Russia’s new Armata tank on Army 2015 shopping list. - Polidicks

T-14 is to T-26 as Ukraine Crisis is to Spanish Civil War.

[QUOTE=download;47188286]I have trouble believing the new tank can destroy incoming projectiles with any serious reliability. There is a reason most CIWS platforms are multi-barrelled and have fire rates in 5000 rounds/minute range.[/QUOTE] This tank is supposedly equipped with a phased array radar.

still waiting for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER"]MARAUDER[/URL]-equipped tanks

[QUOTE=isreal?;47190459]This tank is supposedly equipped with a phased array radar.[/QUOTE] Which really won't help because you either need a ridiculous degree of accuracy (try less than 0.1MOA, you're only looking at a target ~150mm across at a range of several KM) or a massive volume of fire to make up for lack of accuracy (i.e. ever CIWS in use today). The Phased Array Radar might be for ground target tracking. I know for a few years several militaries have been using man-portable PAR units for tracking round targets like people and vehicles out to several tens of KM over flat ground (i.e. defending bases and such). I may very well be used in a similar role. [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] It might also be use in a system similar to the Israeli [I]Trophy[/I] system. That also uses PAR.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;47190503]still waiting for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER"]MARAUDER[/URL]-equipped tanks[/QUOTE] Holy crap that project sounds futuristic. I wonder what progress they've made within the 21 years since its classification. Or if it's been scrapped.

[QUOTE=booster;47190553]Holy crap that project sounds futuristic. I wonder what progress they've made within the 21 years since its classification. Or if it's been scrapped.[/QUOTE] according to the report it seemed effective, but probably problems with miniaturization and power draw make it kinda useless compared to chemical explosives

Why don't they put a twin cannons and call it the mammoth tank.

How the hell do you beta-test a tank Stop using computer language to describe other stuff. Its in development [editline]22nd February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47188846]Wheres our new Abrams variant?[/QUOTE] To Russia tanks follow the same path as aircraft in the US, they gota build a lot of them and have a new one every 5 years that can do everything. The Abrams was like the first true MBT we built in 25 years or so, I doubt the army is going to start demanding a new tank until its clear the Abrams is done

Abrams M1A2 is more than sufficient for current needs of US army.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;47190503]still waiting for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER"]MARAUDER[/URL]-equipped tanks[/QUOTE] Being someone in the know with all the classified shit the US is developing would be fascinating.

Isn't a large portion of the Russian military still using very outdated equitment ?

[QUOTE=Grimhound;47186635][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVszNrz6dQ[/media][/QUOTE] i forgot about this video. it's so creepy it's fascinating. like the european/american theatre, the american and british gear that the 'enemy' forces are using

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47191684]i forgot about this video. it's so creepy it's fascinating. like the european/american theatre, the american and british gear that the 'enemy' forces are using[/QUOTE] Who's even making those, it's so thoroughly ridiculous.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;47191612]Isn't a large portion of the Russian military still using very outdated equitment ?[/QUOTE] Depends. We have like three large detachments (armies) that are considered a priority - the ones that can be expected to engage in combat if something happens. They're on higher readiness status, they are the first to rearm, obviously. Those are pretty modern. Everything else is territorial detachments, AA brigades, strategic missile commands and the like - it's not like they [b]need[/b] to have the most modern stuff there is, they won't get to fight anything unless something the scale of world war happens.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;47186095][video=youtube;PsAePLKmBfY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsAePLKmBfY[/video][/QUOTE] Say whatever you like about Russians, they make the sexiest motherfucking tanks.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;47190939]Abrams M1A2 is more than sufficient for current needs of US army.[/QUOTE] Though with the current trend of tanks moving towards powerful diesels to increase range at a slight cost of speed will make the army consider changing out the abrams's rediculous gas turbine engine which caused a ton of problems in Iraq with its ludicris consumption Diesel engines have gotten good enough that they can compete with the older turbines with the added range bonus and simplicity. Once the Russians switch I think its only like the us and Britain that still use turbines, other NATO countries have the German leopard tanks

It seems tank design all look the same now: The Leopard, Challenger 2, Abrams, Type-10, Type-98 and now the Armata.

[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;47194198]It seems tank design all look the same now: The Leopard, Challenger 2, Abrams, Type-10, Type-98 and now the Armata.[/QUOTE] Could have something to do with maximizing armor efficiency, plating angles, hardware positioning and such. Why go for tacticool when it's invariably better to go tactical?

[QUOTE=Sableye;47194106] Once the Russians switch I think its only like the us and Britain that still use turbines, other NATO countries have the German leopard tanks[/QUOTE] The sound of 48L V12 diesel engine is quite amazing

[QUOTE=Sableye;47194106]Though with the current trend of tanks moving towards powerful diesels to increase range at a slight cost of speed will make the army consider changing out the abrams's rediculous gas turbine engine which caused a ton of problems in Iraq with its ludicris consumption Diesel engines have gotten good enough that they can compete with the older turbines with the added range bonus and simplicity. Once the Russians switch I think its only like the us and Britain that still use turbines, other NATO countries have the German leopard tanks[/QUOTE] [quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams]General Dynamics has been working on a drop-in diesel engine to replace the gas turbine engine. It is smaller than the turbine, 14% cheaper to operate per mile, and has a four-fan cooling system which is to greatly reduce the tank's heat signature.[72] General Dynamics is offering the Tognum America/12V883 diesel engine with new Diehl 570P3 tracks. The engine represents advancements in diesel engine design since the Abrams was first designed, including a common rail fuel injector system where fuel is pressurized and atomized in the cylinder rather than mechanically sprayed. It also has greater torque, an altered nuclear, biological, and chemical protection system that operates independently of the engine, uses less fuel while idle, is quieter, and gives off significantly less heat and pollutants. Incorporating the diesel engine into the Abrams would decrease the operating cost of an armored brigade combat team by 14 percent per mile, increase its operating range from 205 miles to 300+ miles, and use half the amount of fuel on a combat day than the turbine engine. The tracks are a version of the Leopard 2's tracks with different rubber pads and a larger center guide. The improved engine and tracks are not part of an Army upgrade program, but may be included in a near-term engineering change proposal (ECP) phase.[73][74][/quote]

[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;47194198]It seems tank design all look the same now: The Leopard, Challenger 2, Abrams, Type-10, Type-98 and now the Armata.[/QUOTE] na this is actually a complete rip off of the israeli mirkiva, which has an sloped turret, a front-mounted engine, rear compartment for people, and missile defeating systems on the turret and body the russians just put a bigger gun on theirs

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47188434]im still trying to figure out what im watching[/QUOTE] The new world champion of the battle bots reboot.

[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;47194198]It seems tank design all look the same now: The Leopard, Challenger 2, Abrams, Type-10, Type-98 and now the Armata.[/QUOTE] Not really - you still see a difference in design traditions between russian and russian dervived tanks, german/american ones and korean ones.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47188846]Wheres our new Abrams variant?[/QUOTE] The military is expecting to deploy the first M1A3 Abrams' in 2018-2019. The new model is supposed to be lighter, have better wiring, improved suspension, a lighter gun, lighter armour (same protection), and possibly a diesel engine as mentioned above. Like the M1A2 Abrams, it will not completely replace the entire fleet, rather old M1A1's will slowly be phased out as M1A3's are introduced.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47196304]Not really - you still see a difference in design traditions between russian and russian dervived tanks, german/american ones and korean ones.[/QUOTE] The Armata does seem very similar externally to the Merkava mk 5 [IMG]http://www.supervideo.com/MerkavaIV2009ModelAA.jpg[/IMG]

Oh yeah, i remember why that video rang a bell! Same guy who did this :v: [video=youtube;Cp7mM2TP_1A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp7mM2TP_1A[/video]

One thing that bothers me about those designs, doesn't the V angle between the upper hull and lower turret sort of 'guide' incoming shells directly into the turret ring? The WW2 Tiger II had that problem, which is why they changed the turret design.

[QUOTE=Sableye;47194602]na this is actually a complete rip off of the israeli mirkiva, which has an sloped turret, a front-mounted engine, rear compartment for people, and missile defeating systems on the turret and body the russians just put a bigger gun on theirs[/QUOTE] Except the fact it has entirely robotized unmanned turret, that's a [I]kiiinda[/I] major feature added. Outside of that, it's definitely undeniable similarity. To be fair, current Merkava is one of world's best tank designs and it's understandable Russians took some notes here and there, finally leaving their old doctrine where crew protection wasn't as important as overall performance of the tank (for instance, finally moving the driver from the front to the rear). The "actual" turret of the Armata looks more like this (this is earlier, unofficial, unconfirmed render, but according to some insider sources, it's very close to the real deal) [IMG]http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/armata_l2.jpg[/IMG] [img]http://www.military-today.com/tanks/armata_l3.jpg[/img] As you can see the actual turret is tiny and rather boxy. All the spacehsippy bullshit is additional armor, possibly ammunition stowage for the machinegun and such. Generally, it's really probable the "real deal" will look a lot unlike the renders posted earlier, and closer to the thing above. [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47196715]One thing that bothers me about those designs, doesn't the V angle between the upper hull and lower turret sort of 'guide' incoming shells directly into the turret ring? The WW2 Tiger II had that problem, which is why they changed the turret design.[/QUOTE] It would seem so, the thing is the angled surface isn't the "true" armor of the tank. It's all basically massive shaped slabs of composite armor, usually designed to specifically "consume" the shell, be it kinetic or cumulative (HEAT), rather than make it ricochet. And just a little note - the early Tiger II turret that had shell trap wasn't really predecessor of the one that didn't have it; it was a competing design that was designed in parallel and used when the rest of the design with that turret was canceled, with the shitty turrets being left over.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47196715]One thing that bothers me about those designs, doesn't the V angle between the upper hull and lower turret sort of 'guide' incoming shells directly into the turret ring? The WW2 Tiger II had that problem, which is why they changed the turret design.[/QUOTE] Apparently it's not an issue with modern armor anymore. Look at Leo 2A5 and above, you'd imagine the turret armor would work as a shot trap but I'm pretty sure they've thought of that.

[QUOTE=lekkimsm;47196705]Oh yeah, i remember why that video rang a bell! Same guy who did this :v: [video=youtube;Cp7mM2TP_1A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp7mM2TP_1A[/video][/QUOTE] whatrussiansactuallybelieve.mp4