British worried by the Armata and Kurganets

[Surya 1]

British worried by the Armata and Kurganets
30 December 2016 NIKOLAY SURKOV, IZVESTIA
Britain is set to form two new armoured strike brigades to counter modern Russian technologies.
Facebook109


ARMATA, GREAT BRITAIN, DEFENCE

A tank with the Armata Universal Combat Platform at a rehearsal of military parade to mark the 71st anniversary of Victory in 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War on Red Square in Moscow. Source:Alexander Vilf/RIA Novosti

Britain is in the process of creating two ultra-mobile strike brigades which, according to the British military, are designed to “deter Russian aggression” embodied in Moscow’s latest domestically-made tank, the ‘Armata’, and military vehicles built on the Kurganets platform. These strike brigades will be equipped with combat vehicles built on the ‘Ajax’ platform which, according to experts, are inferior in their capabilities to the Armata and Kurganets.

Each of the new brigades will include two armoured reconnaissance regiments, equipped with combat vehicles built on the Ajax platform (a total of about 100 units). According to Michael Fallon, the British Defence Secretary, the UK is planning to establish a special experimental group in 2017, which will rework the concept of the strike brigades, and the use of Ajax-family vehicles on the battlefield. The first full-fledged brigade should be formed by 2020. Publications of the British military establishment indicate that the new military units will become the mobile reserve, which can be flown within hours to any part of Europe, from Romania to the Baltic States, to stop any possible invasion by Russian troops.

Although the Ajax are officially classified simply as armoured combat vehicles, in reality they are light tanks. Applying the status of light tanks to them allows them to be equipped with caterpillar tracks and unique weapons, like the 40-mm machinegun, using new generation ammunition – the so-called “telescopic shells”. Their strike elements are surrounded by detonating substances that give them a much higher initial velocity.


100 mass-produced T-14 Armata tanks to be ready by 2018

British experts claim that by using this technology on the Ajax, these new shells are able to penetrate armour up to 100 mm thick. Taking into account the rate of fire of 180-200 rounds per minute, this machinegun has a real chance of knocking out a main battle tank, or at least causing serious damage to its external equipment.

The combat weight of the Ajax is a little more than 38 tons, making it suitable for transportation by transport aircraft, such as the C-130 Hercules, and this will allow the British to “insert” their strike brigades to any endangered site. To achieve this kind of mobility, an entire regiment of Royal Hussars will be re-equipped with Challenger-2 tanks on the Ajax platform.

Another strong point of the Ajax is its reconnaissance equipment system, which allows the crew to detect the enemy in all weather conditions. The data collected by each vehicle will be transmitted in real-time to command headquarters.

The British Armed Forces have ordered 589 combat vehicles on the Ajax platform. For every two light tanks, the armed forces will provide two infantry battalions, which are likely to be transported on the ‘Ares’ armoured personnel carriers (APC).

Russian experts, however, doubt the combat efficacy of these future strike brigades. Alexey Khlopotov, Russian military expert, said the ‘Ajax’ is a very strange vehicle.

“Why they need such a vehicle is not clear,” said Khlopotov. “This is a cross between an APC and an ARV (armoured recognizance vehicle). The armament is weak, like in an APC, and it has no assault forces. In addition, in any modern infantry fighting vehicles you will find anti-tank missiles. The weight and dimensions of the Ajax are those of MBT (main battle tanks) of the 1970s.

The Ajax can brag of only one advantage; machineguns with telescopic shells.


Top secret Armata tank may conquer the Arctic

“The 40-mm caliber is a good thing, but the military is not particularly enthusiastic about telescopic shells. Their effectiveness is overrated. As far as we are concerned, for example, the theme of telescopic shells for APCs has been closed, while the Americans prefer to use classic ammunition,” said the expert. “The machinegun itself is very crude and capricious. I studied it carefully at an exhibition. Many gears and much machining are required. Any dirt or piece of rag will lead to its jamming. Moreover, the scheme used to supply shells is unreliable.”

Khlopotov said the Ajax could be “taken out by our BMP-2 with its 30-millimetre cannon, if slightly upgraded, but for our BMP-3 and BMD-4M, it is no match.”

“Against the background of hysteria in the media about the threat from the Armata, replacing Challenger regiments with Ajax vehicles, is a very strange decision,” said the analyst. “The Ajax looks good in a parade, but they are not suitable for large-scale combat. Apparently, the British military simply had an urgent need to demonstrate to the public that they are taking measures in response to the “military threat” from the Russian Federation, so they undertook this dubious experiment,” he concluded.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/12/30/british-worried-by-the-armata-and-kurganets_670491

 

[Beast]

Full of nonsense article. C-130 can carry more than 38tons? And armata as if some tank need to be so fearful? Russia is having a serious shortage of military fund and cuts. How can Russia be more of a threat to U.K.?

I think U.K. is more a threat than Russia.

 

[ptldM3]

Full of nonsense article. C-130 can carry more than 38tons? And armata as if some tank need to be so fearful? Russia is having a serious shortage of military fund and cuts. How can Russia be more of a threat to U.K.?

I think U.K. is more a threat than Russia.

Every year there is news that there is some major funds being cut in the Russian budget and nothing major ever really happens. Just like we have been hearing for years that Russia can't develop anything new yet every year they come out with new military equipment. No one also believed Aleppo couldn't be taken, bla, bla, bla.


As for the T-14, of course it's a threat and of course opposing militaries fear it. The design is decades ahead of anything, it's the F-22 of tanks. In fact the interior layout looks like the inside of a jet as opposed to the parascopes type layout you see in most tanks. The protection is unmatched, the fact that the turret is unmanned gives it a level of survivability that no other tank can offer, even if the turret can be penetrated or blown off with IEDs the crew should not get a scratch. Apart from that the tank has an active protection system that can intercept both HEAT and kenetic rounds and its speed, quick turning and a transmission that allows it to go in reversed as fast as in forward drive give it outstanding survivability and the ability to move across a battlefield with ease which allows for quick flanking maneuvers. It's canon is reported to be about 20% better then the latest 120mm Rhenmetall.

 

[Beast]

Every year there is news that there is some major funds being cut in the Russian budget and nothing major ever really happens. Just like we have been hearing for years that Russia can't develop anything new yet every year they come out with new military equipment. No one also believed Aleppo couldn't be taken, bla, bla, bla.


As for the T-14, of course it's a threat and of course opposing militaries fear it. The design is decades ahead of anything, it's the F-22 of tanks. In fact the interior layout looks like the inside of a jet as opposed to the parascopes type layout you see in most tanks. The protection is unmatched, the fact that the turret is unmanned gives it a level of survivability that no other tank can offer, even if the turret can be penetrated or blown off with IEDs the crew should not get a scratch. Apart from that the tank has an active protection system that can intercept both HEAT and kenetic rounds and its speed, quick turning and a transmission that allows it to go in reversed as fast as in forward drive give it outstanding survivability and the ability to move across a battlefield with ease which allows for quick flanking maneuvers. It's canon is reported to be about 20% better then the latest 120mm Rhenmetall.

That article is just full of bull to justify their aggression towards Russian and trying dwindle Russian influence in eastern Europe.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Full of nonsense article. C-130 can carry more than 38tons? And armata as if some tank need to be so fearful? Russia is having a serious shortage of military fund and cuts. How can Russia be more of a threat to U.K.?

I think U.K. is more a threat than Russia.

Armata is several leagues ahead of most modern Tanks. No reason why Brits shouldn't pee in their pants. Considering their own tanks (challengers) are largely hot air.

 

[Penguin]

Armata is several leagues ahead of most modern Tanks. No reason why Brits shouldn't pee in their pants. Considering their own tanks (challengers) are largely hot air.

Challenger II has a very good (if not excellent) combat record. The British Army has chosen to proceed with a Challenger 2 life extension project (LEP) and it is expected to remain in service until 2035.

The Armate isn't combat proven as yet.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Challenger II has a very good (if not excellent) combat record. The British Army has chosen to proceed with a Challenger 2 life extension project (LEP) and it is expected to remain in service until 2035.

The Armate isn't combat proven as yet.

Running into a territory already secured by US forces and having inferior defense isn't combat proven, nor is taking a direct hit from T 72 or lesser (done by many tanks). It's too heavy, too slow, under powered and nowhere close to the kind of protection it claims to have. British. Phooey.

 

[Penguin]

Running into a territory already secured by US forces and having inferior defense isn't combat proven, nor is taking a direct hit from T 72 or lesser (done by many tanks). It's too heavy, too slow, under powered and nowhere close to the kind of protection it claims to have. British. Phooey.

Oh, so being hit directly by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile in one incident and by 70 RPGs in another incident, by 10-15 RPG7s and an RPG-2, or by IEDs doesn't count as combat? Not to mention scores of T-55/Type59 and T-72.

In these cases, Chally 2 and crews typically survived and where back into action right quickly.

25 March 2003: A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret, killing two crew members. The strike caused a fire that eventually led to an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be destroyed on operations

Challenger is relatively slow on paved roads, but off-road it is agile and not particularly slow. It's basic weight is little different from its German and American contemporaries or Merkava. The Challenger 2E shows it is not difficult to (re)fit the same 1500hp MTU Europack as used on LeClerc, should one wish to increase engine power.

As of 2013, the British Army has, at various events featuring the Challenger 2, begun to state the range of 550 km [rather than 450km] They have also publicly stated a maximum road speed of 59 km/h while equipped with 15 tons of additional modules, as compared to original 60km/h at base weight.

List me the tanks types that have survived being hit by anything better than a T-72 (and, incidentally, it does make a difference which T-72 version you are talking about) in specific incidents. Just so as to establish which tanks you would consider combat proven.

Certainly not Arjun, I would think.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Oh, so being hit directly by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile in one incident and by 70 RPGs in another incident, by 10-15 RPG7s and an RPG-2, or by IEDs doesn't count as combat? Not to mention scores of T-55/Type59 and T-72.

In these cases, Chally 2 and crews typically survived and where back into action right quickly.

25 March 2003: A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret, killing two crew members. The strike caused a fire that eventually led to an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be destroyed on operations

Challenger is relatively slow on paved roads, but off-road it is agile and not particularly slow. It's basic weight is little different from its German and American contemporaries or Merkava. The Challenger 2E shows it is not difficult to (re)fit the same 1500hp MTU Europack as used on LeClerc, should one wish to increase engine power.

As of 2013, the British Army has, at various events featuring the Challenger 2, begun to state the range of 550 km [rather than 450km] They have also publicly stated a maximum road speed of 59 km/h while equipped with 15 tons of additional modules, as compared to original 60km/h at base weight.

List me the tanks types that have survived being hit by anything better than a T-72 (and, incidentally, it does make a difference which T-72 version you are talking about) in specific incidents. Just so as to establish which tanks you would consider combat proven.

Certainly not Arjun, I would think.

dude you're comparing with the best in the world. and let me tell you chillies aren't a match for amaranth. And yes Arjuns have taken direct hits from T 72 @Penguin . why do you think it's so controversial. Too heavy but too damn good.

 

[Penguin]

Running into a territory already secured by US forces and having inferior defense isn't combat proven, nor is taking a direct hit from T 72 or lesser (done by many tanks). It's too heavy, too slow, under powered and nowhere close to the kind of protection it claims to have. British. Phooey.

The CR2’s 1200bhp is generated by a Perkins CV12 26 litre diesel engine. The gearbox is a David Brown TN54 epicyclical transmission with 6 forward and 2 reverse gears. It has a 450km on road and 250km cross country capability. Many publications claim the Challenger 2 has a top road speed of 59km/h, however this only a requirement …..

The engine is electronically governed to 3200 RPM and that in 6th gear is it capable of 70km/h (road speed and cross-country) thanks to its Hydropneumatic suspension AKA Hydrogas. It uses a nitrogen springing medium, which is approximately six times more flexible than conventional steel as used in TorsionBar suspension. This allows the CR2 to maintain a relatively high speed as the nitrogen springing easily absorbs irregularities in the terrain it crosses in comparison to TorsionBar.

The TA (Track adjuster) is a hydraulically extended wheel on an Exocentric axle fixed to a ram operated by the driver. This allows him to adjust the tightness of the track and avoid any unnecessary stress on the William Cook Defence double-pinned tracks. It also increases the ease and maintenance of the tracks to get them off.

http://tanknutdave.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank/

 

[satishkumarcsc]

I would say that the Challenger 2 is the best western tank right now. The T 14 Armata is a generation ahead. Yet to see wether it is going to be a darn good tank or just a balloon filled with hot air.

 

[Penguin]

dude you're comparing with the best in the world. and let me tell you chillies aren't a match for amaranth. And yes Arjuns have taken direct hits from T 72 @Penguin . why do you think it's so controversial. Too heavy but too damn good.

Ok, so, I see you are not backing your claim up with specific cases that can be verified.

WHICH CURRENT TANKS HAVE BEEN HIT BY AND SURVIVED T-72 125MM Smoothbore GUNFIRE FIRED IN ANGER? BECAUSE YOU CLAIM THAT IS THE ONLY STANDARD FOR DETERMINING ' COMBAT PROVEN' .
(that means also that any test firings are not permissable evidence)

I'm not against Arjun, but to claim it is the best in the world simply is silly.

 

[ptldM3]

Oh, so being hit directly by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile in one incident and by 70 RPGs in another incident, by 10-15 RPG7s and an RPG-2, or by IEDs doesn't count as combat? Not to mention scores of T-55/Type59 and T-72.

In these cases, Chally 2 and crews typically survived and where back into action right quickly.

25 March 2003: A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret, killing two crew members. The strike caused a fire that eventually led to an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be destroyed on operations

Challenger is relatively slow on paved roads, but off-road it is agile and not particularly slow. It's basic weight is little different from its German and American contemporaries or Merkava. The Challenger 2E shows it is not difficult to (re)fit the same 1500hp MTU Europack as used on LeClerc, should one wish to increase engine power.

As of 2013, the British Army has, at various events featuring the Challenger 2, begun to state the range of 550 km [rather than 450km] They have also publicly stated a maximum road speed of 59 km/h while equipped with 15 tons of additional modules, as compared to original 60km/h at base weight.

List me the tanks types that have survived being hit by anything better than a T-72 (and, incidentally, it does make a difference which T-72 version you are talking about) in specific incidents. Just so as to establish which tanks you would consider combat proven.

Certainly not Arjun, I would think.

No challenger or any tank has ever been hit with 70 RPGs, nor can any tank survive that kind of abuse, an RPG can penatrate close to a foot of steel and and most tanks have nowhere near a foot of armor in the rear or roof. Besides how rational does it sound that there would be 70+ RPGs concentrated in any small area? After the first 5-10 RPGs failed to penatrate what rational person would keep firing?


Of those supposed 70RPG hits not one hit the thin rear armor and caused the engine to burn? Not one hit the thin roof armor? Not one even hit the tracks disabling the tank? Do you actually think a tank can get hit with 70RPGs and make it back to base?

This is absurd, just like the monthly Hollywood BS claims churned out by the British in where SAS kills ISIS in some Rambo style manner.

The British will make Baghdad Bob blush with the propaganda they put out. From the Battle of Britain to Dessert Storm to "Iraqi Freedom" and Syria, the claims the British have put are laughable and shameful.

 

[Penguin]

No challenger or any tank has ever been hit with 70 RPGs, nor can any tank survive that kind of abuse, an RPG can penatrate close to a foot of steel and and most tanks have nowhere near a foot of armor in the rear or roof. Besides how rational does it sound that there would be 70+ RPGs in any small area?


Of those supposed 70RPG hits not one hit the thin rear armor and caused the engine to burn? Not one hit the thin roof armor? No one even hit the tracks disabling the tank? Do you actually think a tank can get hit with 70RPGs and make it back to base?

This is absurd, just like the monthly Hollywood BS claims churned out by the British in where SAS kills ISIS in some Rambo style manner.

The British will make Baghdad Bob blush with the propaganda they put out. From the Battle of Britain to Dessert Storm to "Iraqi Freedom" and Syria, the claims the British have put out laughable and shameful.

Not my claim. The editor of Defence Analysis, Francis Tusa, was quoted as having stated "Apaches are not heavily armoured and it takes just one rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) to bring one down. Compare that with one British Challenger near Basra which survived being hit by 70 RPGs."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2905817.stm

If there is a limited angle from which you can fire and you have only older rpg's (e.g. rpg-7) and face an Chally 2 from the frontal arc, you can keep firing and hitting without ever penetrating. RPG-29 managed to only penetrated lower front/forward belly of Chally 2 which was subsequently fitted with add-on passive armor to rectify that particular vulnerability.

Put differently, why do you assume that in this particular incident near Basra, the RPG shooters were in a position or positions to hit the Chally in vulnerable areas such as rear arc, top, or lower forward belly? It was stated nowhere that the tank was not immobilized via e.g. track damage. Alternatively, if it was in a blocking position and stood its ground, why would the tank want or have to move? Even if damaged, a tank is only lost if it cannot be recovered and put back to service in the field by e.g. ARV and field engineers/maintenance.

I don't see you having a problem with cases of Chally' s being hit 10-15-20 times and surviving. Why would it be any different for 70 times? Why bother even 10-20 unsuccesfull shots (as in NOT deadly tank full kill, irrecoverable, crew killed)? But you do not challenge those cases, do you, because you know they are accurate. Which basically kills your arguments against 70.

And, in relation to he actual discussion about what constitutes ' combat proven', hidden inside an urban area, an antiquated T55 might also mount a close-range ambush, sending an armour-piercing round into the side or rear of an opposing more modern tank.

This piece gives an impression of the fighting in the Basra area from the pov of British tankers. Esp. an incident in which a Chally got blinded by hits and the got itself stuck and had to be recovered by an ARV (at the end of the article)
http://www.military-history.org/articles/challenger-2-the-battle-for-basra.htm

 

[Penguin]

I'ld like to point out this post
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...14fddab30ab61999280e44&p=10399720&postcount=5

whih is from this thread elsewhere
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=491125

In relation to the number of 70 rpg rounds it is stated/considered
" There was a show on the Military Channel about Chobham [armor] which reported this story, but slightly differently - it said that the tank was hit by 70 rounds, including some RPGs. I presume that the rest were small-arms fire.

I'm a bit skeptical purely because I seriously doubt any of the insurrectionist groups operating in Iraq would ever have had 70 RPG rounds in one place. That's a lot of materiel to be carrying around. "

Hence, there is the possibility that in retelling this story ' 70 rounds, including some RPGs' became ' 70 RPG rounds' . If so, than this Basra incident is more in line with the other incidents where multiple RPGs where unsuccesfully fired at Challengers. But these incidents still are undisputed in terms of 10-20 RPG rounds having been fired.

As for the point that 70 rpg rounds is a lot of stuff to be carrying around, consider:
" In Afghanistan, Mujahideen guerrillas used RPG-7s to destroy Soviet vehicles. To assure a kill, two to four RPG shooters would be assigned to each vehicle. Each armor-vehicle hunter-killer teams can have as many as 15 RPG."
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-propelled_grenade#Tactics
source ref: https://books.google.nl/books?id=5NIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Afghanistan)+have+adopting+tactics+that+included+forming+armor-vehicle+hunter-killer+teams&source=bl&ots=_CXmpN8osA&sig=TkmMa1Ls66uEMZF0q4_XlRj8jW4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VgkeT4mcAoPtrAeu86XMDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Afghanistan) have adopting tactics that included forming armor-vehicle hunter-killer teams&f=false

This sound much in line with the number of RPGs being fired at individual Challenger tanks.

Here yet another variation on the 70 RPGs:
" espite the lack of proper defence, Challenger 2s were perfectly safe from RPGs. One was hit by 14 RPGs and a MILAN ATGM but the only damage recorded was the sighting system. After the zone was secured it was repaired and back into action in a few hours. Another was 70 hits (mostly RPGs) as impacts were counted after. In August 2006 in al-Amarah, a RPG-29 (double tandem charge) hit the ERA underside the driver compartment, which was injured as two others in the crew but was able to steer the tank out of harm\’s way. Reports helped to upgrade the underbelly protection with a Dorchester block armour. Post-2007 “Streetfighter” Upgrades included add-on armour from Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and BAR, new side skirts. Challenger 2 TES (Theatre Entry Standard) are all capable of urban warfare."
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/UK/FV4034_Challenger-2.php

RPG gunners traditionally carry 3 spare rounds. A two man team can carry 2 launchers (with a ready round in the launcher) plus 2 x3 reloads. Total 8 rounds (10 if 4 spares are carried each, or 12, see picks below). 70 rounds could be covered by max 9 teams in an ambush situation, or fewer teams but with a stack of spare rounds in place, or carrying more.