New Russian MBT ARMATA

[Vassnti]

The Armata MBT is stealth and has active protection.

Apache longbow and hellfire rockets with radar seekerhead are now obsolete.

Our tanks can drive to whole of europe with ease.

Though i hear they have a slight problem with rough terrain, those cobbles in Красная площадь are murder, but as soon as you get them started again im sure the invasion will be easy.

 

[LordTyrannus]

Though i hear they have a slight problem with rough terrain, those cobbles in Красная площадь are murder, but as soon as you get them started again im sure the invasion will be easy.

View attachment 221102

Armata has automatic gear box with electronics.

driver is used to drive other vehicles and did not know how to drive. After they understood what happened tank drives away without problems.

video:

ARMATA IS SUPERIOR.

 

[FlyCheatter]

 

[Penguin]

look what germans offer their customers...35 years old tech with idiotic add on armor.

Meh.... well, how about this ... their [German] 1970 basic vehicle is still good enough so that it can be kept up to date and relevant today, whereas yours ..... keeps loosing its turret in combat.

Look at this abomination of tank building. It looks like the failed "Maus" tank from porsche in ww2.

Need glasses? Imho T-14 is much more like Maus than Leo2A7+
+
Unlike this brilliant soviet invention?

building +70 tons tanks with diesel engine and going into war with Oil gigant Russia. roflmao
Our tanks can drive to whole of europe with ease.

M1A2 is 62000kg
M1A2 SEPv2 is 63100kg (The often quoted 69.5 tons is US/Short tons = 63.1 metric tons)
M1A2SEP v2 with TUSK-2 weight increase to 65,000-67,000kg
Leo2A7+ is 67500kg.

The weight of the T-90MS has increased by 1,500 kg, compared to the basic model of the T-90, to reach 48 tons, the same as that of T-14 Armata.

So, in sum, 70+ tons is inaccurate (if still more than 48 tons but, hey, bigger tanks tend to also be heavier).

Anything wrong with a diesel engine? Sure get better mileage than a gasturbine! Which is why Armata also uses a diesel. Both Leo2 and Armate have 1500hp diesels.

Who is going to war with whom, anyway?

Your tanks can drive through Europe? What, you mean all 20+ Armata's?

On July 10, 2008 the Russian government announced that the Russian armed forces would start receiving new-generation tanks superior to the T-90 main battle tank after 2010. "The T-90 MBT will be the backbone of the armored units until 2025. T-72's and T-80's will not be modernized and will be eventually replaced by new-generation tanks, which will start entering service after 2010", a news conference with Sergei Mayev, head of the Federal Service for Defence Contracts.
T-95 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From 2015 to 2020 the Russian army plans to acquire 2,300 T-14s
T-14 Armata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know today that Russia is using some 400 T-72B3 (i.e. modernized T72s) and some 550 T-90s, and a handfull of Armata's. The rest is older and/or unmodernized.
List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[phantomrush]

We know today that Russia is using some 400 T-72B3 (i.e. modernized T72s) and some 550 T-90s, and a handfull of Armata's. The rest is older and/or unmodernized.
List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2015, it was received 600 T-72B3, another 400 for the year 2014.
Total of about 1,000 tanks. Total in the Armed Forces 2,000 tanks currently in the armed forces. On storage likely more than 10,000.

 

[Penguin]

In 2015, it was received 600 T-72B3, another 400 for the year 2014.
Total of about 1,000 tanks. Total in the Armed Forces 2,000 tanks currently in the armed forces. On storage likely more than 10,000.

Oh, there are plenty tanks in reserve/storage, I know. Just looking at modern tanks, that could survive today's battlefield. Interestingly though, it seems T-72B3 will become the mainstay of Russian armored forces ;-)

 

[phantomrush]

Oh, there are plenty tanks in reserve/storage, I know. Just looking at modern tanks, that could survive today's battlefield. Interestingly though, it seems T-72B3 will become the mainstay of Russian armored forces ;-)

As far as contractual UVZ, all T-90A will be upgraded.
It has 500 T-90 tanks. Given the number of new armored divisions, the total number of tanks will be in 2500.
Not for a long period. T-72B3 replaced by T-90cm, just in Omsk is a repair and modernization of the T-80U. The approximate ratio is to be until 2020.
500 T-90 "Breakthrough-3"
500 T-14
two divisions of T-80U (about 300 tanks)
The rest of the T-72B3.

Meh.... well, how about this ... their [German] 1970 basic vehicle is still good enough so that it can be kept up to date and relevant today, whereas yours ..... keeps loosing its turret in combat.

This is such nonsense.
T-72 tank is the most warring.
Leopard never fought.
m1 as easily loses its tower.

Maybe all the tanks to explode, not because T-72 bad? Have you thought about this?
Each tank is about 50 kg of explosives. It does not matter, it is made in the USSR, the United States or Germany. They explode. Just Leopard never fought

 

[Penguin]

This is such nonsense.

Really? It is a consequence of the autoloader down in the hull.

T-72 tank is the most warring. Leopard never fought.

It doesn't matter if T-72 has seen more combat than Leo2, which was used e.g. in Afghanistan, if in that combat it got clobbered.

m1 as easily loses its tower.

No, it typically doesn't. Because if its main ammu supply explodes, the force goes outside the vehicle. It is nog for nothing that T-90MS has also adopted the bustle storage this way.

Maybe all the tanks to explode, not because T-72 bad? Have you thought about this? Each tank is about 50 kg of explosives. It does not matter, it is made in the USSR, the United States or Germany. They explode.

Any tank can be killed. So? That does not negate what Ive stated about T-72. 50kg seems a little, by the way.

Just Leopard never fought

If I were trying to be clever, I'ld say that's because opponents ran at first sight. But seriously, it got IEDs twice or so in Afghanistan. And combat use doesn't make a tank better or worse.

 

[phantomrush]

It doesn't matter if T-72 has seen more combat than Leo2, which was used e.g. in Afghanistan, if in that combat it got clobbered.

I do not want to argue. This is silly. You do not even know what you are talking about. In Abrams in the housing as is BC, and side armor of Abrams' much thinner than the T-72.

50kg seems a little, by the way.

Anti-tank mine is 7-10 kg of explosives. ТМ-57

 

[Penguin]

I do not want to argue. This is silly. You do not even know what you are talking about. In Abrams in the housing as is BC, and side armor of Abrams' much thinner than the T-72.

You have no idea what I do and do not know. We were discussing the vulberability of the onboard autoloader: any penetration of the hull will likely set off the ammunition. In the Abrams, the munition is in a compartment seperated by armor door from the crew and covered by blow-out panels, which come off before there is enough explosive force to destroy these armored doors, venting the explosion outward. There are only very few ready rounds in the crew compartment and these are away from the front.

Anti-tank mine is 7-10 kg of explosives. ТМ-57

You were unclear about what you meant. I took 50kg explosives to refer to onboard ammunitions. What does the 50kg refer to?

Abrams

Challenger

Leopard 2

Le Clerc

T-64/80

T-72/90

 

[Penguin]

T-90MS (note the bustle)

 

[Penguin]

Why would Armata have complete seperation of crew compartment and compartment where the ammunition is?

 

[phantomrush]

Why would Armata have complete seperation of crew compartment and compartment where the ammunition is?

Excuse me, but how do you imagine the work of the crew in the same BW with automatic loader on a 152mm gun? Taking into account the use of a liquid powder?
You know that at the Armata it very dangerous for people? In addition, the isolated crew compartment, allows the use of chemical fire extinguishing system. According to the type that stands on submarines. You are confusing cause and effect.

The explosion Ammunition can only save armor like Battleship. In any other case we get to fly tower.

And do not forget after a while will be 2 people in the tank.
The tank commander and driver.

Finish on this.

 

[Penguin]

Excuse me, but how do you imagine the work of the crew in the same BW with automatic loader on a 152mm gun? Taking into account the use of a liquid powder?
You know that at the Armata it very dangerous for people? In addition, the isolated crew compartment, allows the use of chemical fire extinguishing system. According to the type that stands on submarines. You are confusing cause and effect.

The explosion Ammunition can only save armor like Battleship. In any other case we get to fly tower.

And do not forget after a while will be 2 people in the tank.
The tank commander and driver.

Finish on this.

See, so it is a crew protection issue to separate it. Which is precisely what is not done in T-72 etc.
Clearly, there exist a variety of ways in which a tank turret can get seperated from the hull, for any tank.
Clearly, that was not the point of contention and has not been the topic of discussion here.