British worried by the Armata and Kurganets

[Guynextdoor2]

yadayada. How long did the development of Arjun take again? With inputs from how many countries? How many units now? What combat record?

The actual Chally 2E proved the concept of a different powertrain in real life.

Clearly I didn't claim current UK Chally's will get a 1500hp new powerpack. Then again. who is to say the ongoing CLEP program will not result in such an upgrade, if only as an option? Chally's terrain speed is incidentally more a function of its suspension that it is of HP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2#CLEP
http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/14-land/556-challenger-2-life-extension-project-awards.html
http://www.janes.com/article/62913/final-bids-in-for-challenger-2-lep

You keep going back to test situations. Do you really believe (armors of) other tanks have not undergoing life fire trials? I mean, you are dealing with folks like Germans, French and Brits, which pretty much invented the modern tank.B ut anyway, your remark was about what constitutes ' combat proven' and such tests do not.... ever. Likewise, estimates don't make a tank combat proven either.

Also, you fail to take into account that it is Brit invented armor that is applied in e.g Abrams. The Germans developed a similar armor for its Leo2 at about the same time. Application thereof is why Leo2 prototypes went from looking like a larger Leo1A4 to a truly different tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

Chally is and will always be a bullshit tank like it's other combat naval equivalent the astute class. Both are indicative of the big talk that the Brits have generally indulged in. The 7000 Tonne pigmy is called 'best of this and that' the way the brits call every one of their developments 'great'. Sure against the argentinians (they actually call the falklands conflict a 'real' war) it might score some hits, but against the 'real deal' typhoon/ Akula/ Virginia/ Sea Wolf Class do you think it stands a chance of comparison? The Amaranta is not an incremental development of any existing family, it is a fundamental reimagining of tank design. It cannot under any circumstance be compared to a junk like chally.

And let me tell you something about the 'combat experience' of Brits. Outside the shadow of the US forces their idea of 'great war' is Falklands. They know very well they'd have their @$$ kicked if the Argenitians had taken delivery of more exocet missiles. I swear if Brits alone had invaded Iraq, Saddam might have fried them.

 

[ptldM3]

When everything is said and done, it's not Russia that sends its soldiers and tanks within a few miles of US, German or British borders yet these countries do it to Russia and call Russia aggressive. It's all just a way to sell more of their military equipment to the Baltics, purchase new equipment for themselves and flex their military muscle.


The Armata is a response to this aggression and the aggression never looked so good.

 

[Penguin]

Chally is and will always be a bullshit tank like it's other combat naval equivalent the astute class. Both are indicative of the big talk that the Brits have generally indulged in. The 7000 Tonne pigmy is called 'best of this and that' the way the brits call every one of their developments 'great'. Sure against the argentinians (they actually call the falklands conflict a 'real' war) it might score some hits, but against the 'real deal' typhoon/ Akula/ Virginia/ Sea Wolf Class do you think it stands a chance of comparison? The Amaranta is not an incremental development of any existing family, it is a fundamental reimagining of tank design. It cannot under any circumstance be compared to a junk like chally.

And let me tell you something about the 'combat experience' of Brits. Outside the shadow of the US forces their idea of 'great war' is Falklands. They know very well they'd have their @$$ kicked if the Argenitians had taken delivery of more exocet missiles. I swear if Brits alone had invaded Iraq, Saddam might have fried them.

Sure, Challenger 2 sucks as does all other military equipment of the UK as well as the entire UK military. I think it is clear what the quality of this discussion has become because of you.

For example, you are now comparing the Challenger 2 MBT, development of which began in 1986 as private venture for a Challenger 1 (tself a further development of the Chieftain) follow on ordered by UK MoD in 1991, with an SSN developed in roughly the same period?
Production numbers for these three tanks runs in the order of magnitude of 4000 tanks. By comparison, although the development of the Arjun tank began in 1972 by the CVRDE, it was only in 1996 that the Indian government decided to mass-produce the tank at Indian Ordnance Factory's production facility in Avadi and thusfar less than 400 have been produced.So much for India's tank development experience. India has yet to produces an SSN (it is leasing one rom Russia) and has managed only a single active SSBN to date, which is in many ways - including fire power - very limited. So much for that comparison.
In the context of the topic of this thread, SSNs clearly are off topic. As are the Argentinians/Falklands (no UK tanks used there). You are absolute correct in your astute observation that the Falklands war was not a real war. Therefor, why do you bring it up in the first place?
It is Armata, not Amaranta, and this is not an Indian system but a Russian system that remains as yet untested in combat. It is not the first vehicle that places the crew in the hull and has an unmanned turret. The concept is different but has yet to prove itself.

Should you decided you are still not done ranting and going off topic, I will gladly report your post(s) to forum management.

Hae a nice day!

When everything is said and done, it's not Russia that sends its soldiers and tanks within a few miles of US, German or British borders yet these countries do it to Russia and call Russia aggressive. It's all just a way to sell more of their military equipment to the Baltics, purchase new equipment for themselves and flex their military muscle.


The Armata is a response to this aggression and the aggression never looked so good.




View attachment 367050

OFF TOPIC.

Putting armor in Kaliningrad oblast places them on the Polish border and very close to Germany. Flying your strtegic Tu95 Bears into NATO ADiz e.g. near Norway, Netherlands, Germany, UK doesn't count? Putting an SSN close to French submarine base doesn't count?

Would you care to elaborate when those western tanks were sent to Russia's borders (as you alledge) and when the development of T-14 Armata or the Armata universal combat platform started?

Please, this thread is about tanks... let's keep it that way,

 

[Blue Marlin]

im sure these would do just fine in neutralising the t-14.

no doubt the t-14 is a good tank no doubt and does bring concern to us. but lighter platforms such as the ajax coupled with the challanger 2 would suffice. also if you have on demand reconnaissance [drones] then is a death sentence for the t-14

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Sure, Challenger 2 sucks as does all other military equipment of the UK as well as the entire UK military. I think it is clear what the quality of this discussion has become because of you.

For example, you are now comparing the Challenger 2 MBT, development of which began in 1986 as private venture for a Challenger 1 (tself a further development of the Chieftain) follow on ordered by UK MoD in 1991, with an SSN developed in roughly the same period?
Production numbers for these three tanks runs in the order of magnitude of 4000 tanks. By comparison, although the development of the Arjun tank began in 1972 by the CVRDE, it was only in 1996 that the Indian government decided to mass-produce the tank at Indian Ordnance Factory's production facility in Avadi and thusfar less than 400 have been produced.So much for India's tank development experience. India has yet to produces an SSN (it is leasing one rom Russia) and has managed only a single active SSBN to date, which is in many ways - including fire power - very limited. So much for that comparison.
In the context of the topic of this thread, SSNs clearly are off topic. As are the Argentinians/Falklands (no UK tanks used there). You are absolute correct in your astute observation that the Falklands war was not a real war. Therefor, why do you bring it up in the first place?
It is Armata, not Amaranta, and this is not an Indian system but a Russian system that remains as yet untested in combat. It is not the first vehicle that places the crew in the hull and has an unmanned turret. The concept is different but has yet to prove itself.

Should you decided you are still not done ranting and going off topic, I will gladly report your post(s) to forum management.

Hae a nice day!


OFF TOPIC.

Putting armor in Kaliningrad oblast places them on the Polish border and very close to Germany. Flying your strtegic Tu95 Bears into NATO ADiz e.g. near Norway, Netherlands, Germany, UK doesn't count? Putting an SSN close to French submarine base doesn't count?

Would you care to elaborate when those western tanks were sent to Russia's borders (as you alledge) and when the development of T-14 Armata or the Armata universal combat platform started?

Please, this thread is about tanks... let's keep it that way,

The quality of discussion has not gone down because of me but because of you. Your unreasonable attachment to British junk and unreasonable contempt for Russian equipment has made you biased. That is very typical of people who come from Britain usually. That's why you convert a discussion between British and Russian equipment into a discussion of Indian products. Tell me- has Britain ever produced anything on the lines of Akula, Typhoon, anything as succesful as the T Series, Kamov helicopters or Antonov aircraft? Has britain ever produced anything as diverse as Sukhoi to Mig series aircraft (the Typhoon is just not up to the mark with Sukhoi). All of europe sometimes does something that Russia alone does. And yet it is soooooo suprising that the Ruskies made something unbelievably superior to Challies? A 1500 BHP Chally is JUST NOT ENOUGH to match Amaranta.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Chally is and will always be a bullshit tank like it's other combat naval equivalent the astute class. Both are indicative of the big talk that the Brits have generally indulged in. The 7000 Tonne pigmy is called 'best of this and that' the way the brits call every one of their developments 'great'. Sure against the argentinians (they actually call the falklands conflict a 'real' war) it might score some hits, but against the 'real deal' typhoon/ Akula/ Virginia/ Sea Wolf Class do you think it stands a chance of comparison? The Amaranta is not an incremental development of any existing family, it is a fundamental reimagining of tank design. It cannot under any circumstance be compared to a junk like chally.

And let me tell you something about the 'combat experience' of Brits. Outside the shadow of the US forces their idea of 'great war' is Falklands. They know very well they'd have their @$$ kicked if the Argenitians had taken delivery of more exocet missiles. I swear if Brits alone had invaded Iraq, Saddam might have fried them.

bs, the challenger 2 is one of the best tanks in the world and are being made better via and upgrade. india has no room to talk with it "indigenous" arjun which is being forced down ia throats. next you suggest we buy the arjun.

our astutes were as good if not better than the latest block of the virgina class sub, the supa powa india cant talk there too, as its " indigenous sub" was build with russain help. its as indigenous as a spicy curry drizzled in vodka

our typhoons .........forget about it. good luck with your rafale....

we have the source code for the exocet missile its just a matter of misguiding them.
as for iraq, we as in nato dealt with them, admittedly i was against it but its too late now as the damage is already done.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

bs, the challenger 2 is one of the best tanks in the world and are being made better via and upgrade. india has no room to talk with it "indigenous" arjun which is being forced down ia throats. next you suggest we buy the arjun.

our astutes were as good if not better than the latest block of the virgina class sub, the supa powa india cant talk there too, as its " indigenous sub" was build with russain help. its as indigenous as a spicy curry drizzled in vodka

our typhoons .........forget about it. good luck with your rafale....

we have the source code for the exocet missile its just a matter of misguiding them.
as for iraq, we as in nato dealt with them, admittedly i was against it but its too late now as the damage is already done.

@Penguin now can you deny the points I made? Astute is better than virginia he says---and he said it just like that. Phhh British.

@Blue Marlin you should by Arjun coz you'll be stopping tank design and production anyway.

 

[Blue Marlin]

@Penguin now can you deny the points I made? Astute is better than virginia he says---and he said it just like that. Phhh British.

@Blue Marlin you should by Arjun coz you'll be stopping tank design and production anyway.

have a read of this any theres plenty of other articles painting a similar picture.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2855290/posts

hehe the arjun is based of the leopard tank from germany, so thats like a spicy sausage and its still rubbish.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

have a read of this any theres plenty of other articles painting a similar picture.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2855290/posts

hehe the arjun is based of the leopard tank from germany, so thats like a spicy sausage and its still rubbish.

the good thing yanks figured out- say one good thing or two about Brit 'subs' or 'technology' and you'll immedeately stand in line to go out for war with them. We'll give you new versions of Arjun that look different from Leopard.

 

[ptldM3]

OFF TOPIC.

Putting armor in Kaliningrad oblast places them on the Polish border and very close to Germany.

Kaliningrad is Russian soil that is surrounded by hostile neighbors. Russia can place whatever it wants there.

Flying your strtegic Tu95 Bears into NATO ADiz e.g. near Norway, Netherlands, Germany, UK doesn't count?

Flying nuclear armed B-52s near Russia doesn't count? Flying F-15s and A-10s near the Russin border also doesn't count? This is where hypocrisy lies, the US and it's allies fly nuclear capable strategic bombers, fighters and spy aircraft near the Russian border and have been doing so since the Cold War but then go into hysteria when Russia does something similar. Again it is not Russia that places its heavy armor on the border of America.

Putting an SSN close to French submarine base doesn't count?

If it's international waters then there is no problem but let's reverse roles, what about NATO ships shadowing Russian ships dangerously close in international water? Which they do regularly.

I have met an ex American sailor that said a US naval armada purposely violated Soviet territorial waters in the 1980s near Vladivostok just to flex their muscle. Furthermore, look at all the NATO aircraft that violated soviet airspace, a number of those aircraft were shot down.

Would you care to elaborate when those western tanks were sent to Russia's borders (as you alledge) and when the development of T-14 Armata or the Armata universal combat platform started?

I don't ellege anything, the US has had Abrams and other armor in the Baltics since atleast 2015 and those Baltic states have been very hostile to Russia for over a decade now with Russian minorities facing severe descrimination (I had family experience it first hand).

Furthermore, those Baltic states sided with Georgia in 2008 when Georgia invaded South Ossetia and attacked Russian soldiers. So who is hostile? We are told the baltics are nervous because of Ukraine and Russia being a hostile invader but what about Baltic countries invading Iraq?

What about Georgia? What about the open descrimination Russians face in Baltic states?



Getting back to your question, the development of the T-14 started after hostile NATO actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, it started after Georgia invaded South Ossetia and killed Russian soldiers in the area at which time the Baltic countries sided with Georgia.


@vostok any thoughts about the baltics and how it relates to armor?

 

[Penguin]

The quality of discussion has not gone down because of me but because of you.

... says the person that has been going off with anti-Brit ranting for no particular reason.

your unreasonable attachment to British junk and unreasonable contempt for Russian equipment has made you biased

I dare you to quote the parts of post where I have said anything negative about Armata. I have no attachment to any (British or other) equipment. However, I am allergic to people blurting unsubstantiated judgements about any kind of equipment.

.

That is very typical of people who come from Britain usually.

Ah, so now Penguin is a Brits (after having been ' branded' previously as American, Jew, Indian etc. by posters that feel the need to challenge the person/messenger rather than the content/message. Ok, I'll be British for you if you insist. Whatever. (as if nationality has any role in assessing equipments)

That's why you convert a discussion between British and Russian equipment into a discussion of Indian products.

If you start with and insist on blind Brit bashing and you carry Indian flags, then some India bashing may well be the restult, possibly even appropriate (i.e. look at ourself before you speak about others)

Tell me- has Britain ever produced anything on the lines of Akula, Typhoon, anything as succesful as the T Series, Kamov helicopters or Antonov aircraft? Has britain ever produced anything as diverse as Sukhoi to Mig series aircraft (the Typhoon is just not up to the mark with Sukhoi).

Off topic.
But one could mention Centurion mbt in addition to the UK tanks already mentions (and the brillian because numerous T-series have consistently been beaten by these). What's so special about Kamov, as compared to e.g. Sikorski and Westland? Only Mig 21, Mig 29 and Su-27 have been very successfull, the remained rather mediocre jets. Brits were very present e.g. with Gloster Meteor, BAC Lightning, Hawker Hunter, Blackburn Buccaneer, Panavia Tornado. And in comparison to Antonov, see Short Brothers. Eg their Short Belfast, Skyvan, Sherpa.

All of europe sometimes does something that Russia alone does.

That's matter of economies of scale (i.e. money, not technical capability)

And yet it is soooooo suprising that the Ruskies made something unbelievably superior to Challies?

Assuming ' he Ruskies made something unbelievable superior to Challies' , where have I said anything to the above extent? Exactly, ...nowhere. More to the point, however, is that you never engaged in a direct comparison of Armate and Challenger 2: you simply vomited anti-brit slogans based on you OPINION of Challenger 2, which you then failed to substantiate. And, finally, reality is that it remains to be seen how ' unbelievably superior' T-14 actually is relative to current Western tanks, including Challenger 2, whether in today's form or on near future upgraded forms.

A 1500 BHP Chally is JUST NOT ENOUGH to match Amaranta.

Please quote where I claimed this. Exactly, ... nowhere.

Have a nice day.

@Penguin now can you deny the points I made?

What points? You simple repeat ad nauseam that Challnger 2 and all brit equipment is bad as are the brit military, with no argument or factual material supporting your argument or pov.

 

[ptldM3]

im sure these would do just fine in neutralising the t-14.

no doubt the t-14 is a good tank no doubt and does bring concern to us. but lighter platforms such as the ajax coupled with the challanger 2 would suffice. also if you have on demand reconnaissance [drones] then is a death sentence for the t-14

This is assuming that the opponent has air superiority. Russia often has air defenses accompanying armor formations, these air defenses have a 400km range and of course there are aircraft that would be present so it's not as easy as you make it out.


Another interesting thing is that the T-14 has very thick roof armor, in fact most of the top of the tank has advanced ERA. On top of that it is possible that the active protection system intercept and kill the incoming missiles.

 

[Penguin]

Ptdm please stay on topic.

Kaliningrad is Russian soil that is surrounded by hostile neighbors. Russia can place whatever it wants there.

We all know that it is (former German/Prussian) territory acquired by CCCP at the end of WW2, not the Russian motherland. Please quote where I've indicated Russia cannot place equipment anywhere withing its borders. Please acknowledge that tanks in Kaliningrad are in fact at the border of NATO countries Poland and Lithuania. Are you denying the right of NATO countries to have armor? Or the right of this alliance to move forces within the boundaries of the territories that are part of it?

Flying nuclear armed B-52s near Russia doesn't count? Flying F-15s and A-10s near the Russin border also doesn't count? This is where hypocrisy lies, the US and it's allies fly nuclear capable strategic bombers, fighters and spy aircraft near the Russian border and have been doing so since the Cold War but then go into hysteria when Russia does something similar. Again it is not Russia that places its heavy armor on the border of America.

You came up with the tanks on the border issue. You can't do so and at the same time ignore what your own military does. There is no hypocricy in pointing that out.
It would be very difficult for Russia to put its armor at the US border, considering the actual geography of the place (one would have to invade some country in order to do so). Meanwhile, Russian (and before that Soviet) subs and intelligence ships are frequently at the edge of US territorial waters. That is legal, nobody makes a problem of that.
So, this is argumentative sillyness, just for the sake of argueing

If it's international waters then there is no problem but let's reverse roles, what about NATO ships shadowing Russian ships dangerously close in international water? Which they do regularly.

See above.

I don't ellege anything, the US has had Abrams and other armor in the Baltics since atleast 2015 and those Baltic states have been very hostile to Russia for over a decade now with Russian minorities facing severe descrimination (I had family experience it first hand).

If the NATO memberstate in question asked for presence of US forces , there is no difference with e.g. Russia moving troops within its borders. I'm sure those Baltics state pose a huge threat to Russia, as evidenced by their cross-border activity. Russian that migrated to those countries during the Soviet era will have to come to terms with the fact that they are no longer priviledged ruling class citizens. Other inhabitants of those countries likewise have to behave nicely towards their countrymen.

Furthermore, those Baltic states sided with Georgia in 2008 when Georgia invaded South Ossetia and attacked Russian soldiers. So who is hostile? We are told the baltics are nervous because of Ukraine and Russia being a hostile invader but what about Baltic countries invading Iraq?

What about Georgia? What about the open descrimination Russians face in Baltic states?

Sure, we are discussing Armate versus Challenger 2 here and you draw in the entire world affairs. Come on now.

You don't suppose the development of Armata has something to do with pending mass obsolescence of Soviet era platforms? The fundamental design drawbacks common to the T-64/T-72/T080, that were made evident in combat? While T-90 is a much better tank, it's emergence didn't solve those issues, nor did the Object 195 / T-95 project started in 1995 and finally killed in 2010.

Getting back to your question, the development of the T-14 started after hostile NATO actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, it started after Georgia invaded South Ossetia and killed Russian soldiers in the area at which time the Baltic countries sided with Georgia.

So in fact, nothing to do with NATO tanks near Russian borders...

@vostok any thoughts about the baltics and how it relates to armor?

Sure, call for help. **** up this thread even more. Thanks a lot.

 

[vostok]

@vostok any thoughts about the baltics and how it relates to armor?

I think that this will lead to increase of numbers of nuclear capable missiles in Kaliningrad. Moreover, most likely the Kaliningrad region will receive priority in the rearmament of armored units on the new generation systems.

 

[Penguin]

I think that this will lead to increase of numbers of nuclear capable missiles in Kaliningrad. Moreover, most likely the Kaliningrad region will receive priority in the rearmament of armored units on the new generation systems.

Good. Put as much in one place as possible, so it is easier to find.

B ACK TO TOPIC PLEASE. (MODS CONTACTED)