Armata - universal attacking machine

[Penguin]

The T-72 is an obsolete design for today's standards, newer variants have improved armor, engines, fire control and gun but there is only so much you can do to a design that is over 40 years old.

If so, then so is T-90, which in essence is a T-72 development (not a radically new design)

The T-90 is a Russian third-generation main battle tank that is essentially a modernisation of the T-72B, incorporating many features of the T-80U (it was originally to be called the T-72BU, later renamed to T-90). It is currently the most modern tank in service with the Russian Ground Forces and Naval Infantry


The T-90 was developed by the Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau at the Uralvagonzavod factory in Nizhny Tagil. The production model is based on the T-72BM, with some added features from the T-80 series

T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ptldM3]

If so, then so is T-90, which in essence is a T-72 development (not a radically new design)


T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only thing that the T-72 and T-90 have in common is a similar chassis and a similar canon. Yes the T-90 is a further development of the T-72; however, the T-90 has evolved so much that it can not be considered a T-72. The T-90 has improved armor, different turret, a better and longer range gun, improved autoloader, improved engine, ect. T-72 can have a lot of the upgrades from a T-90 including a new turret but then it is only a T-72 in name.

Older T-72's are outdated unless they are upgraded. If we speak of the T-90MS that tank is even more radical and different.

 

[Penguin]

The only thing that the T-72 and T-90 have in common is a similar chassis and a similar canon. Yes the T-90 is a further development of the T-72; however, the T-90 has evolved so much that it can not be considered a T-72. The T-90 has improved armor, different turret, a better and longer range gun, improved autoloader, improved engine, ect. T-72 can have a lot of the upgrades from a T-90 including a new turret but then it is only a T-72 in name.

Older T-72's are outdated unless they are upgraded. If we speak of the T-90MS that tank is even more radical and different.

The design isn't new, is it?

 

[ptldM3]

The design isn't new, is it?

What is not new? The T-90?

 

[SQ8]

What is not new? The T-90?

Yup, which is in technical terms the T-72BU

 

[Penguin]

This is what 'evolved' means. The differences are not like e.g. M-60 to M1 or Leo 1 to Leo 2.
It is more like Chieftain > Chieftain 800/900 > Challenger 1 > Challenger 2.

 

[Viper0011.]

That disgn proved to be inferior to the western big heavy tanks at least in terms of protection.
I would say this tank came as aresult to Chechnia war.

This design will prove to be inferior also. Facing A-10's and Abraams with special munitions will melt this one's turret down too!! This may have enhanced steel cage inside and a few more gadgets, but nothing is out of the ordinary.

 

[ptldM3]

This design will prove to be inferior also. Facing A-10's and Abraams with special munitions will melt this one's turret down too!! This may have enhanced steel cage inside and a few more gadgets, but nothing is out of the ordinary.

Did you happen to personal test it? Of course not, you know nothing about the design, the armor or its capabilities. If it was an American tank you would boast about it just like you are boasting how the 35 year old Abrams will defeat the the inferior Armata. Also what "special munitions" does the Abrams have? And what is "special" about it?

 

[Viper0011.]

Did you happen to personal test it? Of course not, you know nothing about the design, the armor or its capabilities. If it was an American tank you would boast about it just like you are boasting how the 35 year old Abrams will defeat the the inferior Armata. Also what "special munitions" does the Abrams have? And what is "special" about it?

I haven't personally tested it, you are right. But I also know, there hasn't been any "Advanced" tech that's come out of Russia that we haven't gotten to test it out. Second, the science didn't just go from Earth to Mars in a day. You are bound to keep certain things as is, due to their limitations and where industry and technology is today.

Tanks have a purpose they fill in, that purpose and their design characteristics make them vulnerable at some point due to design limitations. The design limitations are what we know and have work-around for. You can't beat physical limitations no matter how wide, narrow or long you build a vehicle. You'll have limits to consider, and we know those limits.
And Abraams have different batches, the most recent ones were created, along with Bradley vehicles as far back as the 2002 to add IED and Ambush protection.

 

[ptldM3]

I haven't personally tested it, you are right. But I also know, there hasn't been any "Advanced" tech that's come out of Russia that we haven't gotten to test it out.

Did the US get to test out the Armata? Or the pak-fa, or the S-400? I did not think so.

Second, the science didn't just go from Earth to Mars in a day. You are bound to keep certain things as is, due to their limitations and where industry and technology is today.

In other words you have no argument so you go off on some incoherent and unrelated rant that proves nothing.

Tanks have a purpose they fill in, that purpose and their design characteristics make them vulnerable at some point due to design limitations. The design limitations are what we know and have work-around for. You can't beat physical limitations no matter how wide, narrow or long you build a vehicle. You'll have limits to consider, and we know those limits.

No one knows anything about the Armata other then that it has a unmanned turret, 125mm gun an auto loader and an active defense system. By your logic the Abrams also have limitations and the Russians know those limitations therefor the Abrams can be defeated.

 

[MilSpec]

@ptldM3 You are wasting your time.

 

[Viper0011.]

Did the US get to test out the Armata? Or the pak-fa, or the S-400? I did not think so.

Do you also believe that the US is sitting idle and just not caring about what Russia does? Do you have a valid reason or confirmation to believe that the US doesn't have knowledge about what it is that's going into your weapon's system and capabilities?

 

[ptldM3]

Do you also believe that the US is sitting idle and just not caring about what Russia does? Do you have a valid reason or confirmation to believe that the US doesn't have knowledge about what it is that going into your weapon's system and capabilities?

You make an absurd claim that you can not back and then you answer my questions regarding your claims with more questions. Then it turns out that the US is not sitting idle but they still use a battle tank that dates back to 1980 albeit upgraded. The question is do you have a valid reason to believe that the US knows anything special about the Armata?

@ptldM3 You are wasting your time.

No kidding i am arguing with a guy that answers a question with a question.

 

[MilSpec]

No kidding i am arguing with a guy that answers a question with a question.

I bet more gems to follow... rest assured it will be entertaining...

 

[Viper0011.]

You make an absurd claim that you can not back and then you answer my questions regarding your claims with more questions. Then it turns out that the US is not sitting idle but they still use a battle tank that dates back to 1980 albeit upgraded. The question is do you have a valid reason to believe that the US knows anything special about the Armata?.

There is no "absurd" claim. History can prove it to you. Its public data, wherever the US went, the enemies had "sophisticated" Russian systems. You are more than welcome to see on youtube how from air defense to the TU-70's, 80's and 90's were taken out.
Next, knowing the US military, I can give you my personal assurance that when and if this tank faces the Abraams and the A-10's....their hull be be cracked open like a CocaCola bottle. I am giving you my personal assurance as I can't speak for the US government nor do I have access to the "Armata" classified files if there are any. But you should wait for a day and see how right I was. This tank will become a handy name in the history, aka, modernized junk which provided the same result to a barrage of GBU's or other stand off or direct attack munitions!

I'd even suggest giving some to Syria or Iraq / ISIS and allow the USAF to do "blow up testing" for you