Jump to content
kotplus

T-14 ARMATA new russian tank

Recommended Posts

Basically they have accused the driver of being technically incompetent so all the blame rest on him instead of the vehicle. As usual.

I guess he must now be "somewhere in Ukraine" peeling potatoes for the rebels.

Politics alert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Politics alert.

Really??

I fail to see any "political" statement, message or possitioning.

You may not like the post but calling this post "political" is a bit..........political itself :clin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine being the driver sitting there with the Generals looking right at Him as they hook up the tank for towing:( He would probably feel better dying on the battlefield.

With the technological advancements of the new Russian Kit, I wonder how this will affect Western Nations doctrine and tactics? A lot of what was done in the past was tailored to face the ability of t-xx MBT's. The West now has to plan to face their possible Equal on the battlefield. With any luck the Russians will deploy the Armata in some conflict and be put through it's paces in a Real World situation. I don't want to see these things used against anyone in an aggressive manor, but We need to know it's capabilities and liabilities asap. Some rebels cell phone footage of it taking some RPG, IED, or ATM fire would be gold for Western planners. The books May have to be rewritten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Times of London reported today that it broke down on its first public appearance during Russia's annual Victory Parade in Moscow's Red Square yesterday.:luxhello:

pQgKxIvHQSg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With any luck the Russians will deploy the Armata in some conflict and be put through it's paces in a Real World situation. I don't want to see these things used against anyone in an aggressive manor, but We need to know it's capabilities and liabilities asap. Some rebels cell phone footage of it taking some RPG, IED, or ATM fire would be gold for Western planners. The books May have to be rewritten.

I'm not terribly curious about the chances you'd see this soon. With less than two dozen apparently built and thousands of other types of tanks to 'throw away', I don't think they are as disposable, I don't think they are built to throw them in a dirty little conflict portending involvement a civil war. It also seems they are very expensive, that is, within range of Western MBTs in terms of cost. For sake of comparison, they were stingy with their T-90s, preferring instead to deploy more numerous, older tank models in battles.

It's almost like the futility of nuclear weapons: nations acquire them, maintaining nuclear forces is very expensive, but when they get them, they find there is not much use they can really get out of them. Develop and purchase these expensive tanks, but what are the chances they are going to be getting use out of them? The Russians don't want to take on NATO directly where they would be most logically needed, that is, to match up and take on the best NATO tanks; the conditions have changed from the Cold War era, the chances of an unprovoked invasion of Europe or plow through NATO member states to get there are quite small.

They have them and they can show them off in parades and shake them around at you to see, but I would argue that it would be awhile before you get to see them actually do anything. Wait til they have produced enough to be able to equip a brigade's worth of tanks- and only then, maybe. With the Russians facing an economic pinch during a time when they also need the cash to modernize in a lot of other areas, it's not certain that they will meet their full production quota.

What you're seeing right now in Georgia or Ukraine aren't straight up conventional matchups of Red vs. Blue, Western politicians who sell it this way back home to their constituents do so at their own risk (or in order to justify an arms race, which benefits the arms industry- a major component of the economy, obviously). The Russians are doing it in Ukraine right now quite differently than with such a straight forward plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're seeing right now in Georgia or Ukraine aren't straight up conventional matchups of Red vs. Blue, Western politicians who sell it this way back home to their constituents do so at their own risk (or in order to justify an arms race, which benefits the arms industry- a major component of the economy, obviously). The Russians are doing it in Ukraine right now quite differently than with such a straight forward plan.

The Western worlds struggle to contain Russia has been Red Vrs Blue since before the Napoleonic wars. That is Why We are so concerned about this new Russian tool of war, and the reason for this Thread. The #1 reason for the use of this Simulator by any nation that uses it. Not because We think it is cool, but We may have to face it directly or through proxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly, but that's not quite the point I was making. Wars by proxy have been a much more realistic idea than confrontation in a modern conflict.

Furthermore, what's going on in Ukraine isn't red vs. blue- there is the civil population on both sides, some who genuinely want to break away and join with Russia, some who don't. The reasons why are not really the issue, but I wouldn't expect Russia to start deploying its newest equipment there as a test of anything. That neither is necessary, nor how Russia is playing this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Russia will play this out is not what concerns Me. It is the Wests reaction up until this point that makes Me prepare for duck and cover drills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you suppose that cutout to the left of the T-14's gun on the turret is? The gunner's sight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you suppose that cutout to the left of the T-14's gun on the turret is? The gunner's sight?

That's my bet, but said sights don't seem to be fitted yet. Far too exposed for my tastes, but as others have mentioned, the T-14/15 are still effectively prototypes and I'm sure considerable changes will be made to the turret by the time it enters full production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the T-14 and nuclear weapons: Deterrence can be a useful tool in one's arsenal.

Re: the "breakdown": I read that once a factory engineer got behind the controls, the tank moved just fine. But bear in mind, that came from a Russian source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The classical deterrances may fail, for the paradigms of war are changing. The era of national states in accepted borders is coming to an end, borders will more and more lose their function to define how far somebody can go in his ambitzions to take a bite of territories he so far has not under his control. The ideological drive behind Is and according movements pay no attention to borders, so did Putin on the Crimean and in the Eastern Ukraine. Modern technology of drones allows to attack somebody else with methods of war without needing to declare war and without needing to reveal one's own identity, even drones can be build more and more with internationally produced components. Soon we will see military grade drones in the hands of powerful military cartels - take me by my word.

The biggest and most oftenb repeated mistake of military planners is to assume the next war will be fought by the rules and principles of the last one (in which one was victorious maybe). But fact is that Clausewitz means little for the next big war coming, I am certain. And the Hague Land Warfare convention will lose in meaning, too, it already did with the spreading of Islamic terrorism. The side that still respects it, puts itself at decisive disadvantage more and more. And drones cannot read anyway. Autonomous drones will come sooner or later, it is necessary by military logic, since remote control links can - and will - be interrupted. The technology for doing so, will spread in our globalized world.

One thing should be understood. The expectations regarding the post-cold-war-world have all crumbled. We have not more but less security. Severalnone-national-state forms of powers, from oligarchies over corporations and organised crime cartels to religious movements, push forward. The condottieri has a comeback and more and more reverse again the past centuries' movement towards standing armies that wear the king's colours. Military force becomes less standardised regarding the conditions under which it shall be implemented, With terrorists being ready to strike any time, anywhere, and drones with 24/7 operation doing the equal thing in return. The American dominance is fading. China and Russia and some others and the alliances the form militarily but even mor eimprotanbt: financially and economically, mean havoc for the Western rule and the global paper money order basing on the dollar. By the end of this century the world will look very, very different than now, I tell you. You would not recognize things again.

A new Russian tank or German IFV have little meaning for all this. They may be needed in those cases were the actually get stationed in action. But for the greater game, they represent the rules of the past - not that of the future.

History moves in cycles, and there is nothing new under the sun - except what has been forgotten.

What I mean by the end of the day/this post? A new Russian tank may raise curiosity and may technically be interesting. But its relevance for the going of history is very, very low. So please nobody panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with Skybird.... Spot on. I've already had the same thoughts, but lack the ability to say it so eloquently.

With drones owning the sky I would sure be afraid in a tank.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is not so much technological gadgets that frighten me.

It is the shift away from our more "civilized" form of warring (ok,it is a big stretch to call war "civilized") but to more ancient forms of "tribal warfare".

Believe me folks, when you look into history books...that type of warfare with modern weapons makes Goebbels "total war" look like a picknic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree 100% with Skybird.... Spot on. I've already had the same thoughts, but lack the ability to say it so eloquently.

With drones owning the sky I would sure be afraid in a tank.....

If I were in a tank in a combat situation. drones would not be my number one fear

It would be the guy concealed a couple miles away with something like a spike ATGM

Or a guy behind a wall with a RPG.

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were in a tank in a combat situation. drones would not be my number one fear

It would be the guy cancelled a couple miles away with something like a spike ATGM

Or a guy behind a wall with a RPG.

That will change when the enemy behind that wall actually is no guy behind a wall anymore.

Also consider that at least in a symmetrical conflict not all drones of the enemy must fire ATGMs. Some may call enemy awareness down on you, which is even worse. Thats why these are called force multipliers. Its bad if your tank gets taken out and you get killed by a shooter with an RPG. But it is even worse if your whole tank company gets killed by an ICM strike within 30 seconds.

It depends on the enemy you are up against what threats you will fear most, and the nature of the conflict (symmetrical versus asymmetrical).

For entertainment, when you want to read something exciting during holidays, Daniel Suarez has written a nice SciFi novel about what may happen when autonomous drones meet swarm intelligence. It is high tech thriller and speculation, yes, but I think there is some grain of truth in it. The title is "Kill Decision". A future nightmare. But I wonder how distant that future still is.

@Grenny,

you mentioned the agreed "civilised" form of warfare. But that is problematic. What makes war more "civilised", at least in public opinion, makes it more likely and more acceptable to wage.

Next, there is a very underhanded, malicious and perverted glorification behind favouring some forms of warfare over other forms. For example the general dispise for using combat gas weapons. Short time ago I read a piece that pointed out that historically, statistically the lethality of gas attacks on enemy armies has been 5% - with an artillery strike usually achieving a lethality rate between 30 and 50%. Seen that way, artillery is the more "uncivilised weapon" and should be banned, while more gas attacks would appear to be preferrably. But the opposite is the case. This seems to be due to some stzill prsent, perverted and cynical heroification of war and the warrior himself, the romantic, mentally hopelessly distorted illusion about who much grandeur amnd how much fame is to be found in "man fighting against man", Hektor and Archill meeting in other in a duel before the gates of Troja. I have no sympoathy for such nonsense, and the cult of malehood nbehind does not even make me laugh. To me it is simply suicidal stupidity, and thats all hat is to say aboiut it. When NATO started to itervene during the Balkan wars, many Serbs boasted on TV that their strong heroic fighters would massacre the weak Amereican marines when they meet them man versus man oin the ground. What a pityful backwardness! They lived several decades behind the present, we know how that war was waged by NATO instead. Where was the heroism of Hektor and Archill meeting, eh? war is dirty, malicious, and there is absolutely zero glory and grandeur in it. Treat it like that. Differing between chemical and conventional ammunitions for "moral " reasons, is a perfidy. Kill and destroy, fast and efficient. That is what its about. Ethics are for peacetime. I don'T buy all that politically correct, pseudo-humanistic BS. And I claim that maintaining such illusions about the wicked nature of war and military interventions has not limited but increased the suffering, the numbers of incidents, the heaps of cadavers. The most effective weapon of mass destruction, by statistics, is not the atomic bomb and not the chemical warhead - but small calibre arms.

Not meaning you personally, Grenny, I talk in general here.

@ Jebs,

"eloquent" you called my formulation. While I also base on some first hand experience in the ME - which I stayed in for almost one and a half year in

several countries, mostly Iran, throughout the late 90s - I heavily owe to the writings of Herman van Creveld, Herrfried Münkler and John Keegan, maybe Paul Kennedy, and in the past year I also digested the latest from Christopher Clark (on WWI) and Rodney Stark (on the crusades). I am less eloquent but more a good recorder! :) In other words, I do not claim original credit for the arguments in my post you refer to. But it makes sense to me, and reasonable as I like to think of myself I thus assimilate these authors' thoughts and sign up to much what they have to say. Because they make sense and have good arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Grenny,

you mentioned the agreed "civilised" form of warfare. But that is problematic. What makes war more "civilised", at least in public opinion, makes it more likely and more acceptable to wage.

Next, there is a very underhanded, malicious and perverted glorification behind favouring some forms of warfare over other forms. For example the general dispise for using combat gas weapons. Short time ago I read a piece that pointed out that historically, statistically the lethality of gas attacks on enemy armies has been 5% - with an artillery strike usually achieving a lethality rate between 30 and 50%. Seen that way, artillery is the more "uncivilised weapon" and should be banned, while more gas attacks would appear to be preferrably. But the opposite is the case. This seems to be due to some stzill prsent, perverted and cynical heroification of war and the warrior himself, the romantic, mentally hopelessly distorted illusion about who much grandeur amnd how much fame is to be found in "man fighting against man", Hektor and Archill meeting in other in a duel before the gates of Troja. I have no sympoathy for such nonsense, and the cult of malehood nbehind does not even make me laugh. To me it is simply suicidal stupidity, and thats all hat is to say aboiut it. When NATO started to itervene during the Balkan wars, many Serbs boasted on TV that their strong heroic fighters would massacre the weak Amereican marines when they meet them man versus man oin the ground. What a pityful backwardness! They lived several decades behind the present, we know how that war was waged by NATO instead. Where was the heroism of Hektor and Archill meeting, eh? war is dirty, malicious, and there is absolutely zero glory and grandeur in it. Treat it like that. Differing between chemical and conventional ammunitions for "moral " reasons, is a perfidy. Kill and destroy, fast and efficient. That is what its about. Ethics are for peacetime. I don'T buy all that politically correct, pseudo-humanistic BS. And I claim that maintaining such illusions about the wicked nature of war and military interventions has not limited but increased the suffering, the numbers of incidents, the heaps of cadavers. The most effective weapon of mass destruction, by statistics, is not the atomic bomb and not the chemical warhead - but small calibre arms.

Not meaning you personally, Grenny, I talk in general here.

As again, the technical mean with which war is conducted is not my focus in this.

It is what drives it.

The "cabinet wars" of old had a political aim: war bloodshed some plundering...to from the backround noise for negotiated solution (perverse enough...agreed)

Starting with with WWI and WWII the new dimension was people against people...and with the pseudoreligious idiologies of naziim socialism a negotiated solution was not possible exept for the total destruction of one side.(See May 8th 1945)==> and here started the warring of not military VS military, but the deliberate attacks on the whole population of countries. Not to speak of the industrialized destruction campaign against what german-idiologie considered worthless live.

Now the Balcans or Ruanda and what happens in Syria, was a new step towards that one. It was down to the every- "soldiers" level ethnic warefare with deliberate targeting of the "enemy" population.

Not only carried out by a certain group (army, paramilitaries, SS and the like in WWII) but by whole populations.

The difference is that these "tribal wars", are not anymore about pursuit of your (somewhat limited) goals, but inheritly genocidal. And with that condition small arms become a WMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDK, sounds like you're swapping "T-14" or "nuke" with "autonomous drone". This is just another form of technology. Another tool in the box. If I shouldn't fear the T-14, why should I fear a drone?

And remember: a nuclear device detonated high in the atmosphere will produce a sizable EMP, disabling all unshielded electronics within its reach. I'm not sure if one can build a drone which could survive that. Point is, for every new weapon, there will be someone who figures out how to defeat it.

Please bear in mind that I am by no means an expert on any of these topics. These are just my random thoughts on the subject, intended to elicit more conversation. I am very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

...in July 1962 the Starfish Prime test damaged electronics in Honolulu and New Zealand (approximately 1,300 kilometers away), fused 300 street lights on Oahu (Hawaii), set off about 100 burglar alarms, and caused the failure of a microwave repeating station on Kauai, which cut off the sturdy telephone system from the other Hawaiian islands. The radius for an effective satellite kill for the various prompt radiations produced by such a nuclear weapon in space was determined to be roughly 80 km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: the T-14 and nuclear weapons: Deterrence can be a useful tool in one's arsenal.

Conversely, it paints a big target on you. They day you get nuclear weapons is the day that other nuclear armed states program their warheads against you. Some smaller states might wish they had them, but when they get them, the liabilities increase immensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liabilities that smaller states might have to suffer from obtaining Nuke capabilities are little. The gains they instantly achieve are immeasurable, and permanent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×