Jump to content
kotplus

T-14 ARMATA new russian tank

Recommended Posts

Well with the auto loader you get:

Commander

Gunner

Driver

Yes, this isn't controversial. It's not the point to ask "what crew members do you get with an autoloader." The question is, "Why continue to go with this configuration."

So I'm not sure three is a "Soviet requirement" but simple maths

The math is 'Soviet math,' you don't just separate it, which would be like trying to separate wet from water. You keep raising this issue about an extra crew member for maintenance, and yet under the Soviet era, you could ask the same question ever since the introduction of autoloaders.

To say that the Soviets went with three because they have an autoloader is circular. It begs the question.

So, my point is, why continue to use this configuration- why continue to go with the autoloader. It comes back to itself if the answer is, "because they are using a three man crew." It returns you at square one again.

They went with an autoloader and three man crew because you can field more tanks with the same amount of tank troops, furthermore, it reduces the size and cost of the vehicles- allowing them to field more tanks for the cost, in addition, they have the benefit of having a lower profile.

And yet in the post Soviet era, they have departed from a lot of this- the Armata itself looks taller than the T-72, presenting a larger target. They separate the crew from the ammunition storage, presumably because they have learned their lessons, but they could have done the same thing like as is done with ammunition separated from the crew as in the bustle storage of the M1 Abrams. After all, it looks like they are ditching some of the older thinking about cheaper, smaller vehicles, and yet they still keep this kind of thinking with an autoloader and three man crew again- and they are doing it with newer hardware that neither fits in the same design parameters, nor within strategic, national requirements that informed Soviet designs.

So I infer from this that either it's just something that they won't get over- call it just a national mentality, call it pride, or whatever, they evidently have something going on in their psychology which doesn't care about the extra man for maintenance duties, there is something else going on still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, this isn't controversial. It's not the point to ask "what crew members do you get with an autoloader." The question is, "Why continue to go with this configuration."

The math is 'Soviet math,' you don't just separate it, which would be like trying to separate wet from water. You keep raising this issue about an extra crew member for maintenance, and yet under the Soviet era, you could ask the same question ever since the introduction of autoloaders.

To say that the Soviets went with three because they have an autoloader is circular. It begs the question.

So, my point is, why continue to use this configuration- why continue to go with the autoloader. It comes back to itself if the answer is, "because they are using a three man crew." It returns you at square one again.

They went with an autoloader and three man crew because you can field more tanks with the same amount of tank troops, furthermore, it reduces the size and cost of the vehicles- allowing them to field more tanks for the cost, in addition, they have the benefit of having a lower profile.

And yet in the post Soviet era, they have departed from a lot of this- the Armata itself looks taller than the T-72, presenting a larger target. They separate the crew from the ammunition storage, presumably because they have learned their lessons, but they could have done the same thing like as is done with ammunition separated from the crew as in the bustle storage of the M1 Abrams. After all, it looks like they are ditching some of the older thinking about cheaper, smaller vehicles, and yet they still keep this kind of thinking with an autoloader and three man crew again- and they are doing it with newer hardware that neither fits in the same design parameters, nor within strategic, national requirements that informed Soviet designs.

So I infer from this that either it's just something that they won't get over- call it just a national mentality, call it pride, or whatever, they evidently have something going on in their psychology which doesn't care about the extra man for maintenance duties, there is something else going on still.

The soviets /Russians are not the only nation to introduce Autoloaders the Swedish S-tank

The French Leclerc, the Japanese type 90. I can see some benefits of using a Autoloader

But as previously posted If I were designing a tank I would go with a four man crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, why other nations might do this isn't what I'm talking about.

I am explaining this: The Soviet requirements for a large tank force was the objective. The objective wasn't to have an autoloader in order to have a three man crew, and to have a three man crew because they went with an autoloader. That begs the question. It's a circular proposition. In the end, that configuration saved on cost, which means they could throw more tanks at you for the cost and for the same amount of bodies they can cram into them. That was the reason, that was the math.

But this new design is strange because with a three man crew and autoloader, it seems to undermine the modernization programs that the Russians are developing. I don't criticize this decision because of the maintenance issue per se (after all, the Russians and Soviets had been doing this for decades), but look at what it does to situational awareness- with the crew in the hull facing forward, the blind spots look worse than any Soviet tank. So unless they have thermal cameras pointed in all directions all over this thing (which I still think is not the same as being able to view from the top hatches), this is bizarre to me. But maybe they're on to something, I don't know yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who takes over if the human loader in a leo/M1 is injured or killed

For that mater who takes over if the commander is killed or injured

What's the procedure withdraw from the fight if possible or carry on fighting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are the same questions that could have been asked for decades. Under the Soviet system, when tanks were designed to be somewhat disposable anyway (since crews were expected to survive just long enough to accomplish the objective before dying from radiation contamination), who cares- the war would be over long before you could recover wounded or dying crews or disabled vehicles, send them to the rear to mend and then send them back out again.

I point out again this coincidence between old and new as a strange development. On the one hand, the Russians are going with more quality, but less of the bloat; and yet still are using a design configuration peculiar to that old mentality still attached with the new. I would have thought that a newer tank would look more conventional like a Western design- which have shown to be good, albeit expensive designs, but save on crews and wear and tear of the equipment (not to mention win wars- how do you put a price on that). This is almost like, "We'll never go with a crew of four, stick it up yours, NATO."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are the same questions that could have been asked for decades. Under the Soviet system, when tanks were designed to be somewhat disposable anyway (since crews were expected to survive just long enough to accomplish the objective before dying from radiation contamination), who cares- the war would be over long before you could recover wounded or dying crews or disabled vehicles, send them to the rear to mend and then send them back out again.

I point out again this coincidence between old and new as a strange development. On the one hand, the Russians are going with more quality, but less of the bloat; and yet still are using a design configuration peculiar to that old mentality still attached with the new. I would have thought that a newer tank would look more conventional like a Western design- which have shown to be good, albeit expensive designs, but save on crews and wear and tear of the equipment (not to mention win wars- how do you put a price on that). This is almost like, "We'll never go with a crew of four, stick it up yours, NATO."

russians are obsessed with weight. they want to cram as much armour into as small and light tank as possible. that's why the t-90 weights 48 tons and has 850mm front armour, while M1A1 (HA) is 62 tons with 750mm front turret but less hull protection.

there's simply less volume to protect with an autoloader.

an autoloader also increase loading speed as the T-62 to T-72 upgrade shows.

this new russian tank takes this concept to the extreme. likely the turret is barely 30mm proof, while the hull is an impenetrable bunker around the crew compartment.

the tank can enter a battle position, and the crew will be completely protected from all threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Armata being towed during rehearsal:

Good start.

Suspect that didn't make it onto the official footage. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video of this incident:

S93ebaJXtXU

Funny, but BREM-1(or BREM-90) ARV fails to tow that thing because of weight difference and insufficient traction.

Eventually T-14 left Red Square under its own power, driven by manufacturer`s test driver, and UVZ representatives blamed army crew for incompetence.

P.S. Russian T-72/90 based ARVs can barely handle towing of current tanks cross-country already, they are just too light for this task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... that's unfortunate isn't it. Just another sign that this is all rushed for political reasons. Not unlike the new rifle they recently announced.

Clearly this particular vehicle had a serious problem with the transition and/or breaks. That BREM ARV(780 hp) should have been able to tow it in what is ideal conditions, paved level ground. Off-road, or in the field of course is something else entirely.

From the rear engine deck layout, it looks pretty clear that the same engine/trans combo from the T-72-90 is used. Albeit in a likely upgraded form. So that brings up the question of whether the vehicle itself is able to tow another of the type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, this vehicle looks like the less, "half-baked" one of the lot. Just going by looks alone, it looks comparable to recent western IFV's. In protection/Firepower and payload. Will be interesting if we can see any interior pics, to see how true to RWS the turret is.

The wheeled APC could be lost in almost any nato formation these days. A Russian Piranha clone, with added amphibious capability.

14307485794161.jpg.42e80c8fb90c6cf49ae2b

14307485794161.jpg.42e80c8fb90c6cf49ae2b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the rear engine deck layout, it looks pretty clear that the same engine/trans combo from the T-72-90 is used. Albeit in a likely upgraded form. So that brings up the question of whether the vehicle itself is able to tow another of the type.

Engine is new... Oh well, not so new actually,- in development since mid-80s probably. BMD-3 and 2S25 had engine belonging to the same family...

Transmission is also new, but still mechanical.

Another accident happened today. This time with T-15 IFV- transmission failure(problems with transmission controls according to some accounts), only reverse gear was available:

8kEY_kOT8nA

Vehicle climbed on to tank transporter after second attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All new Vehicles have teething issues

One of the 911 guys told me the Puma had some automotive issues as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, why other nations might do this isn't what I'm talking about.

I am explaining this: The Soviet requirements for a large tank force was the objective. The objective wasn't to have an autoloader in order to have a three man crew, and to have a three man crew because they went with an autoloader. That begs the question. It's a circular proposition. In the end, that configuration saved on cost, which means they could throw more tanks at you for the cost and for the same amount of bodies they can cram into them. That was the reason, that was the math.

But this new design is strange because with a three man crew and autoloader, it seems to undermine the modernization programs that the Russians are developing. I don't criticize this decision because of the maintenance issue per se (after all, the Russians and Soviets had been doing this for decades), but look at what it does to situational awareness- with the crew in the hull facing forward, the blind spots look worse than any Soviet tank. So unless they have thermal cameras pointed in all directions all over this thing (which I still think is not the same as being able to view from the top hatches), this is bizarre to me. But maybe they're on to something, I don't know yet.

The higher profile might mean that they are going to focus on hull down positions more (the conventional Russian/Soviet tank has horrible depression, this one might not). If so it would probably imply that the purpose of the tank is more defensive in nature.

In any event the last sentence reminded me of a quote from Nasser, I'm sure it could be applied here with some changes.

The genius of you Russians is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make the rest of us wonder at the possibility that we might be missing something.
Perhaps the Russians are onto something, perhaps not, we will find out. Either way there will probably be years of teething (and maybe worse) problems with the new design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 man crew.

Edit: It has to mean the "gunner" is going to be very automated.

Edit2: maybe not, I didn't see the periscope directly under the main gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...something going on in their psychology which doesn't care about the extra man for maintenance duties, there is something else going on still.

I'm with you on this. The crew has been literally reduced to pushing button. It makes you wonder how much input did the military have on this project? Time to do some background research on how things work over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well... that's unfortunate isn't it. Just another sign that this is all rushed for political reasons. Not unlike the new rifle they recently announced.

Clearly this particular vehicle had a serious problem with the transition and/or breaks. That BREM ARV(780 hp) should have been able to tow it in what is ideal conditions, paved level ground. Off-road, or in the field of course is something else entirely.

From the rear engine deck layout, it looks pretty clear that the same engine/trans combo from the T-72-90 is used. Albeit in a likely upgraded form. So that brings up the question of whether the vehicle itself is able to tow another of the type.

Specs say it is a gas turbine... did they change that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specs say it is a gas turbine... did they change that?

Gas turbine!? Never was and never be :) And by the way, official specs are not yet published, so compilers are collecting all sorts of BS over internet without basic verification...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The crew has been literally reduced to pushing button.

...and making local decisions. Arguably, this has always been the purpose of crews. Maintenance and ancillary duties were the price to pay for having a war machine under their pants to boost the effectiveness by which they would execute their duties.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to reducing the number of crew per vehicle. It is obvious that with four people you can balance the workload better so the overall fatigue level increases at a later point. With a crew of two you must adopt some sort of a "jet bomber" doctrine (you have a pilot and a co-pilot, and a maintenance crew that is separated from it). Whether the overall result is equal, better, or worse than with a traditional crew of four only a practical test can reveal (IOW, someone has to do it to see if it works). That incurs a risk of a financially costly mistake, but reducing the internal volume for the crew compartment appears to be the only practical way to increase the passive protection level.

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...