It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Russia's new battle tank - advanced technology

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: galien8

What are those 20mm flank cannons? That looks like a ground to air AAA variant.



Rapid fire surface to air cannons, indeed flak
edit on 2016-11-9 by galien8 because: typo




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The only and biggest chance western powers have of squaring off against the armata (in a war without mushroom clouds) would be if the Russians decided to sell it on to other countries. I'm sure the same things were said about previous russian armoured vehicles and when faced with western varients (challanger, abrams, centurian etc) the russian designs were found wanting.

They made a big point about the 125 main gun. The 125 main gun may be a new design but guess what ammunition it is going to be firing? Shells from the T-72. Rather than giving it an advantage, that may actually leave the most modern tank design in the world outgunned by older western armour.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Luckily for everyone,

I don't particularly see a wide sweeping land war in western Europe any time soon. Thankfully so too.

That being said however, without American armour troops materiel logistical support and etc...

Western Europe would quite literally be a speed bump for the Russians. It's pretty laughable how little military strength is left on the continent.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Plotus

...Sheridan?


Sheridan was actually not that bad when it was operational..... I did not like the short gun but loved the accuracy of its missles.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
The only and biggest chance western powers have of squaring off against the armata (in a war without mushroom clouds) would be if the Russians decided to sell it on to other countries. I'm sure the same things were said about previous russian armoured vehicles and when faced with western varients (challanger, abrams, centurian etc) the russian designs were found wanting.

They made a big point about the 125 main gun. The 125 main gun may be a new design but guess what ammunition it is going to be firing? Shells from the T-72. Rather than giving it an advantage, that may actually leave the most modern tank design in the world outgunned by older western armour.


The T14 is also capable of firing anti tank missles..... something our main battle tank can not do.... BUT lets not forget good ole Bradley Fighting Vehicle.....



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

Lets hope there will be changes now that Trump is the POTUS.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer

One can ONLY reload 12 missiles in a Bradley CFV.
TOWs are 80 lbs each, small guys can't do that too easily.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: sg1642
The only and biggest chance western powers have of squaring off against the armata (in a war without mushroom clouds) would be if the Russians decided to sell it on to other countries. I'm sure the same things were said about previous russian armoured vehicles and when faced with western varients (challanger, abrams, centurian etc) the russian designs were found wanting.

They made a big point about the 125 main gun. The 125 main gun may be a new design but guess what ammunition it is going to be firing? Shells from the T-72. Rather than giving it an advantage, that may actually leave the most modern tank design in the world outgunned by older western armour.


The T14 is also capable of firing anti tank missles..... something our main battle tank can not do.... BUT lets not forget good ole Bradley Fighting Vehicle.....


So could the T64 and T72. Never did them much good against challenger or abrams.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
As for the APS..

British tests showed that a single pane glass window could provide sufficient deflection to cause a sniper to miss a target at 100m. One of the answers was a second shooter firing a fraction of a second after the first without the problem of deflection effecting his shot. The same technique could be used to defeat hard-kill APS systems. A couple of NLAW fired a second apart at the same track would stand a good chance of turning the vehicle into a sitting duck. It would be interesting to see how those systems stand up to top attack weapons too.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

You mean like the Russians and client states have already been producing for several years now?

Except they've packed it all into one disposable launch unit that fires a smaller precursor rocket just a tiny fraction ahead of the main full sized charge.

Hint: if Russia is already making something and allowing 3rd party license production, they almost certainly already have a solution integrated into their own systems.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: sg1642

You mean like the Russians and client states have already been producing for several years now?

Except they've packed it all into one disposable launch unit that fires a smaller precursor rocket just a tiny fraction ahead of the main full sized charge.

Hint: if Russia is already making something and allowing 3rd party license production, they almost certainly already have a solution integrated into their own systems.


I think you mean the RPG-30?

You do have a point but the fact still remains, any advance in protection always leads to an advance in penetration. Shaped charge, tandem warheads etc. A 50. Cal anti materiel rifle could be used to destroy sensors or equipment before any larger weapon is used. There is always a solution to any problem.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Oh undoubtedly so to your first point...

As far as your second assertion regarding AMR's to destroy sensorssuccessful onow of EXACTLY ONE documented incident of something like this happening.

The incident in question was during OIF and happened during OIF to a Brit chally 2 crew. What's very important to note about the incident is that they threw a track either through mechanical failure or enemy fire, did not have proper infantry support and were under fire, panicked and backed the tank into a ditch or etc immobilizing the tank, and ONLY THEN was AMR fire used to pick apart sensors and viewing devices...

Additionally, the crew once stuck stayed buttoned up and waited calmly for infantry etc to flood the area before exiting their vehicle. AFAIR, the tank was pretty quickly repaired and brought back into action without even a depot trip.

Notice though that a series of cascading failures and tactical stupidity had to happen before the AMR trick could be employed. Also notice that, at best, said AMR fire put the tank out of the fight for under 72 hours.

I hear the AMR to knock out external sensors etc argument frequently on sites primarily catering to civilians and military fans like ATS, and yet it's almost NEVER brought up on sites geared more towards professional soldiers in anything but a dismissive and derisive manner.

Now, truthfully a modified from of this tactic using various high yield thermobaric weapons would probably be pretty successful in closed or semi closed terrain fighting against individual units.

And in Ukraine entire armored units were erased from existence in under 15 minutes when hit by sustained and coordinated thermobaric rocket artillery barrages. However, this required a pretty exceptional multi battalion sustained barrage to accomplish.

In essence, very few entire nations on earth possess enough rocket artillery TOTAL available in their national arsenals to actually put down this kind of barrage if they dedicated every single tube of rocket artillery they possess to a single attack!

Is it a threat for the future? Oh definitely!!

Could it happen tomorrow or next week most places? Nope

BTW, one very concerning developing situation is that the Russians are now offering Precision Guidance kits and launcher upgrades to their various rocket artillery systems including the pretty much original truck mounted Katyusha batteries that helped them beat the Germans to scrap in Stalingrad and Berlin.

In other words the threat is very real if enough of the PGK / PGM packages are bought and installed on the thousands of legacy rocket artillery systems in arsenals worldwide.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

The driver's sights were destroyed in the first instance which is why they lost a track trying to reverse blind not because they 'panicked'. The rest of the sights were destroyed by machine gun fire not an AMR where did you read that? and I think the tank crew in question would refer to it as Op Telic not IF



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

my point was that small arms fire (



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

So I wrote this really awesome post about the AMR thing being highly doubtful, and how RPG and thermobaric RPG and disposable rockets are a much better way to accomplish the same task...

ATS ate it...

Not gonna rewrite it because it took an hour of writing and fact checking to do.

But, yeah AMR's and their progenitors are more like psychological morale stiffeners than real threats to modern tanks. Other tactics will actually be much more successful no matter how good or advanced the APS systems of either side become.

Also, it should be noted that I don't believe that the situation is anywhere near hopeless for the west.

We just need to do things differently and actually invest in the research needed to bring newer better systems online.

The whole situation is a result of the so-called peace dividend and a total lack of investment in actually improving our medium and heavy ground vehicle fleet for nearly 3 decades!

It should also be noted that the DOD itself is sounding the alarm that much of our technical superiority has outright evaporated in said 3 decades.

Meanwhile, the Russians have been continuously doing what they could where they could with what resources they had for this entire 3 decades.

It shouldn't be a surprise that they managed to gain lots of ground in that time.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join