Need Some Data interpretation?

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,385
Points
280
I served as a sweep sailor so what I know about ground can be stuck in your eye without serious damage. While looking for the terms of the Russian bailout of Greece I ran across the Armata weapons platform on Real clear world. What is it and how good is it, anyone know.
 

RandomVariable

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
5,103
Reaction score
360
Points
85
I served as a sweep sailor so what I know about ground can be stuck in your eye without serious damage. While looking for the terms of the Russian bailout of Greece I ran across the Armata weapons platform on Real clear world. What is it and how good is it, anyone know.
Russia s T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank Concept Military.com
The "Armata" Universal Combat Platform is a Russian advanced next generation heavy military tracked vehicle platform. The "Armata" platform is intended to be the basis for a main battle tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, a combat engineering vehicle, an armoured recovery vehicle, a heavy armoured personnel carrier, a tank support combat vehicle and several types of self-propelled artillery under the same codename based on the same chassis. It will also serve as the basis for artillery, air defense, and NBC defense systems. The new tank is under development at Uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil. The first deliveries of the tank to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015 and mass production is due to begin in 2016. A total of 2,300 MBTs are expected to be supplied by 2020, modernizing 70 percent of the Russian tank fleet.According to the General Director of Uralvagonzavod the first vehicles will be shown in the 2015 Victory parade. Read more at Armata Universal Combat Platform - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
 
OP
william the wie

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,385
Points
280
Yeah, I read that too but what has me confused is that the Russians seem to be saying that as long as the crew survives relatively cheap tanks are the way to go and the NATO/Israeli line is keep the tank fixable when the crew is killed because blood is cheaper than treasure. That seeming backwardation of philosophy when it comes to tanks Is what has me confused. Have I misread the data?
 

RandomVariable

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
5,103
Reaction score
360
Points
85
Yeah, I read that too but what has me confused is that the Russians seem to be saying that as long as the crew survives relatively cheap tanks are the way to go and the NATO/Israeli line is keep the tank fixable when the crew is killed because blood is cheaper than treasure. That seeming backwardation of philosophy when it comes to tanks Is what has me confused. Have I misread the data?
I am not sure which one you find backwardized :). I will say this. I watched a video of a 'see how awesome NATAO is' and a 'see how awesome Russia's army is' recently. While the videos did not look like official promo videos I think they did reflect philosophies. The NATA video looked like synchronized swimming, of sharks, but still very choreographed. The Russian video showed a lot of troops taking buildings and terrain an such. I also think this is reflected in the fact that Putin practices judo and our new Secretary of Defense is a procurement guy. I think these reflect trends and the reality on the ground is actually the opposite. That's my take on it anyway.
 
OP
william the wie

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,385
Points
280
Yeah, I read that too but what has me confused is that the Russians seem to be saying that as long as the crew survives relatively cheap tanks are the way to go and the NATO/Israeli line is keep the tank fixable when the crew is killed because blood is cheaper than treasure. That seeming backwardation of philosophy when it comes to tanks Is what has me confused. Have I misread the data?
I am not sure which one you find backwardized :). I will say this. I watched a video of a 'see how awesome NATAO is' and a 'see how awesome Russia's army is' recently. While the videos did not look like official promo videos I think they did reflect philosophies. The NATA video looked like synchronized swimming, of sharks, but still very choreographed. The Russian video showed a lot of troops taking buildings and terrain an such. I also think this is reflected in the fact that Putin practices judo and our new Secretary of Defense is a procurement guy. I think these reflect trends and the reality on the ground is actually the opposite. That's my take on it anyway.
At least that makes sense.
 

regent

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
1,123
Points
245
I am reminded of our WWII Shermans, I can't believe someone OK'd them, for use, but I guess it was that or nothing. Both the tanks and crews seemed expendable.
 

RandomVariable

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
5,103
Reaction score
360
Points
85
To throw this into the talk of tanks and tactics I read this somewhere going through articles and I do not know if I mentioned it in any other post. I read where thinking in U.S. strategy was that having a couple tanks or so at a crossing or something was better than have a group of troops. I would think the opposite. I would much rather have individuals who can fan out than a few assets that when they get hit are out and that's it. Then again the range of a tank in pretty good, especially if one knows where they are firing to.
 
OP
william the wie

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,385
Points
280
I am reminded of our WWII Shermans, I can't believe someone OK'd them, for use, but I guess it was that or nothing. Both the tanks and crews seemed expendable.
I'll take your word for it but that is was confuses me. The Armata has an armored and insulated crew compartment like with an A-`10 so the platform can be taken out without the crew suffering injury.
 
OP
william the wie

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,385
Points
280
To throw this into the talk of tanks and tactics I read this somewhere going through articles and I do not know if I mentioned it in any other post. I read where thinking in U.S. strategy was that having a couple tanks or so at a crossing or something was better than have a group of troops. I would think the opposite. I would much rather have individuals who can fan out than a few assets that when they get hit are out and that's it. Then again the range of a tank in pretty good, especially if one knows where they are firing to.
Yeah, that is another thing confuses me:

a smoothbore with a range of five km

optional guided missile loads

reactive armor covering metal and so explosive that it can resist flechette rounds.

So light weight that it is faster than an M1.

It sounds like these tanks are cheap, cheap, cheap bordering on a fire and discard weapons system.

I can't get my mind around these specs.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top