T-14 Armata - How good is it? 125mm smoothbore, 3 man crew, autoloader, passive, active, reactive and slat armor. Active protection system. Both air and ground radar. It has quite a few of innovations as far as i can tell. Are the western tanks aging?
>>30421398
Never going past prototype because Russians cannot afford to mass produce it.
>>30421462
Russians are quite buffing up their military budgets, and for a concept using the same chasis for multiple armored vehicles could be cost effective right?
>>30421489
Didn't they have to buff it up because of their reduced economy ?
Even if they did increase their military budget, there's only so far they can go. Still, I'm sure they'd be able to produce a good amount of them over time. It's not like they absolutely have to replace their 7500 T-72s over the next 5 years, and compared to their total budget, tanks are still relatively cheap to produce.
As for it being good, well that's a quite complicated question. Vatniks will usually list a few features where they have an advantage and pretend that it's what turns the tide. But really, I don't see anything revolutionary that will suddenly make it outclass all other tanks by a significant margin.
>>30421650
its the SU-35 all over again they will build a handful and it wont make any difference in the event of war.
>>30421675
Tanks are still cheap compared to aircraft. That's what I meant with the T-72s, I don't think they'll try to build tanks to such a large scale. I suppose we can expect numbers similar as what we saw with the T-90.
>>30421650
Russians see military spending and economic crisis as 2 seperate things so it seems
>>30421715
I meant more recently, with the sanctions and all, where they buffed up the budget to compensate for their lowered economy. Still, there's only so far they can go, they've already surpassed the US in terms of military spending compared to GDP.
>>30421398
>Are the western tanks aging?
No
>>30421462
>>30421675
They already had an initial contract for 100 Armatas. The director of UVZ stated that he expects the order of 2300 T-14s (and thousands more other Armata based vehicles since they make the chassis) stretched to 2025 instead of the earlier 2020 deadline.
>>30421777
Goddamn, its insane how much it takes to crack the T-14. Unfortunately, Leo 2 customers have to replace the turret to use the gun.
>>30421867
The 2300 order was for Armata chassis vehicles, not T-14's specifically.
Much of Russia's tank money is going towards modernization of its T-72 fleet.
>>30421758
>they've already surpassed the US in terms of military spending compared to GDP.
That's because they kinda hitched most of their reindustrialization projects with military ones. For example in trucks- they modernized their designs and the factories making them with the contracts from the military. While fulfilling those orders the factories are also supplying trucks for the civilian usage.
>>30421867
>Goddamn, its insane how much it takes to crack the T-14
Is that statement based on facts or are you just talking out of your ass?
>>30421932
Not him but if the Germans are rolling out a new 130mm gun, it means that they think that the T-14 is pretty well armored.
>>30421950
The 130mm gun that Rheinmetall is making (not the German military) will not see service for a long time.
>>30421886
>The 2300 order was for Armata chassis vehicles, not T-14's specifically.
Sauce? I've used this page:
http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/T-14_a002752001.aspx
>Much of Russia's tank money is going towards modernization of its T-72 fleet.
The T-72B3M costs less than a tenth and would be applied only to give or take 1800 vehicles(active tanks - # of T-90 that would be upgraded too) until T-14 production takes over and start replacing both older vehicles in active service. Its chump change, otherwise they would have went for something like the T-72B2 if they wanted to invest in the T-72 park any further like you said.
>>30421932
>Is that statement based on facts or are you just talking out of your ass?
Take a look at the poster at the upper middle
>>30421398
>How good is it?
Ask again when it's seen combat action against a similar foe.
Does anyone know if the Russian army intends to keep/uppgrade the T-80 tanks?
They have quite a few of them but the production line is in Ukraine (and in a poor state) so I assume that could be a problem.
>>30422057
They'll keep them around for a bit, but they've shown zero interest in serious upgrades to them after generals used it as a scapegoat for their awful decisions in Grozny and Chechnya in general.
>>30422044
>Ask again when it's seen combat action against a similar foe.
So hopefully we never know?
>>30422008
2025 is not that far off.
>>30422057
This may be old info but they have taken T-80UD turrets and mounted them on T-80BV hulls.
So called T-80UE.
>>30422015
The price of a T-14 turned out to be 250% higher than what was estimated when the 2300 number was stated.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/world/europe/putin-40-new-missiles-russian-nuclear-arsenal.html?referer=
>>30421901
To what extent though ? I don't think a large part of the budget goes on trucks if you get my point.
But there's only so much spending the state can do within their budget. They can't just keep increasing the budget compared to the GDP as much as they want before running into general state budget problems.
>>30422040
There's only so much improvement you can do on the 120mm ammo before it starts getting ridiculously expensive to develop and improve. I mean, when you've already spent so much money on getting the existing penetration and you need to improve it by 10%, it gets harder each time. Maybe it's just a cost effective solution to the problem. It's hard to know the logic behind it without actually knowing what pushed the decision.
>>30422301
There's also the fact that Germany uses slightly inferior ammunition by using tungsten cores instead of the DU the US uses, so that also may be a factor.
>>30421777
You just proved they do.
>>30422057
T-80 is a dead line for the Russians. They are to be retired.
>>30422498
A gun whose purpose is "ooh shiny, take our shekels"?
>>30422498
Western tanks have always been getting incremental upgrades for decades. Unlike the T-72 chassis, which has quite a few design flaws, Western tank hulls are pretty robust and don't really require massive change.
>>30421398
How good it is has yet to be seen. It's a concept that never went beyond testing in other nations.
The 125mm is just an improved version of what's used now and I doubt the 152mm will be needed.
In small arms, the rounds stay the same and the guns advance. In tanks, it's kind of the opposite. The guns stay similar and the ammunition is what gets advancements.
My guess is that the T-14 will be like the T-64 was in the past: They will not be made standard, will not be exported, and will mostly go to Guards Units. The backbone of the Russian armored forces will continue to the T-90 into the foreseeable future (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
>>30422275
It is? http://rbth.com/defence/2015/09/25/cost_of_russias_armata_t-14_tank_to_fall_by_half_49585.html
>>30422364
DU is demonstrated to be better than Tungsten against RHA targets only though. Against complex armors with both passive and active nature it could go either way.
>>30421950
>that turret
>well armored
Ok.
>>30422602
Oh, the Soviets/Russian designers were aware of T-72s flaws. That's why they worked so hard on new models.
>>30422699
"just an improved version of what's used now" does not give it justice, only thing in common with the old cannon is that both are 125mm.
>>30422730
Irc, Rheinmetall claimed higher performance for their latest ammo (and so did the Chinese, but who takes them seriously).
>>30422852
What you see is an outer shell, the real turret is much smaller.
Since everything is getting fucked up by modern anti tank weapons, is the t14 just a russian zerg rush
>>30422937
APS got you covered on that front senpai.
>>30422699
>They will not be made standard
Still remains to be seen if they would really build 2,300 but just the stated number means they intended to replace most if not all the tanks in active service with T-14s.
>will not be exported
Highly doubt it. They sold more T-90s abroad than to the military afterall.
>and will mostly go to Guards Units
You'd fine that with the scrapping of most of the lower readiness units most formations left have Guards in their names.
>>30422873
And your point is? The close ups we have had of the actual turret indicate it is only armored for HMG fire.
>>30422730
The value of the ruble imploding does not mean the T-14 got cheaper.
>>30423033
Never realized .50 SLAP can penetrate more than 4/3".
>>30423053
>The value of the ruble imploding does not mean the T-14 got cheaper.
Did you actually read the article? It specifically mentions the magic of mass production for the steep decrease in prices from those originally quoted which was again for the hand-crafted prototype vehicles.
>>30423033
>close ups we have had of the actual turret
No such thing exists, no one knows how the turret really looks like (excluding the developers, of course). As I said, and my point is
>>30422873
>>30422937
>expensive and uncommon vehicle
>zerg rush
>>30422057
>production line is in Ukraine
STOP.
THIS.
MEME.
>>30423162
Try using an actual picture instead of a drawing, note the bolts.
>>30425727
And another showing the actual thickness of the plates on the turret face.
>>30423162
>lack of screws in the plate right here
>drawing has screws in the plate being pointed out
>>30421867
The question isn't how much force it takes to crack it, but how much force the Germans are willing to use.
That said, I can't see the US using that anytime soon because going much larger than the 120mm gun we currently use would require too extensive a redesign to not require a whole new tank.
>>30422082
>So hopefully we never know?
Pretty much. I'd rather we not have to unleash all of our new toys on our fellow man. Just derping durkas is good enough.
>>30426148
Using that 130mm gun would basically require a new turret at minimum for any NATO tank.
>>30425751
>those outer plates
>anything other than aesthetic
yeah, sure, they protect the external doohickeys from small arms fire. The real armor is *below* all the peripherals, doofus.
>>30426297
You know you can see the real armor in that picture right? Pointing out the shell is a red herring at best.
>>30426242
New turret, bigger engine, new suspension, longer chassis, likely an autoloader, etc. It gets complicated as hell to put larger weapons on most tanks without compromising something.
>>30425751
Outer shell is more a thermal cover than anything. On that not it didn't survive the recent tests performed against. I'll see if I can find source
>>30426339
That's like the very edge of the turret face that we see. We don't see the rest so it could look like pic related for all we know.
>>30426339
Again, the "real" turret has never been revealed. All we have is educated guesses at best.
>>30421758
And yet the US still spends exponentially more because bigger economy.
>people unironically think it's a fucking iranian-tier knockoff shit propaganda piece with fucking sheet metal turret armor
Unbelievable. You guys need to grow the fuck up. Russia is a real country and doesn't have to resort to 3rd-world bullshit, they have actual engineering and design capability.
>>30422985
You mean the fixed APS that fires in ~50 degree arcs on either side of the turret?
>>30428904
>people
Ordinary shitposters, mate.
>>30428916
The G in ATGM means Guided. There's like 2 turrets with 12 loads of obscurants each just waiting to plaster the area between the incoming with radar, thermal and visual opaque smoke. If it can't see the tank it damn sure can't hit it. Plus there is this fancy magnetic field enhancer I keep seeing on the vatnik forums. Basically it works like as named, distorting the tank's magnetic field and fooling magnetic mines and atgms that rely on magnetic proximity detection into prematurely activating while the tank is not yet in range.
>>30428934
>atgms that rely on magnetic proximity detection
Fucking what?
>>30428881
Having hundreds of bases, fighting and backing sides in a handful of small-scale wars, and having worldwide commitments eats up on that funding quite a bit.
>>30428946
>Fucking what?
BILL 2 and TOW-2B Aero.
>>30425276
Is there an actual production facility in Russia or are you just trying to play the "Ukraine doesent exist" meme?
>>30421950
>pretty well armored.
i don't know about this, i mean the Armata weights around 50t which is just a bit more than the T-90 but the armata is much bigger so either the russians have used vibranium-steel alloy or it isen't that armored at all
>>30428934
You mean the one they put on the smoke grenades n chaff?
>>30429020
Think of an inflated t-90 kinda. Except almost all the turret armour weight has gone into the hull. It's also quite a bit bigger cause its a he'll of a lot more ergonomic, not as cramped and room for all the crew in the hull. It shares almost nothing with the design of the t-90 save for the gun and autoloader
>>30429020
They did have new steel alloy. If I recall correctly it has the same amount of protection for 30% less weight.
>>30429055
> the turret armour weight has gone into the hull
imho a very bad decision but hey, i hope the know thing better then me.
>Think of an inflated t-90 kinda
but the hull is substantially larger(and taller) than that of the T-90 ( see that above comparision pic) so even with the "turret weight" being put in the hull, i expect it not the be much more armored then a T-90, if at all
>>30429062
> protection for 30% less weight
compared to what? RHS? anyway i think most of the claims regarding armor and protection in the early stages should be met with a healty dose of scepticism.
>>30429062
>They did have new steel alloy. If I recall correctly it has the same amount of protection for 30% less weight.
Not going to be used to substitute the steel they already use for the main armor and structure, just some weight sensitive applications like armored covers for the sights and other sensors etc.
>>30429020
Apart from the unmanned turret negating the need for ten tons or so of armor and ergonomics, empty space bruh. It has lots of it to allow space for future upgrades.
>>30429087
not armoring your turret because it is not crewed is retarded if you ask me, i mean you would not leave your engine unarmored so why would you only armor your turret very lightly when it is probably the most likely place to be hit in the first place
>>30429120
>i mean you would not leave your engine unarmored
The engine decks of other MBTs with manned turrets aren't really armored either. They are physically armored to resist HMG up to 14.5 mm HMG rounds and that's it. You could have some anti-RPG grills but those work on DUDing the round itself, not withstanding its effects.
>it is probably the most likely place to be hit in the first place
Yes it is, but you really only need to worry about the gun getting penned directly, and chances of that happening are low as in looking at it from the front its the size of the mantle if not smaller, but still there but that's really just a fact of war you accept and move on.
>>30429120
Yes why bother armoring only the crew compartment. Safe crews are a western meme anyway. Coincidentally, you don't need as much armor for a turret that only seats zero, versus 3.
>>30422057
T-80(U) were produced in Leningrad and in Omsk, both cities in Russia. What Kharkov (Ukraine) produced were T-80UD with 2-stoke diesel instead of gas turbine.
>>30429157
>The engine decks of other MBTs with manned turrets aren't really armored either.
yes, but of course you only armor them very lightly, the already sit at the back of the tank and are therefore already behind plenty of armor unlike the turret.
>Yes it is, but you really only need to worry about the gun getting penned directly
if it only was this simple, i reckon the turret contains more then just the gun. besides the turret, while notably smaller then most tanks out there, is still big enough to be reliable hit.
>>30429186
>if it only was this simple, i reckon the turret contains more then just the gun
Yes it also houses the sensors for both FCS and APS and also comms apparatus- all of which are either or both easily replaced in the field or are duplicated.
>is still big enough to be reliable hit.
Its actually much bigger. Again don't fall for the trick- the gun and its attendant mechanisms fit within the projection of the mantlet looking from the front. If reliably hitting the mantlet is an option tank designers would've put thicker armor in the mantlet with much more powerful vertical traverse mechanisms. Its not, since tanks while normally capable of a bull's eye on a helmet sized target at 3km won't hit with the same precision a moving target.
>>30426417
The overhead-and-through autoloader approach gives breathing room. It allows longer heavier unitary rounds, an 130mm autoloading longer APF-DS should be sufficient for a while. Armor however is a bigger problem.
Kind of funny in 20 years the whole situation might be reversed from the Cold War - with NATO having lots of little old-pattern upgraded light assault tanks with big guns, while the Russians opted for sensors and a few defense-oriented behemoths.
>>30428852
>the "real" turret has never been revealed.
Which is why you can see it in that picture under the shell?
>>30428987
2 of the 3 production facilities were in Russia.
>>30421867
The 120 mm isn't able to reliably crack muh Abrums or the Leo II either; it's in need of a replacement.
>>30429223
>Yes it also houses the sensors for both FCS and APS and also comms apparatus- all of which are either or both easily replaced in the field or are duplicated.
pretty much everything on a tank can be "easily" replaced. but losing it in battle can still be a mission-kill if not worse.
>Its not, since tanks while normally capable of a bull's eye on a helmet sized target at 3km won't hit with the same precision a moving target.
modern FCS is capable of shooting down helicopters and auto-tracking. i doubt it would be that hard for an experianced crew to hit the Armata in its turret
anyway as far as i'm concerend my point still stands. the armata weighs very little compared to its size even if you take the "light" turret in account and as a result is problay not that well armored compared to other tanks. don't get me wrong thou, i don't think the armata is a POS. i just don't think it is the ultimate tank as some people make it out to be
>>30429556
>modern FCS is capable of shooting down helicopters and auto-tracking
WIth airburst HE rounds, easily.
>i doubt it would be that hard for an experianced crew to hit the Armata in its turret
Tankers don't aim at specific parts unless its ridiculously close. The Autotracker doesn't either. You aim/ program the autotracker to aim for center of mass to maximize chances of a hit.
>>30429556
>anyway as far as i'm concerend my point still stands. the armata weighs very little compared to its size even if you take the "light" turret in account and as a result is problay not that well armored compared to other tanks. don't get me wrong thou, i don't think the armata is a POS. i just don't think it is the ultimate tank as some people make it out to be
Then how heavy do you think a properly armored unmanned turreted tank should be?
>>30428881
Of course, they can afford much more too. It's why I compared it to the GDP, because it gives an indicator as to how much they are spending compared to what they can afford.
Though checking the numbers from wikipedia, it seems Russia got hit really hard by the crisis because they went backwards by quite a large amount. Maybe sanctions do work as intended after all.
>>30428987
at Sankt Petersburg and Omsk
they only lost the T-80UD production line as it was designed and built in Kharkov
>>30429055
Gun and loader are different.
>>30429476
Yes, you can see bits of it, not the whole, "naked" turret.
>>30429484
>>30429947
Oh. I guess you learn something every day
>>30429894
Then how heavy do you think a properly armored unmanned turreted tank should be?
that seriously depends on what you are trying to achieve. if you going for a tank expected to face NATO's MBT's then for something the size of the Armata i would expect 60+ but that is just my opinion.
> Tankers don't aim at specific parts unless its ridiculously close. The Autotracker doesn't either. You aim/ program the autotracker to aim for center of mass to maximize chances of a hit.
even if you don't aim for the turret at long range's this does not mean a turret cannot get hit. besides during WW2 average range of tank engements was less then 1000m even with modern tech i doubt i will increase that much and if it is possible to hit helmet sized targets at 3km you can very well hit the turret ( even if moving) if you want to
anyway what does that matter. all i'm saying is that the armata might not be as well armored as other tanks and you might aswell just hit the hull
>>30421398
>T-14 Armata - How good is it?
Shit. For the next few years for sure, it was rushed so it was ready for parade and propaganda reason. Will take a few years till the found and fixed the biggest issues. And contradicting to the F-35 we dont have news and boos reporting every minor error about it 24/7.
>>30430291
>Then how heavy do you think a properly armored unmanned turreted tank should be?
No matter how much you armor an unmanned turret, even give it meter thick mantle with composite armor for example it would always be vulnerable- 50% at least of the mantle is the exposed gun.
>that much and if it is possible to hit helmet sized targets at 3km you can very well hit the turret ( even if moving) if you want to
Just, no. Again precision hits against moving targets just doesn't happen enough for it to be effective. Its just in the nature of a moving target- yes you can apply lead but after that round is fired the time in between means if the tank's motion has deviated within that timeframe (actually happens a lot in 3d space, what with all the bumps and dips in terrain) that round on the way has more likely than not missed the original impact point on the target or the target itself. Btw DM-53 is claimed to have dispersal of .2mils which means 20cm at 1km- about the size of your typical mantle, so its easy to miss even at a measly 20kph (.6 sec travel time times 5.55 m/s = 3.33m moved by initial aim point, well above dispersion.)
Anyway afaik that feat was done with HESH fired from a rifled 120 mm which means Chally 2.
>>30430291
>anyway what does that matter. all i'm saying is that the armata might not be as well armored as other tanks and you might aswell just hit the hull
If anything its frontal hull is the best out there actually. Its main armor array has impressive thickness and benefits from the fact that rounds that impact it come straight on- meaning its internal layers are optimized in just one direction not unlike Turret arrays that have to worry about shots from much wider arcs. Then the ERA is put in the most advantageous arrangement possible. The beak that the upper and lower layers of ERA form has behind it the thickest LOS to mitigate the disadvantage when a penetrator tags the end of an ERA plate. On the other ends the armor behind is as steep as possible and could actually deflect APFSDS rounds due to extreme angling. Then of course anywhere else the penetrator tags the ERA's effect is fully used, ie the moving plates interact more since more area is exposed.
>>30430528
>And contradicting to the F-35 we dont have news and boos reporting every minor error about it 24/7.
Just because you can't read Russian doesn't mean they don't exist.
>>30430634
>Just because you can't read Russian doesn't mean they don't exist.
You like to miss the point on purpose, dont cha?
test
>>30430693
Care to explain your point then. I doubt I am anywhere near high enough to approach your thought processes with that post.
>>30422730
>DU is demonstrated to be better than Tungsten against RHA targets only
This is patently wrong.
>>30426297
>Adding weight to a military vehicle purely for aesthetics.
No.
It's clearly designed for protecting the electronics from shell splinters and small arms fire, but the thickness of it questions it's ability to do so against even 81mm splinters.
>>30430735
Its like in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when the plans for destroying the earth with the office you have to contact to avoid desctruction is in Alpha Centauri system. It doesnt fucking matter if it is somewhere out there, when it is not broadly aviable or present to people.
>>30430611
The record long shot from a Challenger 1 was with APFSDS.
>>30430783
Jebus Cripes you people don't even know how to use Google Translate? Just type in Armata breakdown/problems/boondoggle, etc. translate, and boom- expert analysis at your fingertips. This is literally dindu level of incompetence if you can't even do that to research your next talking points.
>>30430763
>This is patently wrong.
Such a strong word must have sauce.
>T-14 Armata - How good is it?
It is on the level of late WW2 tanks.
One huge disaster.
>>30430894
>go search for something in russian you dont even know unless others bring it up, which was the problem to begin with
>>30430929
I'm chatting with a Dindu aren't I?
Just install a fucking translator addon, then browse as usual. Good god.
>>30430972
>russiaboo explains the world
you know you are in a discussion with one, when black is white and everything has to be debated til it is totaly twisted
>>30430972
>I'm chatting with a Dindu aren't I?
We are a Lies!Russiadidndunuffin, aren't we?
>>30430972
zakroj rot, xujasos
>>30431005
Not that anon, but are you seriously telling me you can't handle a translator?
>>30431137
>Not that anon
Sure thing, sure thing.
> you can't handle
Someone totaly isnt passive aggressive...
Who would even use an translator addon on the internet beside people who cant read english? Oh, better to put it in your worlds; are you serious only able to handle the internet with a translator?
What would the pickup truck drive like if i shoved some ruskie multi-fuel tank engine in it? How does that engine work if i pour both diesel and gasoline, with a dash of booze?
>>30425276
So much this. Where is this crap even coming from?
>>30429947
Your pic is T-72AG though.
>>30430894
>Such a strong word must have sauce.
The fact that everyone used DU and only started to switch because of political reasons tells you everything you need to know (Although the Brits and French swear they're getting new WHA projectiles their primary sabot is still DU). It's not as though composite armor is something new and there's no difference in performance of either against HERA.
>>30431353
>The fact that everyone used DU
And post discarded.
>>30431137
It has nothing to do with it being in Russian, it simply doesn't exist in the public domain.
>>30431410
>public domain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
>>30429556
>the armata weighs very little compared to its size even if you take the "light" turret in account and as a result is problay not that well armored compared to other tanks.
Actually its real weight is classified. It may weight 60 tons.
>>30431353
DU has minuscule advantage in penetration with high velocity (1700m/s+) rounds. This is what science told us:
http://www.longrods.ch/
>>30431410
And even if there are reports and discussion about it in russian, you can be sure that russians wont let those pesky western degenerates get notice of it, since you would harm and insult the glorious motherland by doing so.
>>30431456
>http://www.longrods.ch/
Okay, who else thought this would actually lead to a gay site or a side selling dildos?
>>30431183
>Sure thing, sure thing.
Negative experience with samefags, huh?
>Someone totaly isnt passive aggressive...
What's wrong with "handle"?
>Who would even use an translator addon on the internet beside people who cant read english?
Not all of the internet is in English, nor it should be. As for me, I don't need a translator. Too often.
>>30431410
My question was standalone, I was referring to anon's reaction to translators.
>>30430611
>No matter how much you armor an unmanned turret, even give it meter thick mantle with composite armor for example it would always be vulnerable- 50% at least of the mantle is the exposed gun.
that was quote you responded to i something i never meant to said, i just forgot to "quote" it, it is from the post i responded to. pretty sure i never said that the turret was invulnerable.
>text about acc vs movin target
you are moving your perpendicular to the shot, in that case the side armor is fully exposed and you should not even bother with the turret. also tanks have plenty of inertia so you could predict to some degree where it will be .6s later.
>>30430634
>If anything its frontal hull is the best out there actually. Its main armor array has impressive thickness
unless you have a reliable source for that i'm not buying it. this is just my point, the Armata weighs only 50t and is bigger than any tank out there so therefore i doubt that it is as well armored as the others
>could actually deflect APFSDS rounds due to extreme angling
doubt it, the upper and lower glacis aren't that steep
>>30431391
You sure showed him.
>>30431456
replying to the wrong post?
>>30431682
>Negative experience with samefags, huh?
>I'm chatting with a Dindu aren't I?
>Jebus Cripes you people don't even know how to use Google Translate?
Those childish mocking questions seems to come pretty coincidental.
>What's wrong with "handle"?
Cant handle i critiqued your use of "handle"?
(are finally getting what i am saying or do i have to explain it for children?)
>Not all of the internet is in English, nor it should be. As for me, I don't need a translator. Too often.
You made it sound like an translator addon was the most common thing, while i literally doesnt even know one person who uses something like this, beside people not native with english. But this wasnt even the point, the point was, that while the whole internet is over the F-35 and dont mind to share about it, you hardly hear anything about the T-14. But of course there is something somewhere, but you only have to search for the stuff you dont even know about in russian and everything is fine through that or something.
>>30428950
>eats up on that funding quite a bit.
As of FY 2015 total US Defense spending was 601B dollars.
Major Activities (Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc.) takes up 58.5B of the total defense budget (9.7%).
Operations and Maintenance is 199B defense-wide (including OP-tempo, flying hours, depot maintenance, etc. plus Major Activities, administration, information systems, even K-12 education for bases, etc.). That's 33.1% of the budget.
The Russian defense budget for FY2015 was 54B dollars (8.99% of US defense spending). This means that the US spent more in active hotspots around the world than Russia spent on defense total in 2015. Some of this is offset by the fallen Ruble compared to the dollar, but Russian defense spending is set to DECREASE by 4-6% for 2016, not increase. For comparison, China spent more than 3 times as much as Russia on defense in 2015.
If you remove the O&M outlays entirely from the US defense budget, you're still left with 402B dollars for Procurement/Acquisitions (154B), Military Construction/Family Housing (6.5B), Personnel (258B), and other things. As you can see from the above numbers, there's still a little O&M overlap, but you get the point.
The simple fact of the matter is the US spends three times as much just on procurement and R&D as Russia spends on their entire MoD/Military. They're not catching up any time soon, especially with the military spending FALLING rather than rising in 2016.
>>30432149
Forgot the source:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiKz-jyrcvNAhWGHD4KHeuoAIMQFgg5MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csbaonline.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2FANALYSIS-OF-THE-FY-2015-DEFENSE-BUDGET.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGzKzIDmhl0wuUGcM3t59nUo1W_AQ&sig2=IyatyeUUjbrNJ81A7GrbLA&bvm=bv.125596728,d.cWw
>>30429344
>with NATO having lots of little old-pattern upgraded light assault tanks with big guns, while the Russians opted for sensors and a few defense-oriented behemoths.
You do realize that the Armata is still smaller than the Leopard, Chally and Abrams, right?
>>30432190
Except it is not.
>>30432471
Anon, how much do you think the Armata weighs? Look it up. Now look up how much the others weigh. Then come back and tell us what you learned.
This is how you avoid looking retarded on the interwebs.
T-15 is sexy af.
Anyone have that screencap of someone laying out a lot of problems with the Armata?
I thought I had it saved but I don't seem to.
>>30421398
Unmanned turret is a meme and it just won't work.
>>30432553
Is it amphibious?
>>30432491
Smaller means size, not weight. The physical dimensions of the T-14 are as large or larger than the other tanks you mentioned.
>>30432681
>>30432697
idk, probably.
>>30432736
>The physical dimensions of the T-14 are as large or larger than the other tanks you mentioned.
For the love of god, not this shit again.
>>30432780
You can stop posting your incorrectly scaled drawing.
>>30432697
>Heavy IFV
Probably not.
>>30432780
The scale in this one completely whack.
>>30432553
The Armata might be a mediocre tank, but it sure looks like a damn fine IFV.
>>30432811
>>30432839
>t.wikipedia generals who think 3.3 m heigh is for bare turret, not the gun mount
Fuck fight off, please.
>>30432491
>Anon, how much do you think the Armata weighs? Look it up.
Fun fact: Abrams tank tracks footprint area is 5.7 sq. m. T-14 - 6.6 sq.m. Really makes you think...
>>30432908
How the fuck do you even know its tracks footprint area?
>>30432986
autism
>>30432736
No one talks about tanks in terms of external physical dimensions when discussing armor, power, logistical needs, etc. It's all about HP/ton, armor/ton, fuel required (which is a function of power pack type and - you guessed it - weight). Historically, even gun size scales more closely with weight than external dimensions.
Either you have no clue how armor works operationally or you're just being willfully obtuse to try and avoid looking stupid on an anonymous image board.
>>30432908
>Fun fact: Abrams tank tracks footprint area is 5.7 sq. m. T-14 - 6.6 sq.m. Really makes you think...
Source?
>>30432986
He doesn't.
>>30432986
Gestimate.
>>30432880
Post actual measurements or shut up you subhuman
>>30432880
[irony intensifies]
Start doing some math using the fact that the T-14's roadwheels are 670mm.
>>30433200
>T-14's roadwheels are 670mm
Nice source you got there.
>>30432780
>>30432880
Hey I can do this too.
>>30433270
The T-14 uses the same size roadwheels as the T-80.
>>30432553
now try containing your orgasms.
Am I completely missing something? Is it actually important to people that the T-14 be a little larger on the outside than the Abrams, even though it's 10-15 tons lighter?
Is there any metric in which external dimensions actually matter compared with total vehicle weight, aside maybe from hull-down turret exposure?
>>30433496
>57mm
Worthless.
>>30432780
abrams height 8ft
armata height 10ft
Vatnik BTFO
>>30433640
>what is digital fuse
>>30433650
Why? Bigger tank = more powerful.
>>30433678
No. It really doesn't.
>>30433623
The height (and gun depression) means that it can effectively do things that previous soviet tanks couldn't. Longer track length also equates to less ground pressure. More importantly, a larger vehicle means that you no longer have to specifically recruit manlets to be tankers.
>50 ton tank
>can't be armoured properly
Well Sir, the Leopard 2 A6s turret weighs in at 21 tons (Sauce: Wi/k/ipedia). Sure, the Autoloader adds a little weight, but it appears to me not to be too much, given that undermotorized WW2 Airplanes had autoloaders for 50 and 75 mm guns. More Info about the weight of Russian autoloaders appreciated though.
With 40 years of advances in armour tech and significantly reducing a beefy turret it should be possible to build a 50 ton tank with better armour than its western counterparts.
Inb4: /K/raut, not Russkie hier.
>>30433496
i came.
>>30433710
>The height (and gun depression) means that it can effectively do things that previous soviet tanks couldn't. Longer track length also equates to less ground pressure. More importantly, a larger vehicle means that you no longer have to specifically recruit manlets to be tankers.
But all that is only fixing deficiencies in Soviet designs - things which western tank design solved long ago.
>>30433351
It is essentially the same as what I posted, thanks for proving my point.
>>30433365
Nice source you got there.
>>30433650
>t.wikipedia general who think 3.3 m heigh is for bare turret, not the gun mount
Retard, please.
>>30433737
>With 40 years of advances in armour tech and significantly reducing a beefy turret it should be possible to build a 50 ton tank with better armour than its western counterparts.
Armor effectiveness is directly correlated with density, no matter the type or technology being employed, which means more weight. Unless you're going completely full retard with ERA.
>>30433623
Apparently it is important to one anon that the T-14 is smaller.
>>30432780
>>30432880
Not that shit again.
>>30433758
>It is essentially the same as what I posted
Not really.
>>30433804
>T-14 is smaller
But that makes no sense. The only thing that actually matters in any real sense is weight. Only ground pressure (less is good - wider/longer is good) and turret exposure (tall is bad) considerations come into it past a certain point in external dimensions.
>>30433623
Let 'em dickwave about it. They'll have to dig deeper to go hull down, and have a better chance of getting their shiny underarmored turret shot up with their taller tank.
>>30433838
How does he know the T-14 road wheels are 700mm? And why does he think the M-1 road wheels are 635mm?
Something's fucky
>>30433939
>They said something that showed lies of russians
>Must question everything
>P-please ignore that i didnt question anything when it was looking good for russians
>>30433939
>How does he know the T-14 road wheels are 700mm?
Not only is it in the picture refered from wikipedia, there are also photos of it on the net. Not going to waste my time to look for the 25inch stuff tho, just to spoonfeed some vatnik.
>>30434232
Why do you think that says 700mm? Because it clearly says 700 {unintelligible single character} 98.
Its design isn't really top-secret.
We could duplicate and improve upon it if we so wished.
There's no technological advantage the Russians can try to get, that we cannot take away.
See all that? There's nothing there that can't be copied, let alone improved upon.
>>30434301
How often do you want to present yourself as an idiot?
>>30434232
>Not going to waste my time to look for the 25inch stuff
That's not how it works.
>>30422057
Thought they'd finish dumping them on SK
>>30434531
>just to spoonfeed some vatnik.
that is exactly how those things work, i mean you are defending someone who is too dumb to see even the wiki reference in the picture
>>30433906
A larger vehicle means more of its weight has to be allocated for the same amount of armor coverage.
I think there is also a fear that admitting Russia has moved towards Western tank designs would be admitting that Soviet tank design philosophy was flawed.
>>30434704
I'm talking about M1 wheels, not wiki references.
>>30434756
>would be admitting that Soviet tank design philosophy was flawed
Which would be completely false, since the composition of T-14 is absolutely different from both schools, Soviet and western.
>>30434921
The only significant difference between the T-14 and Western tank designs is the inclusion of an unmanned turret.
>>30434896
And? Where is your questioning of >>30432880
>>30432780? Or is it that you only start questioning one sided? Totaly aint the typical standard russian shill behaviour, we can see here far too much.
>>30434965
Unmanned turret and modular design, which as I said makes it absolutely different.
>>30434965
Tell me where is the loader in the t-14? And why is there a focus on active protection? Why is it lighter than the merkava, abrams and leopard?
Maybe it has somethng to do with soviet doctrine?
>>30434988
Are you seriously going to argue T-14 has smaller turret than M1 right now, lol? It doesn't matter who I question, quit these pathetic attempts to change the subject. We are talking about M1 wheels.
>>30435054
Do you already need to bring up stuff that was never questioned? Wow, even for a russian shill that was quick. Where was your questioning about those post! Where! You didnt gave a fuck about anything until it wasnt the comfort lie any more.
> It doesn't matter who I question, quit these pathetic attempts to change the subject.
Some self projection?
>We are talking about M1 wheels.
Because you need to grasp on the next best thing, because on all other things you got #rekt.
>quit these pathetic attempts to change the subject.
Self projection.
>>30435054
oh, look at me. i just ask questions, it is only logical, please ignore how people like me only pop up when it is ONCE AGAIN REVEALED THAT RUSSIANS WERE TALKING OUT OF THEIR ASSES AND DAMAGE CONTROL IS NEED
>>30435012
What is modular about the T-14?
>>30434304
For one thing, we could definitely make a much smaller version and thus present much less of a target.
The Armata is huge.
>>30435130
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform
>Variants
> T-14: Main battle tank.[19][31] Industrial designation "Object 148".
> T-15: heavy IFV.[32] Industrial designation "Object 149".
> BM-2 (TOS-2): short range rocket artillery, similar to flamethrower system TOS-1 Buratino[31]
> 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV: Self-propelled gun[8][31] However, the 2S35's on display during the 2015 Moscow Victory Day Parade and its rehearsals are not actually built on the Armata platform but rather a six-wheeled platform that appears to be a T-90 derived chassis.[7][33]
> BREM-T T-16: recovery vehicle[31]
> A mortar carrier which uses the 2S12A Sani or the 2B11 Sani.[34]
But the second one western nation had made something like this, it would of course had been total idiotic and ineffective for russians. Cant stop laughing about how they kept silent about "tanks must be small" the second the Armata was revealed, while we could hear that mantra for years. kek
>>30435044
>Tell me where is the loader in the t-14?
Where is the loader in the Leclerc?
>And why is there a focus on active protection?
The T-14 is the first Russian tank that will have hard kill APS as standard equipment.
>Why is it lighter than the merkava, abrams and leopard?
Because the unmanned turret is only armored for HMG fire.
>>30435178
The T-14 has no interchangability with the T-15/T-16 beyond common parts like the engine and roadwheels.
It is like claiming the Abrams is modular because of the ABV or JAB.
>>30435092
You are not even trying, retard. You were asked a very simple question about M1 wheels. Either answer it or shut the fuck up.
>>30435130
>Russian Generals have compared this new modular design format metaphorically to Legos, where different missionized systems can be plugged and played into the a common Universal Combat Platform chassis
>>30435178
A larger tank is both a bigger target, heavier (this factors in bridge-crossing), harder to transport, and harder to conceal.
This tank is considerably bigger than the one it is meant to replace. In that aspect, the Russians have regressed.
>>30433670
Can do it in even a 20mm shell. There's a reason why it was outright rejected by the Russians after prototypes for the gun and turret were put on other vehicles.
>>30435190
>Where is the loader in the Leclerc?
So Leclerc follows Soviet path. What does it have to do with T-14?
>The T-14 is the first Russian tank that will have hard kill APS as standard equipment.
Lol.
>Because the unmanned turret is only armored for HMG fire.
Double lol.
>>30435230
Triple lol. The whole chassis are the same.
>>30435245
>You were asked a very simple question
Where is your question of the "Armata is small" pictures?
Why do you only started to start questioning when someone presented stuff with more sources?
Why didnt you notice the wikipedia reference in the picture you question?
What effect does it have on you, that everything you questioned was proven to be right? Why is it only important now that you got to know this and not when it was totaly unsourced in the Armata small picture?
>quit these pathetic attempts to change the subject.
You are such a obvious fucking russian shill. But please keep on "asking" so everyone can see how vile and dishonest your whole discussion and real intentions are.
>>30435321
>Lies, ur russian shill
Answer the fucking question, moron.
>>30435263
>In that aspect, the Russians have regressed.
You got totaly wrong my degenerate western friend, when russia makes it, it gets better, everyone saying otherwise is an idiot of course. Russia! Russia!
>>30435342
>act like the standard shill
>demands answersdespite already been spoonfeed multiple times before
>hopes no one notices how desperatly he tries to delude from the fact, that he didnt answer even ONE question himself
You cant imagine how much you are amusing me.
>>30435263
It is a fortunate turn of events than that T-14 has smaller turret shape, it lighter and more stealthy than any contemporary western tank.
>>30435386
>Asking a question is acting like a shill when you don't want to answer
Lol, answer the question, moron.
>>30435342
Hey moron, you could show him sooooo good. Why dont you measure a wheel on a scaled diagramm of an M1A1, you could totaly show him through this!
Well, unless you know he is right of course, then just keep repeating your dumb question. Strange that is exactly what you are doing....
>>30435457
There is even a fucking diagramm of an M1A2 in the picture for god sake. Are you dense? Or did you miss that one too, like the wikipedia reference of the 700mm T-14 wheel?
>>30433838
>>30435464
Why would I do this, retard? He posted some information and was asked about the source of this information. When confronted by a questing he became mad and started to call people shills.
>>30432553
>Equal or greater (along the sides/top) protection compared to an MBT
>30mm autocannon
>4 ATGMs
>Potential for a remote control .50/14.5mm and/or automatic grenade launcher
Whatever you may think about the Russians, you can't deny that this isn't a god-tier IFV.
>>30435457
You already got multiple answers before how about YOU start to give some?
For anyone saying the Armata is small.
It's much more of a target than the T-90.
>>30435487
There are no references to any sources concerning M1 wheels on that picture, which is exactly why he was asked the fucking question. T-14 wheel size is written of the fucking wheel itself. Where does M1 wheel size come from? It is a very simple question.
>>30435498
>a picture with no informations is presented showing the Armata is smaller
>no questions or anything
>a picture with informations is presented showing the Armata is larger
>everthing about it and around it must be questioned even when it is extremly easy to check for yourself
Yes, totaly not a shill. We totaly doesnt have this in every russian related thread. All a coincidence.
>>30435558
> It is a very simple question.
Answer those questions while you wait, we have already see you quirming around so much it gets cringy.
>>30435321
>>30435506
You are not even trying. Answer the question, retard.
>>30435559
>There was a picture of T-14 posted, therefore I do not require to answer any questions concerning my picture
Are you an imbecile?
>>30435577
This is not getting you anywhere. Answer the question, imbecile.
>>30435582
You are not even trying. Answer the questions, retard.
>>30435611
This imbecile is broken. Bring the new one.
>>30435604
>quit these pathetic attempts to change the subject.
>>30435631
>doesnt answer one question
>demand answers
You are projecting again, my friend.
ITT: Russians assblasted they got rekt again.
>>30435634
Indeed. Quit them and answer the question.
>>30435652
You didn't answer on the first place, imbecile, and instead began with your pitiful attempts to change the subject, calling me a shill and other demagogue bullshit. You were asked a direct question about M1 wheels. Answer it or shut the fuck up.
>>30435498
>Why would I do this, retard?
Because you get your answer about the wheelsize, retard?
>>30435707
Nah, ITT imbecile can't answer a single simple question for no particular reason other than that apparently he has no fucking clue.
>>30435745
Multiple answers of you have been answered. You answered non. You are an dishonest discussion partner, your intention isnt anything but vile and with every further post everyone can see it.
>>30435769
t. Mister hasnt answered one single question, but hopes no one notices and he can continue with the same bullshit
>>30435782
*questions of you
>>30435750
I will get my answer when this imbecile answers me where does M1 wheel size come from.
>>30435782
You didn't answer on the first place, imbecile. No answers were given to a question about the source of information concerning M1 wheels size.
>>30435808
>t.Imbecile that can't answer a single simple question
Answer the question. Where does M1 wheel size come from? It is a very simple question even for such an imbecile like you.
>>30435769
Why are you shilling? Why do you only question stuff that reveals russian lies? Do you think no one notices what you are actually trying? Why do you sound so pathetic while doing so? Answer our questions! You cant even do such a simple thing, retard.
>>30435935
How the fuck am I shilling? Information was posted about M1 wheels and I am asking a simple fucking question about its source. How the fuck is that shilling? Retard.
>>30435965
>>30435884
You cant answer the questions directed to you, because it would either be an obvious lie or would cause some self conflicting statement. We have seen your type quite often around here, it is fun seeing you squirming around so much.
Stay calm, post proofsters.
>>30435884
Do you really think the diameter is wrong? Why question it so hard. Why didnt you question anything about it before, when the Armata was declared smaller?
>>30421650
If by certain features you mean active protection, it works.
>>30436003
He cant believe that the value is actually wrong, or he would have looked for it long time ago. He needs to have it at a vague level, so it looks like it could be wrong, pretty much standard shill behaviour.
>>30436003
You didn't answer on the first place, imbecile. This is not getting you anywhere, answer the fucking question.
>>30436036
I think that If I see an information without a source I want to see that source and ask a person posting this information about it. Who would have thought he would turn out to be an imbecile clown that can't answer a simple question?
>Why didnt you question anything about it before, when the Armata was declared smaller?
Because the size of Armata wheels is written on these very fucking wheels. Now I am interested about the size of M1 wheels.
>>30436125
>Because the size of Armata wheels is written on these very fucking wheels. Now I am interested about the size of M1 wheels.
>>30432780
>>30432880
Stop evading the questions.
>>30421758
So fucking nothing then? Fuck you're dumb.
>>30436063
>Can't answer a simple fucking question
>Anyone else needs to have it at a vague level
Imbecile, please. I am directly asking you about the source concerning M1 wheels size, it is you who are making it vague be refusing to give a direct answer.
>>30436125
>Answer me! I demand it, all my shitposting should have provieded enough reason for it.
>I think that If I see an information without a source I want to see that source and ask a person posting this information about it.
>This statement ony accounts for stuff revealing russian lies, please ignore how it didnt play any role before (tm).
Never gets old.
>>30436151
What do these pictures have to do with wheels? Oh right, nothing, you are trying to chance the subject again. You didn't answer on the first place, imbecile. Answer the fucking question.
>>30436171
We are still waiting that you answer your questions, why should anyone answer you when you dont answer to anything?
>>30436185
>Needs a reason to provide a source of the information he posts
Lol, imbecile. The size of Armata wheels is written on these very fucking wheels. Now I am interested about the size of M1 wheels.
>>30436194
You didn't answer on the first place, imbecile, so why should I bite your pathetic demagogue bait? Oh right, I shouldn't. Answer the fucking question.
http://www.tgl-sp.com/m1-road-wheel
The first result when I googled "m1 abrams roadwheel".
>>30436193
Again your accusation perfectly fits for yourself:
>quit these pathetic attempts to change the subject.
The wheels are irrelevant.
This spontanously doesnt play a role any more?
>I think that If I see an information without a source I want to see that source and ask a person posting this information about it.
Where are the sources to the pictures >>30432780 >>30432880? Why do you accept them, but question the others. By your logic, if the picture from >>30433838 was without the wheel information they would been at least as valid as >>30432780 >>30432880, which you didnt question.
>>30436249
See? Was it hard?
>>30436232
There where more answers given to you then you gave, by your own arguement you are the imbecile who didnt answer on the first place.
>>30436271
>you accept them
You made this conclusion from me asking about M1 wheels? You truly are an imbecile. Good that I don't require to talk to such a retard like you anymore, since apparently other anon was compassionate enough to end your humiliation.
>>30436280
Apperently it was to hard for you, even when you questioned it a hundred times.
>>30428934
Why doesn't it have a shtora type device?
>>30436298
There is only one answer and it was obviously not given by you.
>>30436314
>to end your humiliation.
I accept your obvious defeat and your desperate attempt to evade answering even one question truthfully.
>>30435307
>Triple lol. The whole chassis are the same.
The chassis is the same on an Abrams, ABV and JAB.
