• Russia finally fully unveils their newest generation of mechanized armoured vehicles
    172 replies, posted
When people talk about the country having or not having money for tanks, they don't realize that Russia doesn't really need anything to replace their jets and tanks. They are one of the two MAD main players. The know their army won't ever clash with the USA, just like USA knows that theirs won't clash with Russia itself. Nobody is going to bring a tank, or a jet fighter, to a nuclear fight. The point of Russia's and America's conventional armies shifted from defence of the country to power projection, political dickwaving and occasionally kicking a some middle eastern shithole or a balkanized slavistatn into a curl. It's why F-35 seems so underwhelming to people. It's why Armata isn't a ground breaking superiority weapon, but looks some sort of cheap and simple. It's pointless to throw massive amounts of money at weapons which won't get a word at war that's not going to happen, when all the actual potential conflicts they might partake in will be low intensity slop which countries like USA and Russia can as much as conceal as proxy conflict. Russia is probably going to adapt some volume of Armata tanks, and then peddle many more to their friends for profit and power projection (I bet Assad would be fucking glad for them). [editline]6th May 2015[/editline] USA's army isn't so massive and mighty and well equipped because the chain of command genuinely fears for the nation's security. It's because the weapon production lobby there is one of the most powerful ones. There's massive cashflow through the USA thanks to the weapons they produce for themselves. The numbers it puts on the paper look great for the economy, too. [editline]6th May 2015[/editline] Which country is on the actual bleeding edge of conventional arms development, mainly when it comes to ground forces? Israel. Israel is in constant threat of armed conflict (regardless of if it's their fault or not). They are surrounded by more or less hostile nations. They also have the resources to pump into weapon development, and they keep producing some of the finest vehicles, weapons, munitions, you name it. They are the one's who build weapons and train their armies for actual combat. Russia and the USA are just pissing in the wind, each for their own reasons. But don't anymore expect either to come up with ULTRA SUPER DOMINATION JET or MEGA ULTRA MECHA ARMOUR ROBOT simply because dedicating significant amounts of resources to either is a waste of money for both. USA does it mostly because wasting money is the point. Russia probably primarily arms itself well in sake of keeping itself stable and safe from itself via a little bit of good, old fashioned iron fist.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47669796] USA's army isn't so massive and mighty and well equipped because the chain of command genuinely fears for the nation's security. It's because the weapon production lobby there is one of the most powerful ones. There's massive cashflow through the USA thanks to the weapons they produce for themselves. [b]The numbers it puts on the paper look great for the economy, too.[/b] [/QUOTE] One of the top 5 aims for the 2020 british army restructure was to create jobs.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47658965]Unless you are a scout vehicle, being high profile is generally not considered to be desirable. The taller you are, the easier to you are to spot, and the larger target you present. The massive slant on the turret in the artistic rendition of the tank is there because extreme slant angles supplement your armor. If a round hits a vertical wall, it has little choice but to punch straight through it, but with sufficient slant angle, you can present the round with an alternative and redirect the round away from the tank. A round that would have penetrated, suddenly only glances off the armor. You go from a potential kill shot, to basically no damage. The turret in particular is considered an important component because it generally contains at least a portion of your magazine (generally a bad time if a round hits your ammunition storage.) and, since it houses all the dangerous bits of the tank with the least ability to be armored, it is a prime target in general if you can't attack from the top or the rear. (both areas with limited armor and ability to resist attack.) Angles are massively important in tank combat. It may be that they have an excellent active kill system. Such systems would detect incoming rounds and missiles and destroy them with a projectile of its own. It would be odd to rely on such a system so heavily though.[/QUOTE] Wasn't there actually a discussion a couple years ago, that new composite ceramic materials actual perform better when less slanted and that future thanks might have a relatively "angular" outer hull with slanted areas underneath?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47669796]Russia probably primarily arms itself well in sake of keeping itself stable and safe from itself via a little bit of good, old fashioned iron fist.[/QUOTE] Nah, military has no bearing on political climate in here. The only time the majority of non-mobilized folks actually interacts or even sees the armed forces are parades. The point is pretty similar to US one, the difference being one is "wasting" (recycling more or less) money, the other wastes industrial power to keep it spinning, as otherwise it's entirely unoccupied. Huge portions of the biggest engineering plants are entirely dedicated to produce shit for the army, and you can't keep pumping out ancient stuff and spare parts for it - the amount of resources required to keep it going will only raise, while the intellectual capacity of various design bureaus and other institutions will decay. And you obviously can't just close them down or switch production - what will you do with all the people who work there? And replace with what? So that's where modernization comes in - everyone involved wins. At least, no one loses.
im glad my grandmothers pension money is spent on a jeep with missiles on it 10/10 rubles
[QUOTE=gudman;47669918]So that's where modernization comes in - everyone involved wins. At least, no one loses.[/QUOTE] Except any industrial sector that isn't concrete industry.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47669796]When people talk about the country having or not having money for tanks, they don't realize that Russia doesn't really need anything to replace their jets and tanks. They are one of the two MAD main players. The know their army won't ever clash with the USA, just like USA knows that theirs won't clash with Russia itself. Nobody is going to bring a tank, or a jet fighter, to a nuclear fight.[/QUOTE] Two countries each with nuclear weapons aren't immune from war with each other. Why would either party initiate MAD by launching a nuclear first-strike upon a declaration of war? Nuclear weapons serve to neutralize opposing nuclear weapons, not necessarily the conventional forces of a rival nuclear power.
[QUOTE=gufu;47669946]Except any industrial sector that isn't concrete industry.[/QUOTE] No one [b]involved[/b] in military industrial complex. Everyone else is... who cares, not our government. Why would they.
Geez, why do the US and Russia have to fight. Can you imagine a M1 and a Armata doing exercises together? Now that shit makes me moist.
[QUOTE=DJrorok;47670161]Geez, why do the US and Russia have to fight. Can you imagine a M1 and a Armata doing exercises together? Now that shit makes me moist.[/QUOTE] There used to be some tank olympics thing. The whole crimea thing stopped that happening though.
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;47669950]Two countries each with nuclear weapons aren't immune from war with each other. Why would either party initiate MAD by launching a nuclear first-strike upon a declaration of war? Nuclear weapons serve to neutralize opposing nuclear weapons, not necessarily the conventional forces of a rival nuclear power.[/QUOTE] How exactly are you expecting the two countries with oceans between them to perform conventional warfare against each other? A single nuclear missile would wipe a carrier group off the map, and if that happens near the sovereign waters of the defending country, nobody can really complain. A submarine fleet can patrol the ocean without becoming detectable from anywhere but close proximity for months, and sink any individual cargo ships. Seriously, the age of superpowers warring conventionally is gone. It's not politically nor logistically feasible.
I think i'd rather be first one to post this one here but this could lead to a heaten debate of polar opposite opinions. Soo one of tanks stoped on red square during reharsal, headlines go: [url]https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/russias-newest-tank-stalls-during-parade-rehearsal-092701355.html[/url] [url]http://hosted2.ap.org/txdam/633c954da7d9434f9de7ed15f38075aa/Article_2015-05-07-EU--Russia-New%20Tank/id-42e4137d671c4539a813a1659908814c[/url] Officials state that it was a planned stop since a tow truck aproached tank but did not tow it, and tank left on it's own 15 minutes later. Soo it's either A) a planned operation to test responce of evac incase of malfunction B) fault of crew member or tank engine What you guys think? As for my personal opinion, this is what reharsal is for, soo whatever it was, it's good that it is happening now rather than on parade.
It's obvious that was some kind of technical problem. I guess this kind of shit tend to happen with new equipment, kinda sucks this happened publicly though.
Well, newly developed equipment, especially complex weapon systems like tanks or warplanes, tend to have a number of malfunctions early on. To use a US example: The F16 fighter platform, when it first arrived, was nicknamed the "lawn dart" because of its tendency to flame out and crash. Also, my dad told me that when he was in the reserves and the UH-60 first came out, the pilots liked to put their Blackhawk patches on upside down. No prizes for guessing why.
snip late, sorry
[QUOTE=StrykerE;47679214] aaaand something late [/QUOTE] I swear to god, some people just lazy beyond excuse. To add up to this... [I]timed[/I] report. I would like to point out that tank merely [B]stoped[/B], not, like there was smoke coming out of it or something. After driver was replaced by mechanic from UralVagonZavod tank left on it's own. Also there was no "laughter" after annoucer said evac was planned part, this is bullshit.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;47676908]Well, newly developed equipment, especially complex weapon systems like tanks or warplanes, tend to have a number of malfunctions early on. To use a US example: The F16 fighter platform, when it first arrived, was nicknamed the "lawn dart" because of its tendency to flame out and crash. Also, my dad told me that when he was in the reserves and the UH-60 first came out, the pilots liked to put their Blackhawk patches on upside down. No prizes for guessing why.[/QUOTE] Let's not forget the V22's infamous reputation during development [IMG]http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10040/upfile/201505/20150506161309_2.jpg[/IMG] Though apparently it has one of the best safety records of rotor aircraft when put in service. [URL]http://breakingdefense.com/2011/08/the-v-22-safer-than-helos-effective-worth-buying/[/URL] [url]http://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141589693/the-osprey-good-reviews-but-a-costly-program[/url]
Too bad MBTs have no real use in modern combat anymore due to the age of stealth, missiles, and air superiority. Shit, an AT-4 missile can penetrate up to 400mm of armor at the cost of 1.4K per launch.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;47679793]Too bad MBTs have no real use in modern combat anymore due to the age of stealth, missiles, and air superiority. Shit, an AT-4 missile can penetrate up to 400mm of armor at the cost of 1.4K per launch.[/QUOTE] 400mms isnt all that much for a HEAT warhead actually the front glacis of most modern MBTs is effectively over a meter thick to HEAT rounds thanks to composite armor and ERA [editline]7th May 2015[/editline] and just because we havent engaged in conventional large scale combat in a while doesn't mean we wont ever again, so it's pretty stupid to say that MBTs are no longer relevant
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47679870]400mms isnt all that much for a HEAT warhead actually the front glacis of most modern MBTs is effectively over a meter thick to HEAT rounds thanks to composite armor and ERA [editline]7th May 2015[/editline] and just because we havent engaged in conventional large scale combat in a while doesn't mean we wont ever again, so it's pretty stupid to say that MBTs are no longer relevant[/QUOTE] If you want to step up even more, a javelin missile was made specifically for that and has two charges, one to get around the ERA armor and the second to deploy a much bigger charge into the main armor, not to mention it can strike the top of the tank where there's even less armor.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;47679919]If you want to step up even more, a javelin missile was made specifically for that and has two charges, ome to get around the ERA armor and the second to deploy a much bigger charge into the main armor, not to mention it can strike the top of the tank where there's even less armor.[/QUOTE] right and it costs 55,000x as much per round than an AT-4, and requires a launcher that literally costs more than some houses missiles and rockets capable of destroying tanks have existed for nearly a century, how does that invalidate the MBT?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47679957]right and it costs 55,000x as much per round than an AT-4, and requires a launcher that literally costs more than some houses missiles and rockets capable of destroying tanks have existed for nearly a century, how does that invalidate the MBT?[/QUOTE] because due to more and more accurate and longer distance munitions, a rocket can easily track and hit a tank from a couple of miles away, with the tank have little to no way to protect it's self. MBTs were great before because the tank could almost always see it's target, now munitions have been so advance that now tanks are hit without knowing where it hit them. That tech is getting smaller and much more mobile/reliable. Same reason why bombers in the later stages of WWII were strategic bombers that can stay far away from any threat while still hitting their targets. But guided missiles became a common thing, so we developed stealth technology to counteract it. MBTs atm have literally no stealth and still are a massive target to said missiles in an modern war.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;47680016]because due to more and more accurate and longer distance munitions, a rocket can easily track and hit a tank from a couple of miles away, with the tank have little to no way to protect it's self. MBTs were great before because the tank could almost always see it's target, now munitions have been so advance that now tanks are hit without knowing where it hit them. That tech is getting smaller and much more mobile/reliable. Same reason why bombers in the later stages of WWII were strategic bombers that can stay far away from any threat while still hitting their targets. But guided missiles became a common thing, so we developed stealth technology to counteract it. MBTs atm have literally no stealth and still are a massive target to said missiles in an modern war.[/QUOTE] Armata does have active hard kill countermeasures like practically all tanks of the recent generation. It's hard to judge it's combat effectiveness because none of these ever made it to combat yet and all of these are highly confidential, but some of the projects (American, Israeli, Germans have their thing as well) report like 95% success at defeating rocket propelled projectiles (they are really slow (yes, including the jet fighter launched ones)). If these active protection systems progress enough, MBTs might become relevant again and the only way of killing an MBT (aside of wasting all it's countermeasures) might be another MBT with a very high velocity kinetic penetrator.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.