Armata vs Abrams Which one is better?

[The Sandman]

The one that can be easily mass produced during WAR time and has a lower failure rate.

 

[Mentee]

The one that can be easily mass produced during WAR time and has a lower failure rate.

like stalin said " quantity itself is a quality"

 

[DarX]

Its very real:

Apparently it was tested. But I also noticed that the M1 TTB was tested in 1980, when the M1 Abrams was the latest and most powerful MBT in the world. There was no point for the US to scrap a brand new multi-billion dollar weapon systems when there was no comparable challenger. I think that is the main reason why the M1 TTB was restricted only for concept testing.

Armata is based on old Soviet Object 195 prototype. Nothing super modern about it.

The Armata might've been based on the Object 195 (which was canceled because of financial constraints only), but I was pointing towards the electronics and optical technology, which would be essential for an unmanned turret. Perhaps that was the hindering factor which needed to be resolved to make an unmanned turret feasible.

Armata is much larger and several times more expensive than current Russian tanks.

According to all sources, the weight of the Armata is approximately 48 tons. I don't know which tanks are being shown in this picture. It is either the Armata next to a toy, or a T-72 next to a movie prop.

I don't know what you are arguing about. The Armata is STILL a concept. Nobody is denying that. It has to evolve. However, as a concept, it allows the MBT size to be reduced, and smaller vehicles have a host of priceless benefits, which the M1 Abrams cannot provide regardless of what technology it has. So it is a BETTER concept than the M1 Abrams.

 

[ptldM3]

False. USSR made very primitive APS in 1983. Because of poor performance it was thrown to trash just 7 years later in 1990.

What is false? The first APS came from the Soviet Union. Israel copied the concept. I know facts are something you aren't familiar with.

More bunch of crap. Israeli APS works on completely different concept and much more advanced in all regards.

It's an exact copy. The original Drozd used a radar and and fired fragmentation warhead. The Trophy uses the exact same method. Again it's interesting that you claim Russia is so far behind when they pioneered so much and other countries ended up copying.

They did not copy anything.

Truth hurts. Israel copied the Drozd. The Druzd has been around since the 1970s, the Trophy came out recently. Are you going to give credit to Israel for the first satellite or rocket too

Your F-35 also is based on work from Yak and their engineering.

RD-180 is used on Atlas-5. US has two wonderful equivalents of this rocket: Falcon-9 and Delta-4 with US engines.

The US has zero equivalent to the RD-180. The US is far behind in rocket engine and that's hard for you to swallow. US engine are much weaker, heavier and have lower burn time. The RD-180 is not cheap, if the US wanted cheap they would buy from China or someone else but chose the RD-180 because of its performance. Money is not an Issue for the US.

RD180: 930,000lbs thrust

RS-68: 705,000lbs thrust (Delta IV)

Merlin 1D: 205,000lbs thrust (Falcon)

The RD-180 is superior in every aspect.

It says chassis. Which also was modified. No need to be an Einstein to see that hull is very different, both inside and outside:

Thanks you Einstein, for pointing out the obvious. The TTB was just an early and probably modified Abrams chassis with a mock up turret. The TTB was nothing more then a mockup itself. It had none of the features of Armata and there is zero proof that the US was able to even get the turret to function let alone fire.

From top Armata is not more resistant than any legacy tank. Actually compare to Merkava 4 its less.

How would you know how resistant the T-14 is? Do you have classified information regarding its armor protection levels? Do you know it's armor thickness? You know nothing about the T-14 and you are making dubious claims.

Its everything to do with it. Anyway it does not change the fact that from top sides rear and bellow its not more resistant than any legacy tank. And nowadays vast majority of threats come from these directions.

Looks like we have an expert, unless you are an engineer that worked on the T-14 or you stole classified information there is no way you or anyone would know that. Even if I give you the benifit of the doubt and say it's armor is roughly equal to most 'modern' legacy tanks. It's survivability is superior due to an unmammanded turret, armored capsule and active protection system. For instance if an IED blows off a Merkava turret then the entire crew dies, if an ATGM penetrates the turret, the crew dies. With the T-14 it's a different story.

 

[500]

What is false? The first APS came from the Soviet Union. Israel copied the concept. I know facts are something you aren't familiar with.

Yes, and Brits copied tank concept from Yan Jijka armored wagon concept. Shame on them

It's an exact copy. The original Drozd used a radar and and fired fragmentation warhead. The Trophy uses the exact same method. Again it's interesting that you claim Russia is so far behind when they pioneered so much and other countries ended up copying.

There is nothing common between them:

1) Drozd protects only front (which is least vulnerable part anyway), Trophy is lighter and protects 360 grad.
2) Drozd uses primitive pulse doppler radar, Trophy uses 4 advanced AESA radars which also provide 360 grad situational awareness.
3) Drozd uses huge static fragment shells to hit rounds, which are very bulky, heavy and produce huge collateral damage. While Trophy uses small rotating launcher which hits rounds with explosive charge projectiles with minimal collateral damage (less than ERA).

Trophy is combat proven and successful system while Drozd was thrown to trash 7 years after it was first introduced.

Truth hurts. Israel copied the Drozd. The Druzd has been around since the 1970s, the Trophy came out recently. Are you going to give credit to Israel for the first satellite or rocket too

Your F-35 also is based on work from Yak and their engineering.

No you are hurt thats why u invent rubbish stories.

The US has zero equivalent to the RD-180. The US is far behind in rocket engine and that's hard for you to swallow. US engine are much weaker, heavier and have lower burn time. The RD-180 is not cheap, if the US wanted cheap they would buy from China or someone else but chose the RD-180 because of its performance. Money is not an Issue for the US.

RD180: 930,000lbs thrust

RS-68: 705,000lbs thrust (Delta IV)

Merlin 1D: 205,000lbs thrust (Falcon)

The RD-180 is superior in every aspect.

Gosh what an idiot.

RD-180 dry weight - 5,480 kg
Merlin-1D dry weight - 470 kg

I.e. 10 Merlin-1D weight much less than 1 RD-180 and provide 2.2 more thrust than RD-180.

And overall you must check final products. Falcon-9 and Delta-4 with all US engines have virtually same performance as Atlas-4.

Thanks you Einstein, for pointing out the obvious. The TTB was just an early and probably modified Abrams chassis with a mock up turret. The TTB was nothing more then a mockup itself. It had none of the features of Armata and there is zero proof that the US was able to even get the turret to function let alone fire.

U claimed that its just Abrams with different turret, which is pure nonsense,.

How would you know how resistant the T-14 is? Do you have classified information regarding its armor protection levels? Do you know it's armor thickness? You know nothing about the T-14 and you are making dubious claims.

Top resistance of Armata is not a secret. U can easily see it. Even legacy Merkava Mk4 has more thick top than Armata.

 

[ptldM3]

There is nothing common between them:

1) Drozd protects only front (which is least vulnerable part anyway), Trophy is lighter and protects 360 grad.
2) Drozd uses primitive pulse doppler radar, Trophy uses 4 advanced AESA radars which also provide 360 grad situational awareness.
3) Drozd uses huge static fragment shells to hit rounds, which are very bulky, heavy and produce huge collateral damage. While Trophy uses small rotating launcher which hits rounds with explosive charge projectiles with minimal collateral damage (less than ERA).

In other words Israel just copied the Drozd. Fact: Trophy uses radar and a projectile to destroy incoming rounds. If we are generous, Israel ripped off the idea from Drozd and Arena.

Trophy is combat proven and successful system while Drozd was thrown to trash 7 years after it was first introduced.

Nothing was thrown into the trash. It was used in Afghanistan and successor systems such as the Arena and now Afghanit arrived. The Soviets Union never fully implemented the Drozd due the cost of equipping 50+ tanks.

No you are hurt thats why u invent rubbish stories.

Lockheed Martin Itself revealed it partnered with Yakalev in 1994. Lockheed had access to the Yak-141 and Yak had consultant work on the F-35 program. I know you have a history of denial such as Mig-29s can't take off with heavy loads, SU-24s can't drop precision weapons, etc.

Gosh what an idiot.

RD-180 dry weight - 5,480 kg
Merlin-1D dry weight - 470 kg

I.e. 10 Merlin-1D weight much less than 1 RD-180 and provide 2.2 more thrust than RD-180.

And overall you must check final products. Falcon-9 and Delta-4 with all US engines have virtually same performance as Atlas-4.

Yep, you're an idiot. The Merlin 1D does not have 2.2 time more thrust then the RD-180. You are counting all 10 Engines from first and second stage of the Falcon and comparing it to a single RD-180.


A single Merlin 1D has 205,000lbs thrust, the RD-180 has 930,000.

U claimed that its just Abrams with different turret, which is pure nonsense,.

No, it was your source that said that... Moron.

Top resistance of Armata is not a secret. U can easily see it. Even legacy Merkava Mk4 has more thick top than Armata.

Sorry in engineering and development you can't "see"anything. You have to rigorously design and test something to see how well it works. The Hatches on the T-14 and Merkava IV are roughly the same in thickness. The thickness itself doesn't tell you anything about the performance of the armor.


Merkavas were easily penetrated in Lebonon while being hit in armored areas much thicker then a roof. Even some old T-90s servived being hit in Syria. Case in point, the Merkava was exposed as overrated. No wonder it has no customers.

 

[MastanKhan]

like stalin said " quantity itself is a quality"

Hi,

Well it was at one time---but then great warriors have found ways around it---.

the greatest warrior of them all---Genghis Khan---would not confront a larger enemy---but rather retreat to fight for another day---when the enemy forces and alliances were in disarray---or strike from a different position---.

In modern day warfare---the production lines would be destroyed---so an inferior product would be taken out faster by the superior product in such large numbers---that the numerical superiority would disappear very fast---.

 

[500]

In other words Israel just copied the Drozd. Fact: Trophy uses radar and a projectile to destroy incoming rounds. If we are generous, Israel ripped off the idea from Drozd and Arena.

Using radar to destroy incoming projectiles is not a Russian invention.

Nothing was thrown into the trash. It was used in Afghanistan and successor systems such as the Arena and now Afghanit arrived. The Soviets Union never fully implemented the Drozd due the cost of equipping 50+ tanks.

It was never used in any Afghanistan. It was thrown into trash just 7 years after in was introduced. Major fail.

Lockheed Martin Itself revealed it partnered with Yakalev in 1994. Lockheed had access to the Yak-141 and Yak had consultant work on the F-35 program. I know you have a history of denial such as Mig-29s can't take off with heavy loads, SU-24s can't drop precision weapons, etc.

Show me a combat footage of MiG-29 taking off with heavy load or Su-24 with guided bombs and stop bitching once for all..

As for F-35, let me educate u:

Yep, you're an idiot. The Merlin 1D does not have 2.2 time more thrust then the RD-180. You are counting all 10 Engines from first and second stage of the Falcon and comparing it to a single RD-180.

You can't read what I wrote? I said 10 Merlins weight less than 1 RD-180 and yet have 2.2 more thrust.

No, it was your source that said that... Moron.

No my source said it used modified chassis. So what?

Sorry in engineering and development you can't "see"anything. You have to rigorously design and test something to see how well it works. The Hatches on the T-14 and Merkava IV are roughly the same in thickness. The thickness itself doesn't tell you anything about the performance of the armor.

No Merkava has more thickness. Also Merkava hatch weights much more too.

Merkavas were easily penetrated in Lebonon while being hit in armored areas much thicker then a roof. Even some old T-90s servived being hit in Syria. Case in point, the Merkava was exposed as overrated. No wonder it has no customers.

Now u start idiotic butthurt rant, just because I noted that Merkava top is better protected than ur super duper Armata.

 

[Mentee]

sir g yakeen kry this quote was used in a feel good context ------ to show off ------ to cash the moment ---------- that Iam somehow an expert on ww2 ------- however I do wanted to add the modern warfare concepts in my post but couldn't due to being bz with some personal issue --------. Ap Ki shagirid Ki Hain Insha'Allah ENi jaldi nae mar khaandy

 

[KAL-EL]

Armata is far more better than Abrams

Can you please explain why you believe this? Other then just "Armata is far more better than Abrams"

Thanks!

 

[MULUBJA]

The T-14 Armata is light years ahead of the M1 Abrams and all other MBTs of the world. It will make the current technology obsolete as soon as it enters service.

Of course, Its metallurgy is unique and very difficult to pierce. Its gun is too powerful and higher bore gun is planned to destroy and damn tank with any protection. In engineering, it is the best tank in world. I do not know about electronics.

 

[LeGenD]

T-14 Armata = tech demonstrater

M1 Abrams = proven design

In-fact, the new M1A2 Abrams SEP (V3) incorporates truly state-of-the-art features on an established design. The most frightening aspect of it is that it will be armed with new types of ammo.

T-14 Armata hands down is the best tank in the world. USA tried to sell Abraham but can't find customers for it. It was offered to PA in 80's and was rejected. Even T-90 is better than Abraham. Russia has produced some of the best tanks in the world since WWII.

One of the worst and most ill-informed arguments.

A T-14 Armata MBT unit suffered a malfunction during a parade in 2015. It had to be towed out. Can it get more embarassing then this?

And you don't know the whole story. Pakistani military officials witnessed the trails of an M1A1 Abrams in the US mainland [first] and they were stunned by its performance. A request was made to dispatch one unit to Pakistan afterwards and this unit reportedly malfunctioned [not a single documented evidence by the way]. However, the deal was called off due to political tensions at the time; the top brass of Pakistan army had perished in an incident and Zia's successor was staunchly Anti-American. It was convenient for him to contruct the narrative that M1A1 Abrams was a bad tank. Same guy predicted horrendous defeat of the US in the Persian Gulf War (1991) and we all know how it turned out. Kindly do your homework before commenting on these matters.

Additionally, US have sold M1A2 Abrams to Saudi Arabia and M1A1 Abrams to Egypt, Iraq and Australia. So how can you say that there are no buyers of it?

The M1 Abrams represents one of the best MBT designs in existence and its latest variants are miles ahead of anything stationed in the subcontinent.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

They are not the same generation. Abrams vs T-14 is like Me-109K vs P-51.

 

[war&peace]

T-14 Armata = tech demonstrater

M1 Abrams = proven design

In-fact, the new M1A2 Abrams SEP (V3) incorporates truly state-of-the-art features on an established design. The most frightening aspect of it is that it will be armed with new types of ammo.


One of the worst and most ill-informed arguments.

A T-14 Armata MBT unit suffered a malfunction during a parade in 2015. It had to be towed out. Can it get more embarassing then this?

And you don't know the whole story. Pakistani military officials witnessed the trails of an M1A1 Abrams in the US mainland [first] and they were stunned by its performance. A request was made to dispatch one unit to Pakistan afterwards and this unit (reportedly) malfunctioned [not a single documented evidence by the way]. However, the deal was called off due to political tensions at the time; the top brass of Pakistan army had perished in an incident and Zia's successor was staunchly Anti-American. It was convenient for him to contruct the narrative that M1A1 Abrams was a bad tank. Same guy predicted horrendous defeat of the US in the Persian Gulf War (1991) and we all know how it turned out.

Kindly do your homework before commenting on these matters. The M1 Abrams represents one of the best MBT designs in existence and its latest variants are miles ahead of anything stationed in the subcontinent.

Thanks for your effort. I stand by my words.

The COAS was general Mirza Aslam Baig who acc. to you, he was staunchly against USA...are you kidding me?.. why did he join American think tank after his retirement?

 

[LeGenD]

They are not the same generation. Abrams vs T-14 is like Me-109K vs P-51.

What do you mean by this? What is so special about T-14 Armata? Does it fly or something? Does it shoots laser beams?

Time to post arguments that are valid. Not sensational stories.