How Would T-14 Armata Fair In Syria

[Davos]

What is the use of any tanks in close combat ? Tanks are like elephants used in ancient times . Beast from distance but heat on butter when u breached it's comfort zone.

G'day Mate

Tanks or Armoured Vehicle can be and did use in urban warfare, more specifically close quarter combat (CQC). But when used in CQC, tank will not be used alone, but also with accompanied infantry, artillery, air support and combat engineer.

Tank were mainly used to provide cover for dismounted infantry, provided them with "safe haven" for infantry travelling to and from any building. Also, being a decentralized warfare. The need of rapid deployment and concentration of fire power also put into the equation on whether or not tank were suitable for urban warfare.

While the main gun can be trained and guided by the infantry unit on ground to eliminate hot spot, or to dilute enemy concentration or hardened defence (such as gun or machine gun emplacement) while all those present a threat to the dismounted infantry.

Probably the most important role for armoured vehicle for dismounted infantry is the ability to command and direct the infantry to where they want to or need to go. You can do so by staying inside a tank enjoying the protection from small arms or even RPG fire from battlefield, making the on site commander ample time and more relaxing environment to make decision, compare to an urban battle without armoured support. Commander either have to be on the front line, risking being shot to command their troop or they will have to stay back and losing the situational awareness.

With that, however, all that comes with a price. Which it armoured vehicle themselves have to be protected by infantry and engineer, which puts burden to their task, but when you weight in the situation whether or not should armoured vehicle should be presented in urban combat. Then my answer will be for a efficient crew, having armoured vehicle out weight any disadvantage then not having them.

Davos

 

[Argon Prime]

G'day Mate

Tanks or Armoured Vehicle can be and did use in urban warfare, more specifically close quarter combat (CQC). But when used in CQC, tank will not be used alone, but also with accompanied infantry, artillery, air support and combat engineer.

Tank were mainly used to provide cover for dismounted infantry, provided them with "safe haven" for infantry travelling to and from any building. Also, being a decentralized warfare. The need of rapid deployment and concentration of fire power also put into the equation on whether or not tank were suitable for urban warfare.

While the main gun can be trained and guided by the infantry unit on ground to eliminate hot spot, or to dilute enemy concentration or hardened defence (such as gun or machine gun emplacement) while all those present a threat to the dismounted infantry.

Probably the most important role for armoured vehicle for dismounted infantry is the ability to command and direct the infantry to where they want to or need to go. You can do so by staying inside a tank enjoying the protection from small arms or even RPG fire from battlefield, making the on site commander ample time and more relaxing environment to make decision, compare to an urban battle without armoured support. Commander either have to be on the front line, risking being shot to command their troop or they will have to stay back and losing the situational awareness.

With that, however, all that comes with a price. Which it armoured vehicle themselves have to be protected by infantry and engineer, which puts burden to their task, but when you weight in the situation whether or not should armoured vehicle should be presented in urban combat. Then my answer will be for a efficient crew, having armoured vehicle out weight any disadvantage then not having them.

Davos

The biggest problem associated with deploying armor in an urban setting is that the roofs,which is generally lightly armored, getting totally exposed to RPG/ATGM crews,holed up in top floors,from where they can bring down accurate fire on the exposed roofs with relative impunity,unless of course the tanks are supported by Gunships and Urban tank support vehicles like the BMPT Terminator.

 

[Kamil_baku]

Hypothetical speaking if 8 to 16 T-14 was sent to Syria to fight near the front how do you think they would do?


It would be a perfect opportunity for Russia to showcase it's new gen tank and it's abilities and to get serious interest for export.


from what I have seen and heard nothing in Syria right now can knock the T-14 out be it Metis-M,Konkurs,Kornet,TOW,HJ-8, assumuing it's APS,ERA, and armor is good as they say.

this is the best opportunity for Russia to show it's might and it's weapons just like NATO did in Libya they can make $$ and win a major propaganda victory.

It is SOuth Korean hard kill system for their tank, not Russian.. you can understand from the languages too..

 

[FlyCheatter]

Well, Armata is kinda in preservice still (not to come into full service next 2 years I guess), just normal t-90s, may be MS's:
uvz.ru/presscenter/video/502

 

[C130]

It is SOuth Korean hard kill system for their tank, not Russian.. you can understand from the languages too..

source?

 

[FlyCheatter]

Well, it's Russian (Soviet Union) who only invented the "Arena" back in late 80th (now it's derevative to that)

more vid for export version on "Arena-E":

 

[Davos]

The biggest problem associated with deploying armor in an urban setting is that the roofs,which is generally lightly armored, getting totally exposed to RPG/ATGM crews,holed up in top floors,from where they can bring down accurate fire on the exposed roofs with relative impunity,unless of course the tanks are supported by Gunships and Urban tank support vehicles like the BMPT Terminator.

G'day mate

To most tank rat, IED on the ground is the biggest problem. The top armour is still thicker than the belly armour, or more possibly, the same thickness, but with a unique way a tank built, everywhere near your own tank is a blind spot.

I can still scan threat on top of me if I was going thru a narrow street. But vision is extreme low if you were to run over something, and unless you can spot the object when they are on the road or on the side of the road 5 to 10 kms ahead, virtually if it was next to you, you cannot see them.

Another reason threat from the ground is greater than the threat on roof top is that you can only fire in a direct line (discounting indirect/plunging fire from mortar or artillery piece) but you can simply leave a bomb and half bury it on the ground and still the tanker running over it will be none the wiser.

Davos

 

[Oldman1]

What is the use of any tanks in close combat ? Tanks are like elephants used in ancient times . Beast from distance but heat on butter when u breached it's comfort zone.

Thats almost like saying why we should have aircraft in the sky when surface to air missiles make it obsolete? Tanks still have its uses and can be effective fighting in urban conflict. Iraq is a good example used by U.S. forces.

 

[Godman]

The t-14 Armata tank will not come alone if it ever comes to Syria

The Kurganets-25

Kurganets-25 family of armored combat vehicles includes two members of a new family of medium- armored vehicles designed to replace the BMP-2 and MT-LB platforms in mechanized formations of the Russian army. Like their predecessors, the new vehicles have amphibious capability, enabling uninterrupted mobility across rivers. The Kurganets is manufactured by Kurganmashzavod, the plant that produced the previous generations of BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3 vehicles.





The new platform is significantly heavier and larger than its predecessors, primarily due to the increased level of protection it offers. TheRussians have displayed two variants of the Kurganets – the armored infantry fighting vehicle (Object 695) and the armored personnel carrier (Object 693). The Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle is currently undergoing trials in the Russian army, and mass production is expected to start in 2016. Following is an overview of the different elements visible on the vehicles shown in the May 9th parade in Moscow.

Both vehicles share the same hull, suspension and drive train powered by a 800 hp diesel engine, enabling mobility, as stated, both on land and in water. Their steel tracks are fitted with rubber pads (6), designed to reduce ground pressure and damage to roads, while retaining the capability of travelling at high speeds. Both can reach speeds of up to 80 km/h on land, and 10 km/h in water. When travelling in water the vehicle deploys its wave breaker (5) and water jets (7) for forward movement and steering.

The main difference between the two variants is the turret and active protection systems used. The thick armor covering (18) seen on both sides of the vehicle is designed to provide armor protection while retaining the floating capability necessary to enable the amphibious operation.

Due to the wide interest in the new Russian armored vehicles we are opening our analysis to all readers. This kind of analysis is regularly provided to subscribers on regular basis. You are invited tojoin our Gold membership today.

The Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle is equipped with the KBP EPOCH turret (1), introduced as standard in all recent AFVs, such as the Armata T-15, Boomerang and Kurganets-25. This unmanned turret carries the 2A42 30mm cannon (15) with 500 rounds, a PKT 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun (16), four Kornet-EM guided missiles (two on each side – 13), two electro-optical target acquisition and missile guidance systems (17), and a meteorological mast (14). Also an array of sensors (9) and counter-measures, part of the vehicle’s active protection system ‘soft kill’ elements (10).

The hull also mounts 16 large tubes and four sensors (11) associated with the Afghanit ‘hard kill’ active protection system. A LED spotlight (4) located at the turret’s front end could also be part of the APS, acting as a decoy against 2nd-generation anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM).

The Kurganets-25 is equipped with several cameras, covering a full 360 degrees (3). Some of these cameras are stacked to cover wide fields of view. Others are tucked into the armor. For example, the side-looking cameras required special adaptation of the armor to clear their fields of view (8).

Unlike Russia’s previous armored personnel carriers, the Kurganets-25 lacks firing ports or personal hatches which would enable the infantry team to fight from within the vehicle. Part of the reasons for that could be the APS that fires automatically against incoming threats, creating flash and blast that could incapacitate exposed personnel nearby. Similar installations used on Israeli Merkava Mk4 tanks were equipped with blast deflectors, protecting the tank commander that could be exposed in his cupola.

Both variants are operated by crews of three. The infantry fighting vehicle is designed to carry six infantrymen. The armored personnel carrier (APC) variant can carry eight.

The APC carries a smaller remotely-operated turret (2), mounting a single 12.7 mm heavy machine gun. The vehicle retains the same active protection system ‘ring’ used on the BMP, but does not include the heavier Afghanit the BMP uses. Instead, it’s infra-red spotlight (4) is mounted at a higher level, and can serve both as a forward looking counter-measure and a signalling element, displaying numerical symbols backward, thus enabling communications with the infantry squad or other vehicles without relying on radio communications (similar to using flags). If coupled to the laser warning system on the vehicle, such a device could act as an unaided ‘blue force identification’ mechanism, responding to laser signals with a coded message. It would probably operate in visible and thermal bands, enabling both day and night operation.

Kurganets-25 armored infantry fighting vehicle (BMP – Object 695). The Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle is currently undergoing trials in the Russian army and mass production is expected to start in 2016. Photo: Vitaly Kuzmin

A close up view of the KBP EPOCH remotely operated turret – on the Object 695 Kurganets-25. Photo: Vitaly Kuzmin.

Another view of the EPOCH turret, showing the active protection (soft-kill) elements and IR projector. Photo: Vitaly Kuzmin

A rear view of Kurganets 25 BMP (Object 695) showing the access ramp, integrated door and firing hatch. Two covered exhausts of the waterjets are also visible. Also visible are the four rear-looking launchers of the Afghanit hard-kill APS and their associated sensors on the two edges. The soft kill elements of the APS are visible on the turret’s rear edges. Photo: Vitaly Kuzmin

Kurganets-25 BMP Object 695 – right side view. Photo: Vitaly Kuzmin

Kurganets-25 BTR (Object 693) troop carrier. This variant carries a troop of eight soldiers, three crew members.It is armed with a protected remotely operated turret mounting 12.7mm heavy machine gun. Photo: Vitaly Kuzmin.

 

[Godman]

There is also the Bumerang

 

[Godman]

And after that comes the T-15 Armata Heavy IFV the nightmare of any RPG wielding terrorist

 

[Penguin]

WHat is the max elevation / depression of the cannon and other weapons of the Epoch turret?