issue. Also longer belts are more prone to jamming, for both weight, and snagging issues. Your "counter-argument" is effectively very poor at proving what I said wrong. You just repeat the same (lack) of quality in the rest of your post, as I can single handedly disect and rup apart your argument in ways you can't even imagine, as you have never even been inside a tank, let alone having the most basic understanding of tank operation. Your post isn't as valuable as you think it is.
>>29649416
>you're going to stick your head out of tank in a combat one? When you are under fire?
yes
nothing beats being able to look around to know where you are on the battlefield
you start relying solely on your gps and blue force tracker and next thing you know you're accidently in Syria and have to quickly turn around before someone realizes.
>>29649416
>Going to digital everything is simply the future
Basically what the Abrams has been doing since the 90s. How does it feel to know the T14 is still technologically behind the Abrams?
>>29649428
>and what happens when that jams
Outsided of city - a crew member gets out and clears the jam. Inside the city - nothing. Funny how more of your post is dedicated to anecdotal fallacy and personal attack on me, rather than actual argumentation. Keep it up, Burgertotle.
>>29649455
>inside the city-nothing
you do realize that the machine gun is the primary weapon of a tank in an urban conflict?
not having at least one operational gun would make the tank ineffective and vulnerable.
That other dude is being argumentative, but he is providing reasonable counter arguments.
>>29649443
M8, we have seen the insides of the T-14, how can you say this
>>29649476
Solution is to produce guns that don't regularly jam, and probably switch to air bursting grenade launchers/mortars.
>>29649476
>not having at least one operational gun
>wtf is coax
>but he is providing reasonable counter arguments.
Being unable to fix a jam that is not fixable by cycling the gun is argumentation? Topkek. I wonder how often those happen on properly maintained M2, Kord or PKT. Probably never.
>>29649500
>>29649498
>just make automatic weapons that won't jam in combat situations
well let's just invent super lightweight armor that is also so strong that missiles can't penetrate it and give it to every soldier so that they never die
>>29649500
the coax is normally in the turret, where the crew no longer is
>>29649527
>the coax is normally in the turret, where the crew no longer is
Yeah, so it also gets jammed in a way that it cannot be fixed by cycling the gun. I wonder what are the chances here.
>>29649527
>well let's just invent super lightweight armor that is also so strong that missiles can't penetrate it and give it to every soldier so that they never die
Except that remote weapon stations arent really a new thing. When someone does something he does not say "oh, im not going to to that because of X", he says "alright, how do we fix X".
Is there any other 4th gen tank than the T-14 armata?
>>29649534
>won't be fixed by cycling the gun. I wonder what the chances are
in my experience, pretty decent
>>29649547
"how do we make automatic weapons not jam" is a question we've been trying to answer for over 100 years now. I don't know if we'll ever have a 100% solution to it. We can keep reaching for that gold ring though
>>29649597
That entirely depends on one's definition of generations. Or even lack/presence of such definition.
>>29649613
>in my experience, pretty decent
What is it? Barrel falling off? Round blows up in the chamber? Are those failures really that often and are those failures really the ones you can or should fix by leisurly going from behind armor in the middle of a firefight?
>"how do we make automatic weapons not jam" is a question we've been trying to answer for over 100 years now.
"how do we engines that never break down" is a question we've been trying to answer for over 100 years now. What now, fit two engines to a tank, in case one of them breaks down? What are we going to do when second engine breaks down? Fit a third engine? This is simply not the right logic, man.
>>29649642
links getting caught behind the bolt, links jamming in the vehicle's ejection chute, basically non-gun issues that have to be manually cleared.
>leisurely going from behind armor
the coax is in the manned turret, which you say shouldn't be
the TC should be popped up anyways, but even if he is buttoned up and his gun goes down, at least they know for sure they can clear the coax if shit happens
and shit does happen
engines don't break down as often as machine guns. machine guns are so useful and break down so often that they did put multiple of them on tanks.
Also, a engine breaking down is a lot more difficult to fix than a jammed gun, and the gun can be fixed by hand quickly.
it's not a good comparison
>>29649689
>links getting caught behind the bolt, links jamming in the vehicle's ejection chute
>links
Not a russian issue, they do not have desintegrating belts.
>the coax is in the manned turret, which you say shouldn't be
Nope, i did not say that. I said that you have at least two machineguns, chances that both get jammed in a way that cant be cleared by cycling the gun are pretty low.
>the TC should be popped up anyways
Enjoy your Juba headshots. Rodina gave you panoramic sights with amazing ability to see heat, but no, you want to be shot in the head.
>it's not a good comparison
It is not a comparison, i am just showing you retardness of this approach.
>>29649613
> how do we make weapons that don't jam
> L94A1 chain gun
>During testing conducted by Hughes, the weapon proved extremely reliable, firing two 10,000 round bursts lasting 20 minutes at 500 rounds per minute. It has a reported rounds between failure rate of approximately 50,000 rounds.
Obviously not perfect but I'd say that's pretty good
>>29649724
Actually i am pretty sure that lack of advances in engineering a gun that does not jam all the time is at least partly powered by the fact that there is always someone to clear the jam.
>>29649281
>>29649229
Gas turbines have less IR signature than diesel engines.
Lrn2 emissivity.
>>29649831
Gas tubines have more IR signature than diesel engine. Learn into energy conversion efficiency and exaust temperature.
>>29649455
But you're retarded I can prove it mathematically.
>>29647980
I gave you the clues, do your own research.
>>29649851
You don't know what emissivity is do you?
>>29649498
We have seen the inside of the Abrams, and it has the best C4ISR integration used on all NATO participating vehicles. It has multiple digital displays from driver, gunner, and TC. Nothing the T14 has hasn't already been incorporated into the Abrams. "Technologically superior" isn't an identifying feature for the tank.
I find it funny how the West isn't collectivley shitting itself about the T14. The only people buying into the hype about it are the Russians themselves and self hating burger claps. That being said the Leopard, Challenger and Abrams are a tier above the Aramata.
>>29649921
>Nothing the T14 has hasn't already been incorporated into the Abrams.
facepalm.jpg
>>29649921
>and it has the best C4ISR integration used on all NATO participating vehicles
Which is substantially outclassed by the T-14
>>29649893
I am pretty sure i do, i wonder if you know that.
>>29649921
> Nothing the T14 has hasn't already been incorporated into the Abrams.
How about conditions appropriate for a human being on driver's workplace?
>"Technologically superior" isn't an identifying feature for the tank.
Wow.
>I find it funny how the West isn't collectivley shitting itself about the T14.
Should they?
>>29649921
>Leopard, Challenger and Abrams are a tier above the Armata
Please make a detailed comparrison of the performance statistics and features of the tanks you just mentioned.
>>29647254
That's true for a lot of alliances. This idea that Russia and China are gearing up to fight each other rather than US is hilariously outdated.
>>29649963
If you knew what emissivity was you would know why gas turbines have less signature.
>>29650000
You can certainly enlighten me, retard. Turbine simply operates at much higher temperatures, sure, it can reject heat easily... into the air around it, that certainly doesn not help IR footprint.
>>29649952
Haha no
You don't even know what C4ISR even is.
>>29649963
>conditions appropriate for a human being on driver's workplace?
What the fuck does that mean? Are you making up issues about the Abrams that don't exist again?
>>29649937
That's cute. The technology in your picture has been a thing since the 90s, your strawman post didn't disprove that the Abrams has digital integration.
Also T14 has lower resolution monitors and image stitching issues.
>>29650174
Do not know about you, but this looks uncomfortable as fuck. Besides, you cant see shit, unlike in Armata, where you sit in a normal human being position with a couple of big, high-resolution screens in front of you.
inb4 its fine, we only hire niggers to drive our tanks
>>29649974
Please list a single statistic that proves the T14 is even marginally better at anything.
>>29650198
He did not make a statement, you did. The burden and all that shit, you know.
>>29650193
>I think it looks uncomfortable
Nice to know your post is unconducive to the intelligent discussion at hand. You are making up issues that don't exist. Also T14 driver has periscopes for driving. You "nigger".
>>29646624
It's a solution looking for a problem.
While the idea of a heavy IFV for fighting in urban areas sounds good, it's been shown to be unneeded as evidenced by the US and UK during their fighting in urban areas. They showed that proper tactics with light vehicles and MBTs are extremely effective to the point that a heavy autocannon carrier simply isn't necessary as evidenced by the lack of sales of the Terminator and its variants.
>>29649978
The problem comes from the fact that historically, China doesn't have alliances, merely interests.
>>29650204
OK, the aforementioned tanks are 5-10 years more advanced. To include domestically manufactured equipment not imported from French optic companies, or tiawanese/South Korean electrical firms.
>>29650224
russia is not supplying hundreds of modern ATGM to places where the US is fighting
The US is going to get btfo whenever they fight someone who can shoot down their choppers and destroy their light vehicles
>>29650193
That's not an Abrams that's a simulator. Secodnly, the Abrams does have a digital driving monitor next to the driver called the DVE
>>29650217
>Nice to know your post is unconducive to the intelligent discussion at hand.
Hurr-durr, lying on the back without being able to see shit is ok and totally comfortable.
>Also T14 driver has periscopes for driving.
No he does not. Actually he is the only person that does not have any periscopes. Protip: driver is on the right, now show me his periscope.
>>29650237
Wrong post reply?
>>29646664
>fighting against the orient.
>not knowing about the hundreds of years of minor skirmishes and peaceful trading and coexisting.
Russians and Chinese don't really beef. Their border region tends to be like the American-Mexican border. Relatively sparse towns and populations of both on each side, mostly where the money is.
Russians are generally less racist toward chinks and chink accessories then Americans. Hell sometimes the Ruskies pull a finland or hungary and start talking about their 1/32 mongoloid or tartar blood or ancestors.
>>29650228
>OK, the aforementioned tanks are 5-10 years more advanced.
Thats what you were supposed to provide actual arguments for.
>To include domestically manufactured equipment not imported from French optic companies, or tiawanese/South Korean electrical firms.
That somehow makes Armata less advanced? Also, implying russians still use actual Catherine optics.
>>29649144
Well that's interesting. What kind of reactive armor and active protection does M1A2 have? What kind of autoloader, ATGMs? How many types of ammunition does it carry? Tell me about ot network centric capabilities. What radar does it have? Man, that turbine heat signature. Any internal thermal shields? Radio wave absorbing coating? How agile and mobile it is on the battlefield? Like a pregnant cow you say...
My condolences for being hopelessly outclassed by T-72+++ variant. Ah don't cry sunshine, it's hard to compete with the most advanced and combat capable MBT in service today.
>>29650679
Not even the guy you're replying to, but I'm bored and work sucks
>What kind of reactive armor
ARAT
>active protection does M1A2 have?
AN/VLQ-6
>autoloader
>implying this is a great engineering feat or a positive and not a doctrinal choice
>How many types of ammunition does it carry?
5 off the top of my head not counting AMP
>What radar does it have?
The only tank around with a meaningful radar is the K2
>Any internal thermal shields?
What do you mean by this? Blast doors?
>radio wave absorbing
Only the PL meme tank has anything like it
>Like a pregnant cow you say...
Who are you quoting?
>>29650679
>Atgm meme
>>29648552
>superior troops
>russia
anon, the average russian conscript is so malnourished and demoralized that they only make for good playthings and prostitutes for sadistic officers
>>29649720
>don't have disintigrating bolts
He was clearly giving a few examples, not every example
>chances of both jamming are low
So you shouldn't bother having a solution? Plan for the worst.
>Enjoy your headshots
You keep saying that tankers all fight buttoned up, but tankers don't. You can't keep arguing this point since the people who use the fucking things disagree.
>I am just showing you the retardness of this approach
Using a comparison. You were comparing the two, that's exactly what you did.
I'm not surprised that the other guy has stopped replying to you.
>>29649724
But it was operated in a clearn, controlled environment and not being opperated by panicy teenagers who really don't want to die.
>>29649937
Are LCD screens a new thing in Russia or something?
>>29650193
>the supine driving position is stupid
>>29650257
>Hurr-durr, lying on the back without being able to see shit is ok and totally comfortable.
Lying on your back is comfortable, how do you sleep? They obviously can see 'shit'.
>>29650193
Looks comfy af tbqh senpai
>>29649334
All machine guns jam eventually, either to dirt/dust buildup,wear, a dud round, snapped firing pin or the myriad of other reasons why machine gunners do endless practice on maintenance and quickly field stripping their guns. Russian machine gunners do this too if I'm not mistaken. Having to send a crew member climbing all over the tank, to fix a jam is a weakness.
>>29650257
>No he does not.
Actually he does its behind him when he sticks his head out. The inside picture is better but im inna phone.
>>29649937
This image proves what?
All you see in this image is 90s tech.
>>29650835
They wouldn't be bragging about it as if it were some cutting-edge tech no one else has in their tanks otherwise.
>>29650958
So basically what you're saying is that Casio has had access to better technology than the Russian military [until recently].
>>29650193
Looks comfy as fuck. If you don't want to ride into battle in a reclining sun chair something is wrong with you.
Besides, that position in much, much better for your spine if the tank jumps and bounces a lot.
More or less all human suspension is in the legs and vertical bumps is bad for your back especially when you sit upright.
>>29650984
Fancy tools are more common in the civilian sector than in the military or industry. Usually, there's a span of 10 years of difference because you want reliability, sturdiness and function over form.
>>29651007
Hardly that, more that military procurement is slow as shit, plus they pay an absurd premium for stuff so they wait till its cheaper
If the T-14 was such hot shit, NATO would be screaming about the need for a new and better tank.
The US has always been going "WE CANNOT ALLOW THE _______ GAP TO GROW!!!" as soon as anyone shows a new toy and then going bat crazy producing a superior version of whatever catches their eye.
Currently they are going EW GAP!!!!!11 despite that EW is such an obscure and unrelatable branch for the public to grasp.
Having inferior tanks again after having the total tank supremacy for two decades has the potential to send the american public into a frothing madness since the tank is pretty much the very image of military might.
The reason why they don't bother whipping up the public is that they know that the T-14 is merely a catching up game, that as soon as the next version of you NATO tank of choice rolls of the production lines, russia will be lagging behind again.
>>29651105
>If the T-14 was such hot shit, NATO would be screaming about the need for a new and better tank.
And they are. Recently, an Army General said that he was worried that the US would out-numbered and outgunned in the next war. He says that the Abrams is no longer good enough and it is time to start developing a replacement tank.
>>29651105
Not always. Sometimes you need a wake up call like a meager boat with anti-ship missiles sinking a destroyer. Until the T-14 is seen in action or more it is show of its actual capabilities on the field, there may be no such calls.
>>29651128
[citation needed]
No one cares about the T14, its not a real tank yet, just a mock up.
The Russians will probably end up buying T90MS' and continue development of the T14 for the next 10-20 years.
Why is the American Ego so fragile? It switches rapidly between arrogance and self-doubt. You are so manical.
>>29651105
Why do you believe that socialists in the EU or democrats in the US have any interest in increasing military spending & actual promoting defense of the country?
They are marxists who want to destroy the west
>>29651202
this
>>29651128
And other generals treat the T-14 like the Quaher-313, like a propaganda tool for internal consumption.
Not at all the same as previous GAP!!!11 hysterias.
>>29651154
Isn't the Armata platform an universal heavy chassis meant to simplify logistics? I think they are quite serious with this one. Sooner or later, it becomes cheaper to buy new things than fixing old stuff for eternity.
>>29651202
Could make a point for the EU but the democrats know that if the republicans go " 'are tanker boys gunna die when evil russian troglodytes roll up with their evil new tank!!!!!!" and then fail to act on it, they will lose the election. All the democrats care about is having the power, nothing else.
The Abrams is the poster vehicle for american military might, as soon as a competitor poses credible threat I guarantee you that the frail military ego of the US will kick into overdrive and spit out a billion new tank prototypes, each with bigger guns and better armor than the next.
>>29651307
Except the republican establishment are mostly RINO's who wanted Hillary to win.
>>29651319
Well, given that Trump would willingly and actively hand over all military power in Europe to his bro Putin, I can see why they'd rather take their chances with another Clinton instead.
>>29651307
There has been stunt on the past. The analyst have both understimated and overstimated Russian/Soviet developments before. R-73 was assumed to have been inferior to the AIM-9 Sidewinder until they got their hands on one. Until the T-14 is deployed in force, it can go either way.
>>29651350
Not sure who told you that
Putin & Trump arae pals
>>29651362
This, next to no hard facts are known on the T-14, not even videos of the APS during trials or deploying smokescreens.
Until more is known, we might as well compare it to the M1A3.
>>29651400
*M60A3
Why does everyone think that a country that has a R&D budget less than a fourth the size of the wests, and investments that are even spectacularly less, with a development curve that has been behind us since the 90s, can magically catch up and make up for 20 years of lost time and money? It can't, its impossible.
>>29651374
"[Donald Trump is] a really brilliant and talented person, without any doubt. It’s not our job to judge his qualities, that’s a job for American voters, but he’s the absolute leader in the presidential race."
-Putin
"[Putin] is strong, he is tough, he makes Obama look bad"
-Trump
They are pretty much bros, yeah.
>>29651362
Except the T14 is isn't that good of a tank, the only people who see it as soo, are vatnicks themselves. Hell the tank has an unmanned turret for Christ sake.
I can build a "drone tank" in my backyard. That doesn't mean my tank is the best MBT in the world. And the tech in the T14 doesn't make it the best in the world either.
>>29651444
Lower wages.
>>29651154
The cool part is when they outsource it to other nations and they get BTFO, and its performance characteristics in fields that actually matter like lethality and survibility prove to be worse then what was originally stated by vatnick himself.
>>29651444
>M60A3
Nah, we know pretty much everything that there is to know about the M60A3 while we know nothing about either the M1A3 or the T-14.
These threads only provide fanboy conjecture and no facts.
>>29651468
you're still talking about decades worth of development, and hundreds of billions of dollars. The statement still stands.
>>29651492
The M1A3 isn't the next tank, the M1A2 SEP V3 is. That being said, the V2 can go toe to toe with any tank currently in development on the planet.
>>29651494
Some paths are shorter than others, anon.
>>29651468
Russia has the same GDP as Italy. Even if everyone on the Armata project was paid in hot pockets it would not affect the grand scheme of things.
R&D, materials and infrastructure costs, no matter what you pay the grunt.
>>29651128
>an Army General said
>representing all of nato
yahno
>>29651534
GDP is not a good source to calculate a country's development capabilities.
>>29651511
>M1A2 SEP V3
We probably know more about the M1A2 SEP V3 than the T-14. What I'm trying to say is that there is no use in speculating about the T-14 since we known nothing about it anyways. Could be good, could be cardboard strapped to a T-72++++
>>29651543
considering how the PAK FA and roughly all developments in the last 10-20 years haven't done much but only close the gap between east and west, while excelling at nothing, we will let facts win this argument.
>>29651575
tanks are a little less complicated than aircraft
>>29651534
>Russia has the same GDP as Italy.
So, it's actually pretty powerful and in the Top 10? It's not like the Soviet Union was an economic powerhouse.
>>29651543
It's not perfect but it tells a lot about the capabilities of russia.
If italy spent ~5% of their GDP on military spending, they would be in the same league as russia when it came to new systems.
>>29651593
tanks are more complicated then you think they are
>>29651594
Still hopelessly behind US, China, UK, France and Germany. The SU is no more and even when it was, it was behind the US.
>>29651630
Not in every field. Technology does not advance in a straight line, and there are many avenues for technological progress. Some path go quicker than others while other may end up in dead-ends.
>>29651662
like ATGM technology, which caused Russia's/Soviet Union's advancement in real anti tank munitions to suffer while the west stuck to tried and true kinetic rounds, while the east is still trying to catch up because they thought it wasn't a good idea at the time to invest in it. Same for computer technology in tanks, another thing they were late to doing.
>>29651662
While russia currently builds on the advancements of the west, they still suffer from over 20 years of stagnation and brain drain. A few years of high oil prices don't erase that.
>>29651444
Having larger budget didn't prevent USA from being decades behind Russia in ECM, AShM, SAM, ERA and ATGM technologies. You see, not everything can be solved with simply dumping money into it.
>>29651534
More like same as Germany. Not that really matters in the context of military R&D, but get your facts straight.
>>29651614
>If italy spent ~5% of their GDP on military spending, they would be in the same league as russia when it came to new systems.
Not really. You see, you have to know what you are doing and have experience in order to achieve anything meaningful.
>>29651677
For a real winner take the NK-33 rocket engine. A technology from the 60-70s, that was abandoned in a warehouse and forgotten, rediscovered in the 90s, and now bought for NASA rockets.
>>29651726
I can make wild claims, that doesn't make them true. The only thing that made any since in your post was the East's advance in missile tech. But everything else is in fact, made up.
>>29651594
>It's not like the Soviet Union was an economic powerhouse.
It's not like it wasn't, being the second economy in the world despite having god awful planned economy.
>>29651746
it failed
>>29651746
That doesn't really refute my point though.
>>29651727
And it's a piece of shit that burns through itself causing the loss of the rocket (see N-1 and the Antares failure in Oct 2014).
If you're going to pick a Soviet rocket engine, at least pick a good one.
>>29651362
The R-73 was markedly inferior when it came to countermeasure discrimination to the AIM-9M though.
>>29651767
the US can spend 100% of its GDP on R&D, and further the gap between east and west. It will eventually collapse on itself and fall behind when the whole country implodes.
It actually does, refute your point as the USSR failed in exactly this way.
>>29651791
N-1 failed because it had like 30 of them. It caused problems with resonance (something that happened to Saturn V) and made the structure of the overall rocket fragile. Not because the rocket is inferior.
>>29651810
And the rest of my post?
>>29651726
Not sure PPP is the best tool to determine military procurement. Building tanks is not the same as buying bread.
>>29651741
Missile technology constitutes a good half of mentioned fields. As for the rest, Americans are yet to introduce anything ever remotely comparable to 80s Kontakt-5 and as for stuff like Krasukha-4 and Nebo-ME, that's pretty much space magic for the US as of now.
>>29651820
Antares used a modified version named AJ-26.
>>29651826
You are missing that with some minor exceptions Russian military industry is internal. Meaning that nominal US dollar value of its productivity barely represents anything in the particular context of the discussion.
>>29651832
On the other hand, the US and the west is light years ahead in composites and NERA, no ERA was a choice based on doctrine.
>>29651838
A reconditioned version of the same engine, it's not like they manufactured their own. The Nk-33 is a piece of shit, I don't know why you didn't say Soyuz (rocket or spacecraft) or the RD-180+derivatives (which are also used by American launchers, see the Atlas V).
>>29651804
>the US can spend 100% of its GDP on R&D
I see. Looks like you have some growing up to do.
>>29651853
Projects on the scale of the Armata cannot be self contained due to the sheer size.
Neither PPP or plain GDP is good, not sure if there is a tool to accurate determine the capabilities of military procurement.
>>29651826
>Russia is literally Poo in the Loo tier now
holy shit
>>29651007
I can't believe you actually tried to justify that.
Proper, viable LCD technology was worked out in the '60's (in Hull of all places).
>>29651832
>kontac-5
Except the US doesn't need it. And even if we did we do have bolt on ERA. An M1A2 SEPV2's armor is better than any T72/T90 with its Kontac5. That argument is retarded.
>>29651892
And yet, computers in many american nuclear missile silos are antediluvian.
>>29651863
I give you NERA, Russians probably simply never thought of developing inferior armour types, but you are simply wrong on composites. Russia has rich history of implementing composite armour to their tanks.
>>29651907
US tanks weigh 20 tons more than russian
>>29651878
That's an implicating based on nothing. Russia was playing with the idea of unmanned turret since the 70s. There is absolutely no reason to assume Armata is somehow not an internal outcome.
>>29651907
>W-we just don't need it so it doesn't count!
Not really how it works.
>An M1A2 SEPV2's armor is better
Just look at all the suddely unclassified data you have just provided. And learn to spell correctly, please. Misspelling things only makes you look uninformed and arrogant.
>>29646664
The whole armata line isn't some Cold War-esque attempt to have an arms race, it's the Russkies introducing a new gen plattform on which they want to base all their various AFVs for the next fifty years or so while gradually mothballing/selling/scrapping all he various T-series tanks and BMPs.
>>29651913
>NERA
>Inferior
Holy shit this vatnik delusion.
It is better since it cantake multiple hits, is not depleted by tandem warheads, is lighter, is not destroyed when hit by autocannons and is lighter.
There is a reason to why ERA has been known in the west for over 50 years and they still ignore it.
And russia has yet to come close to anything near the capabilities of Chobam or Dorchester.
Russian "composites" are a joke in western terms of ceramic armor development.
>>29651929
They really don't, it's like about 15 tonnes at best. It's just Americans using retarded units and constantly mixing their shit up with the rest of the world.
>>29651954
It has a lot to do with how the composite material in the T-64, T-72 and T-80 was simple fiberglass.
Wasn't there a military exercise between former MiG-29 equipped with helmet-mounted sights vs US planes that was so lopsided, that the US began to develop their own in a hurry? Was it South Africa, out of all places, who fielded the first helmet-mounted sights in the world?
>>29651948
>That's an implicating based on nothing. Russia was playing with the idea of unmanned turret since the 70s. There is absolutely no reason to assume Armata is somehow not an internal outcome.
The problem is that the scope of the Armata or any major weapons procurement is so vast that it interferes with the whole economy unlike your average bread purchase. PPP is mainly used to determined how much a consumer can actually get for their currency. The russian govenrment is not your average russian consumer, nor is the Armata a minor project. PPP is not a good tool for to look at weapons procurement of this magnitude.
For all we know, Russia might even be able to produce more tanks than PPP would imply, there is just too many unknown factors.
>>29651948
Except, you didn't prove me wrong, you just repeated yourself. Abrams armor is better than the T90 and the T72, and the armor doesn't fall off after its been used.
>>29651970
And quartz sand! Can't forget about the sand!
>>29646624
What I'm still a little confused about is the huge lower glacias that BMPs and their descendants have. Instead of say, having a tumble home hull right at the edge of the front track guide wheel.
>>29649300
>Leopard 2 and Leclerc, actually. They both match Abrams in power and beat it in hp/tonne.
The Leopard 2 is just as heavy as the Abrams.
>>29649300
>>29652077
Oh and missed this.
>Considering Leopard and Leclerc both beat Abram's range by ~100km
According to KMW and GDLS the Leopard 2 has a range of 280 miles, the M1A2 has a range of 265 miles.
>>29649144
Daily reminder that anyone who seriously uses phrases like "[X] years ahead" is a fucking retard.
>>29650067
You will save yourself further embarrassment if you google emissivity and look at what air's is.
>>29651954
>He had to resort to ad hominem
Keks were had. Seriously though, NERA doesn't provide even nearly as much protection as ERA does, which is by the way not depleted by tandem warheads since 00s. And we all can very much see how lighter NERA is comparing the barns the west operates to Russian tanks. Though your implication that ERA gets destroyed by autocannons shows how uninformed you are on the subject.
>>29651970
It really wasn't though.
>>29652009
>PPP is mainly used to determined how much a consumer can actually get for their currency.
Which is why it can to a certain point of overall GDP relevance to the subject define what Russian government can get for Russian money from Russian industry. And since Russian military industry is almost entirely internal, PPP is a much better scale to chose if necessary.
>>29652021
You didn't prove you're right, that's the real problem. You just post your personal arrogant assumptions that are based on nothing, since it is well known that armour values are well classified.
>>29652177
What part of the vehicle am I looking at?
Like, I don't get what this is a cut away of, from what angle.
>>29652271
Turret armor.
>>29652271
Its a top down view of the turret cheek armor in a T-72.
Stacked spaced plates is what most composite armor is based around. The irony about the ERA vs NERA argument is those stacked plates are basically NERA.
![t-72b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ij06odv.jpg "t-72b[1].jpg")
>>29652271
A tiny pic for a better grasp.
>>29652177
>It really wasn't though.
It really was.
>>29652177
>Seriously though, NERA doesn't provide even nearly as much protection as ERA does, which is by the way not depleted by tandem warheads since 00s. And we all can very much see how lighter NERA is comparing the barns the west operates to Russian tanks. Though your implication that ERA gets destroyed by autocannons shows how uninformed you are on the subject.
You are still living in the 80s.
ERA does get destroyed when raked by modern autocannons, to trigger against KE impact is what makes them useful against APFSDS rounds. Western autocannons in the 30-40mm range use APFSDS rounds flying roughly at the same velocities as the 120mm stuff. If the ERA don't detonate against the autcannon they wont detonate against the tank cannon as the impact velocity that is the determining factor.
While the protection by ERA is higher than NERA, NERA can take multiple hits.
Look at the NERA wedges on the Leo2A5, russian 125mm cannons can plink at that all day and not expend it while any ERA module hit in return is good for one go.
When you mention '00s ERA, remember that if they go up against '00 tandem warheads designed to deal with them you are still on the losing side.
Also
>weight
Western tanks tend to keep their crew alive unlike the russian death traps only fit for suicide pilots. Protection is heavy.
>>29652177
>PPP is a much better scale to chose if necessary
But it's not.
"with essentially PPP being a better measure for assessing the cost of living, well-being of a country's population, and measuring non traded goods and services within a country"
That is about as far away from weapons procurement that you can get.
PPP is for consumer goods and services, to measure the purchasing power of the people.
No matter how much you bang on about "muh entirely national weapons industry" it doesn't change the fact that the armata nad russian army is far, far, far beyond the scope of what the PPP is designed to measure.
>>29652339
Call me when tanks have 30-40mm autocannons
>>29652339
>Western autocannons in the 30-40mm range use APFSDS rounds flying roughly at the same velocities
25mm Bushmaster: M919 APFSDS-T 1385m/s
30mm Mauser: NM225 1410m/s
35mm Bushmaster III: NMxxx APFSDS-T 1360m/s
120mm M256: M829A2 APFSDS-T 1680m/s
120mm RM: DM53 APFSDS-T 1750m/s
125mm 2A46: BM-22 APFSDS-T 1750m/s
So it is basically completely false, the difference is 200m/s+, which is fucking huge.
>>29652391
And the fact remains that there isn't a single ERA brick around that isn't defeated by tandem warheads that have been the norm since the 80s.
>>29652391
Are you so stupid that you fail to see the problem with having you armor being massively degraded when being engaged by APCs and IFVs?
Common tactics if an IFV is engaged by a tank is to blast the shit out of it with AP and HE rounds to blind it.
Russian tanks will in addition to having its optics damaged also have its armor values cut in half.
To change the periscope prisms is easy, most tanks carry spares. They do not carry spare ERA tiles to rearmor the front.
>>29652468
False. Relikt cant defeat tandem warheads.
>>29652471
>relying on an IFV being blasted into pieces to degrade enemy's armor
Thats retarded.
>They do not carry spare ERA tiles to rearmor the front.
They actually do. Replacing them is 15 minutes of work.
>>29652454
>because APFSDS rounds fly at constant speed.
Sure buddy.
You have to take into account that you might be hit from 3 km out. ERA tiles detonate at substantially lover velocities than any listed there.
>>29652477
Gotta source on that sportsfan?
>>29652495
>They actually do. Replacing them is 15 minutes of work
proofs?
ERA tiles are huge compared to optic prisms and russian tanks arent exactly known for their roomy interior. Where arethey keeping their extra tiles?
>>29652519
>You have to take into account that you might be hit from 3 km out.
At which lower caliber rounds fly at even lower speed, since they loose speed faster.
>ERA tiles detonate at substantially lover velocities than any listed there.
Sure, m8, especially considering the fact that even K-5 was desinged specifically not to detonate from low caliber rounds.
>>29652533
On a truck or an engineering vehicle, retard.
>>29652495
It's more that a russian tank will be degraded to a far greater degree if hit by non penetrating munitions.
A bradley will waste a russian tank with a TOW in any case but in a pinch you can button up and blind the tank with your auto cannon.
>>29652535
>At which lower caliber rounds fly at even lower speed, since they loose speed faster
I dont think an IFV will bother shooting at a tank at 3km in any case.
The point is, if engaged by auto cannon, russian tanks will have their main protection degraded.
>low caliber rounds
>35mm or 40mm apfsds
Sure thing breh
>>29652563
Or maybe a russian infantryman will waste that bradley with a kornet. What the fuck, war is not video game, stop pretending it is a map in modern hurrdurr where you can spawn a russian tank and a bradley and see what happens.
>>29652563
The bradley will be wasted by the tank while it tries to set up & fire its TOW, then guide the TOW in
>>29652589
>I dont think an IFV will bother shooting at a tank at 3km in any case.
I am pretty sure a tank will.
>Sure thing breh
I showed you m/s numbers, they differ, a lot.
>>29652549
>On a truck or an engineering vehicle, retard
Exactly that is the point you fucking vatnik!
Extra optical prisms are carried inside the tank,
russian suicide mobiles will have to rely on soft targets to resupply their shitty armor layout when damaged.
>>29652589
ERA is not the "main protection" on a fucking russian tank
>>29652597
Or maybe a russian infantryman will waste a shot that misses on that bradley with a kornet. What the fuck, war is not video game.
Two can play the vagaries of war game as well in order to dismiss anything they don't like.
>>29652619
I dont see a problem for them to stop and lazily replace ERA blocks, looking at burning wreck of hypothetical IFV that ruined said blocks with its autocannon.
>>29652605
Except that the russian tank will not know what the fuck since the bradley doesnt emit any laser pulse triggering the Shtora on russian tanks.
>>29652339
>Look at the NERA wedges on the Leo2A5
Those aren't NERA, those are just hollow wedges which make APFSDS yaw and HEAT detonate a million miles before the main armour.
>>29652609
An IFV will never seek an engagement with a tank, it will try to hide.
The point is, if an IFV faces a tank in a forest or urban environment where hiding is not an option, blasting it with the autocannon can save your bacon.
In those scenarios, the velocity is more than enough to detonate ERA.
On a western tank, change the prism and you're good to go. On a russian tank, better call in the engineering truck!
>>29652644
Except the russian tank will spot it instantly because they put modern sensors on their vehicles
>>29652531
Still waiting.
>>29652677
If this is what you need to tell yourself in order to calm your fear when crawling into your russian doombox, sure.
Meanwhile, in the real world, you are fucking wasted in case a TOW is homing in on you.
>>29652676
>In those scenarios, the velocity is more than enough to detonate ERA.
As i proved ealuier, thats bullshit.
>On a russian tank, better call in the engineering truck!
Not a big deal, it a tank company it is alway nearby.
>>29652645
Those are NERA, the plates are steel/rubber sandwiches meant to knock the penetrator off balance.
>>29652703
>Meanwhile, in the real world, you are fucking wasted in case a TOW is homing in on you.
Meanwhile in the real world you will get pants full of shit and a minor concussion if you are an arab and forgot to close your damn hatch.
>>29652322
>was
When it _was_ like that M60 with 220 mm worth of RHA glacis was still a big new thing in the US.
>>29652339
How am I living in the 80s if my argument includes the notion of tandem warheads' inefficiency against modern ERA?
>30-40mm
Good for you, now the only thing left is to get at effective firing range with an APS and preform accurate enough discharge for the sole purpose of slightly reducing the effective protection of a tank with non-integrated ERA from certain diminutive angles while not getting BTFO in response.
>NERA can take multiple hits
Doesn't matter if the first hit will take the tank out.
>'00 tandem warheads designed to deal with them
Russians had triple charge warheads since like the late 80s or so, if I recall correctly. You are yet to provide any data suggesting US has developed a warhead capable to defeat even the 00s Relikt.
>Western tanks tend to keep their crew alive
By staying our of combat, I presume? Because T-72 did that throughout its whole operational history with the exception of that one little war you had in the 1991 when Americans had to bring a new shiny M1A1 and a shitton of electronic support just to deal with Arabs it export T-72s that were protection-wise almost 20 years old in comparison.
>Protection is heavy.
It is if you are incapable of developing proper ERA and is stuck with a sole opting of just slapping more weight.
>>29652387
PPP is for purchasing power, which is exactly what is being discussed here. Of course it is not designed to measure military industry, but it at least does it better than plain GDP measured in US dollars - something that is outright irrelevant in the case of Russian military.
>>29652709
>As i proved ealuier, thats bullshit.
You proved shit, you have yet to back up anything you say.
How the fuck does the explosives know the size of the penetrator. Velocity is the only thin important here.
>Not a big deal, it a tank company it is alway nearby
It's a big deal since the tank has to withdraw maybe kilometers to resupply, not even russian troglodytes are stupid enough to have the resupply trucks at the front lines with the tanks.
>>29652531
>oт кyмyлятивных бoeпpипacoв, в т.ч. тaндeмных
http://www.niistali.ru/products/nauka/dynamic+protection/relikt/
>>29652772
>You proved shit, you have yet to back up anything you say.
How the fuck does the explosives know the size of the penetrator. Velocity is the only thin important here.
Yeah, thats how i proved it. Velocities of 30-40mm apfsds are AT LEAST 200m/s lower.
>>29652736
>When it _was_ like that M60 with 220 mm worth of RHA glacis was still a big new thing in the US.
Not really. Silaceous cored armor, go look it up and when it was first made and proposed to be fitted to new and existing tanks. Judging by the ancient tests, SCA had a better protection level than STEF that the Soviets used for the 64, entire 72 series and 80 until the 80U
>>29652735
Meanwhile you get your face full of shrapnel. and tank towed.
The secondary pressure is nowhere enough to cause that reaction.
Not to mention the reaction to jump OUT of a safe unpenetrated tank.
>>29652736
>PPP is for purchasing power, which is exactly what is being discussed here.
PPP is for CONSUMER purchasing power. Try again.
>>29652773
>manufacturer website
Sue me if I take it as being as credible as Lockmart regarding the F-35
>>29652793
Velocities of 30-40mm apfsds are AT LEAST 200m/s lower.
The same will be said for a 120mm penetrator 1km out.
ERA has to have a wide velocity range to be effective at all combat distances.
>>29652830
>Meanwhile you get your face full of shrapnel.
Meanwhile your hands grab your ears. Strange reaction.
>The secondary pressure is nowhere enough to cause that reaction.
Secondary pressure of much lower magnitude - a tank firing a dozen meters away - will fuck you up if you do not close the hatch. Fluid dynamics, learn it.
>Not to mention the reaction to jump OUT of a safe unpenetrated tank.
Natural mammal claustrophobic reaction? Never heard of it.
>>29652865
Actually, its not 200 m/s for a 120, and 1km isn't even the benchmark for that, 2km is, with 4km being maximum effective range.
>>29652865
>ERA has to have a wide velocity range to be effective at all combat distances.
Yes, you have to find a sweet spot. You have whole 200+m/s for it. I am not even sure 120+mm APFSDS drop in velocity to as much as 1300m/s at any range they are actually dangerous.
>>29652736
>It is if you are incapable of developing proper ERA and is stuck with a sole opting of just slapping more weight.
Daily reminder a passive armor program for countries that can develop top tier armor don't need to rely on ERA. See every country but Russia.
