Russia's New Armata Tank: The Best Tank in the World?

[Pilot1]

The main gun fitted on the MBT is a M256 120mm smoothbore cannon, which can fire M829A4 advanced kinetic energy and advanced multi-purpose (AMP) rounds to defend armoured vehicles, personnel and low-flying aircraft.

The tank features a low-profile (LP) common remotely operated weapon system (CROWS) installed with a 12.7mm machine gun. A 7.62mm M240 machine gun is also mounted coaxially with the main gun.

Abrams M1A2 SEPV3 Main Battle Tank - Army Technology

Still, I do not see a scenario where we are facing Russian tanks, nor the Russian Armed forces anytime in the near, or not so near future. But, you never know. We at least need the deterrent of a strong military because we've see what's happened before when we are perceived as weak.

There is just a big fat ad.
But wikipedia is enough. There is no new gun in the SEPv3. The M1A3 is planned to have another gun.
There are now plenty of enemies. Russia, China, Iran, ect. This is going to be the end of days or something. So deploy some stuff.

Nobody has a crystal ball, but I don't see us in a conventional war with anyone, especially in large tank battles like WWII or even Iraq. Lots of tanks were taken out by aircraft like the A-10, Apaches and even Marine Super Cobras. They are very vulnerable today, and some say obsolete.

More and more battles are going to be fought by drones, missiles and unmanned craft run remotely by humans from a bunker somewhere.

That´s easy to say when you have asymmetric warfare. But it isn´t that easy and we can say it is not even working out as the Taliban has the upper hand in Afghanistan.
Thousands of tanks were taken out by German and Russian CAS planes that date back to WW1.
And if you fight an enemy that can counter your air threats, all comes down to the ground forces again.
As for the war probability it is low for now but times change. There is block building and recourses like oil or water will be the trigger, not Hillary´s or Donald´s agitation. The Romans said when you want peace, prepare for war.

That's why we need to get out of this Nation Building crap and these hell holes like Afghanistan, which I think is one of Trump's goals. These are no win scenarios and we keep wasting lives and money there.

The Military/Industrial complex is very powerful and loves to be engaged in these endless wars.

 

[SandSquid]

The L/44 is a 120 mm gun.
Why do I post links?
Rheinmetall Rh-120 - Wikipedia

Lol, the current Abrams main gun bears the same resemblance to the original L/44 as Henry Fords model T does to modern sports car.

"The main armament of the M1A1 and M1A2 is the M256A1 120 mm smoothbore gun, designed by Rheinmetall AG of Germany, manufactured under license in the U.S. by Watervliet Arsenal, New York."
M1 Abrams - Wikipedia

You "patriots" know shit about your own stuff!

DERP........

The reason tank guns are smoothbore is the switch from HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) to kinetic energy rounds sabot as the primary anti-tank round. Kinetic energy rounds are subcaliber rounds (smaller than the bore) and aren't effective if the spun by rifling. So tank gun designers moved to smoothbores, stuck fins on the penetrator to give it the stability lost by not spinning the projectile, the use of a sabot around the penetrator provides a better gas seal and the smaller projectile achieves much higher muzzle velocity.

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the...mm-main-gun-instead-of-a-120mm-smoothbore-gun

The interesting one will be that new multi-round. Using a programmable fuse, will replace 4 rounds with just one which can perform all the tasks as long as fuse is set before firing. So should take away the reload time if switching between say a tank and Infantry, or infantry and a bunker. Just select the new target type and switch on the fly

That wont replace the sabot round.
Which is our main tank killer.

True.

The new heat round uses a sabot design as well, which the AMP is replacing. But the actual considered sabot rounds (M289 series) would stay. But if they were switching from an anti-personnel round to a new tank threat they could put a viable weapon (M290 HEAT equivalent) on a tank in a pinch without needing to switch out ammo. So instead of 5 rounds, Sabot, 2 types of HEAT, anti personnel and anti-bunker, a tank would have 2 types, and the AMP could load antipersonnel/anti bunker in an urban environment and if faced with an enemy tank still have a solid weapon to immediately fire back with rather than unload and reload.

 

[SandSquid]

And if you fight an enemy that can counter your air threats, all comes down to the ground forces again.

So in a Russian attack, which would need to be led by fighter aircraft keeping air superiority until ground defense was built up, and the best armor on the ground, you believe Russia with it's cancelled T-14 and cancelled SU57 are the threats?

This is the greatest thread ever.

 

[Bleipriester]

hmmmm....

Source please. I'm afraid that claiming that Russia's GDP is about the same as Germany's (and closing in on Japan's) is a bit far fetched.

No, it isn´t. There is a difference between GDP (nominal) and GDP (PPP). The latter measures the actual industry and services output while the first its currency value.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Once again....
Russia has their nukes. Good for them.
But Russia alone could not get far against the US military on a conventional warfare basis.
Not that they don't have some good weapons. But they lack the numbers or funding.

If it makes you feel better, the US may find itself in a similar situation with China in another 20 years or so.

You might find this unlikely, but I predict that in 25 years and on, Russia and the US will greatly improve their relationship out of necessity....if they don't annihilate each other before then.

China would play a brilliant hand and sit on the sidelines watching.

 

[Bleipriester]

And if you fight an enemy that can counter your air threats, all comes down to the ground forces again.

So in a Russian attack, which would need to be led by fighter aircraft keeping air superiority until ground defense was built up, and the best armor on the ground, you believe Russia with it's cancelled T-14 and cancelled SU57 are the threats?

This is the greatest thread ever.

It could be like this:



Or it could be an invasion of Alaska. You never know. Alaska can serve as toehold.

 

[Bleipriester]

Once again....
Russia has their nukes. Good for them.
But Russia alone could not get far against the US military on a conventional warfare basis.
Not that they don't have some good weapons. But they lack the numbers or funding.

If it makes you feel better, the US may find itself in a similar situation with China in another 20 years or so.

I am not discussing based on opinion except for that one that such wars should be avoided.
What you don´t get is that in a full scale war, there will be no funding problem. It is only about recourses and factories.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I am not discussing based on opinion except for that one that such wars should be avoided.
What you don´t get is that in a full scale war, there will be no funding problem. It is only about recourses and factories.

I agree to a large extent.
However, Russia would be at a huge disadvantage in that area.

Let's just hope we never find out who's more right or wrong in this discussion.
to me, tht's what's most important.

If there is ever a full scale war between the US and Russia, everyone will lose.

I always thought that the American people and the Russian people had enough in common to find an alliance.

 

[SandSquid]

Keep in mind that Russia has a GDP SMALLER than Italy's.
And not even in the same ballpark with the US and China and Japan.
Russia has to divert nearly all of it's resources to military in order to produce even a few tanks and planes.

This one looks like it took you some time....

So you used PPP GDP instead of Nominal.

PPP GDP for example is saying if a sack of potato's in Russia costs 10 cents and it costs $4 in the US, in Russia your earnings go a lot farther. It is however limited when measuring financial flows between countries and when comparing the quality of same goods among countries, where buying something on the international market (the topic here) doesn't care what your cost of living is, but rather your nominal cost.

Nominal GDP has Russia nowhere close to that spot.

World GDP Ranking 2019 - StatisticsTimes.com

So if you are making the argument that a potato costs less in Russia than the US or Italy, you are correct. If you are making the argument Russia has more real world dollars, well Nominal is the way to go.

 

[SandSquid]

I am not discussing based on opinion except for that one that such wars should be avoided.
What you don´t get is that in a full scale war, there will be no funding problem. It is only about recourses and factories.

I agree with the first part. As for the second part, in a full scale war, technology has become so much more important. Iraq may have had the 4th largest army when talking about it's military might but were technologically behind the US.

Which is why things like reducing funding and innovation in Russia as their new programs continue to flop and become cash sucking nightmares, while they instead feed money back into outdated and obsolete technology, while drastically reducing their spending on keeping up their existing military and innovating new weapons isn't a choice I think that makes them stronger.

Look at your own belief. Sure you didn't know the T-14 was canceled, but it wasn't thousands of T-72's that excited you, it was a modern weapon.

 

[Bleipriester]

Keep in mind that Russia has a GDP SMALLER than Italy's.
And not even in the same ballpark with the US and China and Japan.
Russia has to divert nearly all of it's resources to military in order to produce even a few tanks and planes.

This one looks like it took you some time....

So you used PPP GDP instead of Nominal.

PPP GDP for example is saying if a sack of potato's in Russia costs 10 cents and it costs $4 in the US, in Russia your earnings go a lot farther. It is however limited when measuring financial flows between countries and when comparing the quality of same goods among countries, where buying something on the international market (the topic here) doesn't care what your cost of living is, but rather your nominal cost.

Nominal GDP has Russia nowhere close to that spot.

World GDP Ranking 2019 - StatisticsTimes.com

So if you are making the argument that a potato costs less in Russia than the US or Italy, you are correct. If you are making the argument Russia has more real world dollars, well Nominal is the way to go.

Its the same bag of potatoes. That´s the point. Their value is to fill your stomach.

You can bet on the stock exchange and earn one million real world dollars but no values have been created, your earnings can even be harmful.

 

[Bleipriester]

I am not discussing based on opinion except for that one that such wars should be avoided.
What you don´t get is that in a full scale war, there will be no funding problem. It is only about recourses and factories.

I agree with the first part. As for the second part, in a full scale war, technology has become so much more important. Iraq may have had the 4th largest army when talking about it's military might but were technologically behind the US.

Which is why things like reducing funding and innovation in Russia as their new programs continue to flop and become cash sucking nightmares, while they instead feed money back into outdated and obsolete technology, while drastically reducing their spending on keeping up their existing military and innovating new weapons isn't a choice I think that makes them stronger.

Look at your own belief. Sure you didn't know the T-14 was canceled, but it wasn't thousands of T-72's that excited you, it was a modern weapon.

T-72 and M1 are both 70´s products.
And if you are taking a look into the WWII eastern front, you will soon find out how powerful and numerous the Russian tanks are, even though they are cheaper.

 

[SandSquid]

And if you fight an enemy that can counter your air threats, all comes down to the ground forces again.

So in a Russian attack, which would need to be led by fighter aircraft keeping air superiority until ground defense was built up, and the best armor on the ground, you believe Russia with it's cancelled T-14 and cancelled SU57 are the threats?

This is the greatest thread ever.

It could be like this:



Or it could be an invasion of Alaska. You never know. Alaska can serve as toehold.

Alaska could. First they'd need to get their military might there, most of their Eastern forces are based thousands of miles south. And that massive troop movement would cause the US and Nato to build up the US west coast, as well as along western russia (for an incursion to force them to fight 2 fronts).

It's always so much tougher being the attacking force against the dug in defenders. The US doesn't have to get large transport planes and ships carrying heavy weapons across the ocean. Russia needs to do that.

The US doesn't have to rely on it's fighters to maintain air superiority, we have our SAM's in place as well and a MUCH larger suface fleet, Russia has to rely on what they have after their cancelled SU57 and cancelled bomber program.

The US doesn't have to overrun prepared hardened dug in soldiers, Russia has to do that.

 

[Marion Morrison]

And if you fight an enemy that can counter your air threats, all comes down to the ground forces again.

So in a Russian attack, which would need to be led by fighter aircraft keeping air superiority until ground defense was built up, and the best armor on the ground, you believe Russia with it's cancelled T-14 and cancelled SU57 are the threats?

This is the greatest thread ever.

It could be like this:



Or it could be an invasion of Alaska. You never know. Alaska can serve as toehold.

Toehold to what, frostbite on your big toe? Derp!

They would die here of heat.

 

[Bleipriester]

And if you fight an enemy that can counter your air threats, all comes down to the ground forces again.

So in a Russian attack, which would need to be led by fighter aircraft keeping air superiority until ground defense was built up, and the best armor on the ground, you believe Russia with it's cancelled T-14 and cancelled SU57 are the threats?

This is the greatest thread ever.

It could be like this:



Or it could be an invasion of Alaska. You never know. Alaska can serve as toehold.

Alaska could. First they'd need to get their military might there, most of their Eastern forces are based thousands of miles south. And that massive troop movement would cause the US and Nato to build up the US west coast, as well as along western russia (for an incursion to force them to fight 2 fronts).

It's always so much tougher being the attacking force against the dug in defenders. The US doesn't have to get large transport planes and ships carrying heavy weapons across the ocean. Russia needs to do that.

The US doesn't have to rely on it's fighters to maintain air superiority, we have our SAM's in place as well and a MUCH larger suface fleet, Russia has to rely on what they have after their cancelled SU57 and cancelled bomber program.

The US doesn't have to overrun prepared hardened dug in soldiers, Russia has to do that.

We saw in Syria how ISIS can sneak through the open desert. The Bering Strait can be frozen in winter and the Russians could sneak into Alaska and create the proper conditions for the main force. That would be a surprise that can hardly be dealt with. No airforce can wipe out the infantry in Alaska. There would be Panzir mounted on the following ships that would ensure their safety.
And you can not count on the European forces, they are weaker and less motivated than the US forces.

 

[Bleipriester]

And if you fight an enemy that can counter your air threats, all comes down to the ground forces again.

So in a Russian attack, which would need to be led by fighter aircraft keeping air superiority until ground defense was built up, and the best armor on the ground, you believe Russia with it's cancelled T-14 and cancelled SU57 are the threats?

This is the greatest thread ever.

It could be like this:



Or it could be an invasion of Alaska. You never know. Alaska can serve as toehold.

Toehold to what, frostbite on your big toe? Derp!

They would die here of heat.

Stay serious.

 

[Marion Morrison]

And if you fight an enemy that can counter your air threats, all comes down to the ground forces again.

So in a Russian attack, which would need to be led by fighter aircraft keeping air superiority until ground defense was built up, and the best armor on the ground, you believe Russia with it's cancelled T-14 and cancelled SU57 are the threats?

This is the greatest thread ever.

It could be like this:



Or it could be an invasion of Alaska. You never know. Alaska can serve as toehold.

Toehold to what, frostbite on your big toe? Derp!

They would die here of heat.

Stay serious.

Most Alaskans can hit things @ 3-400 Yards. Too many trees here for that kind of range.

 

[Bleipriester]

And if you fight an enemy that can counter your air threats, all comes down to the ground forces again.

So in a Russian attack, which would need to be led by fighter aircraft keeping air superiority until ground defense was built up, and the best armor on the ground, you believe Russia with it's cancelled T-14 and cancelled SU57 are the threats?

This is the greatest thread ever.

It could be like this:



Or it could be an invasion of Alaska. You never know. Alaska can serve as toehold.

Toehold to what, frostbite on your big toe? Derp!

They would die here of heat.

Stay serious.

Most Alaskans can hit things @ 3-400 Yards. Too many trees here for that kind of range.

They have no points to defend. They would be surprised and Alaska is large.

 

[Andylusion]

Russia will have the most modern forces soon while western militaries are on the decline.
The only option for Europe is to stay on friendly terms with Russia. Phrump needs to know that.

Russia's New Armata Tank: The Best Tank in the World?

Anyone can design and build an elite, top-of-the-line tank, that is the most deadly and sophisticated in the world.

Any first world country can do this.

The real question is, can you actually outfit your military with such a weapon? And the answer for Russia is, no they cannot.

Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't have appropriate alternatives designed, or planned for when an enemy can deploy a superior weapon.

We should obviously.

But as things stand right now, having one or two super-tanks, is not a threat to US forces.

We need to learn the lessons of the F-117 Stealth Jet. The F-117 in 1991 was the elite of the elite. No other jet in the world could touch the elite technology and advanced design of the F-117.

And yet, in the Serbian war in 1999, the jet was shot down by a S-125 Anti-Air battery in Belgrade (or near).

The S-125 Anti-Aircraft missile battery was Soviet Tech, which started being used in 1961.

The point is, just having the most advanced tech, or military equipment, does not mean you can take on the world, unless you can actually outfit your entire military with it.

A few super-things, doesn't mean much.

If the Russians can only afford 10 of them, we'd destroy those ten, and have no problem with the rest. Now if they can outfit their entire military with those tanks, ok then we could have a problem.

 

[DrainBamage]

Still better then the flying rock called F-35, right? S-200 gets it down.

Hah all those Russian SAMs in Syria and Israel bombs it with impunity. Iraq was had a huge defense network of Russian equipment that allied forces systematically dismantled and made irrelevant.

Iraqi pilots were fleeing to Iran in their Russian planes.