Tank T-14 "Armata" after processing went into mass production...

>Anti-projectile side skirts
:)

>Just enlist, 19Kilo is a critically undermanned job in the army right now
isn't 19K just 91H with extra steps?

>and under constant threat of death from weapons that cost thousands of times less than the machine you're in.
As opposed to the guys running around outside of the tank, who are under constant threat from just about everything instead of just large, cumbersome and relatively slow to use AT-weapons.

>only protects against auticannon fire and shrapnel
>Relies on ERA and APS for everything else
>Still has carousel design in 2019
>Double the size of a T90 but still weighs less than a T90MS
>Somehow has more armor

This tank is just something else

Attached: T-14_comp_rating.jpg (918x400, 111K)

>rounds stored vertically
Back in the 90s didn't Chukchas blame this as the primary reason why the T-80 sucks?I remember one bydlo telling me how the tanks in Grozny would have somehow magically withstood much better to rpgs if the carousel was horizontal

Attached: 1497087577104.jpg (1000x857, 1.1M)

>A kid with a rocket launcher can destroy one.

Unless that kid happens to have a Javelin missile then no he can't

Holy shit, you're actually retarded.

Does the Armata still use that moronic 2 piece ammunition

Do you think anybody who designs a tank for a living actually believed what they said?

no

why are soldiers still a thing? a kid with a musket can destroy one

No, he said the T-80 sucked because of it's Turbine Engine. It's great on the move, but when you're idling, it sucks up more fuel that you slurp semen. Horrible for logistics

>cramped
>smells of dirt, fuel, sweat and farts
>1 million little pointy bits to jab your knee, shin or head on
>cold as fuck in the winter (until it gets really hot)
>hot as fuck in the summer, unless you have AC, then its just slightly above above the melting point of motivation

But on the other side i got to use 1500 hp to drive 50 tons of tank like a spastic retard through snow, mud and fields, so its totally worth it

They made the top of the turrets super thin for the entire T54 derivative family, from T-54 to T-90

Western Anti-Tank Weapon designers exploited the piss of of this with various top attack munitions, IIRC Sweden even made a missile that fired its warhead at an angle, didn't have much penetration but didn't need to

So what the Soviets ended up with were tanks that were hyperspecialized towards doing one thing tactically, going forward and taking fire from a low angle forward arc, and just betted on the sheer weight of force and firepower to win the day

What they managed to actually build were tanks with shitty, short ranged guns, that were relatively easy kills for anyone with any elevation or them

They tried to compensate with ERA, but during Chechnya 1 Russia had degenerated so badly into corruption that the ERA blocks shipped with sand filler instead of explosive

They paid a hefty price in not keeping the Heavy Tanks in development
A private Brazilian company unironically built a better designed MBT in the 80s, real shame it never got purchased

Attached: osorio.jpg (600x401, 73K)

Fellows, what's written on pic related and why is Ivan dickwaving it around my hood?

Attached: slide-14.jpg (1024x574, 126K)

>during Chechnya 1 Russia had degenerated so badly into corruption that the ERA blocks shipped with sand filler instead of explosive
Pretty sure they were completely empty, save for air.

We arma now

Holy lack of situational awareness. No amount of cameras will compensate for the commander not being able to sit up out of his turret.
you can tell this was designed by somebody who had never even sat in a tank or talked to tankers and asked what they want.

Attached: 1507625882770.jpg (3000x1982, 3.78M)

>It's still going to throw it's turret completely because Russians are addicted to their carousel design for some reason. Sure, crew gets saved but the tank is 100% totally fucked up
That's not how pressure works. Pressure follows the line of weak resistance, and a bolted blowout panel offers less resistance than the turret ring held down by more than 10 tons of metal. Pic is the blowout panel on the hull. Btw with no crew in the turret the designers are finally able to use more agressive firefighting methods like pressurized argon that would otherwise kill the crew. Which is very helpful since fire is the number one cause of irrecoverable damage (warped structures) to knocked out tanks.

Attached: 7jiB0.jpg (254x165, 21K)

>Back in the 90s didn't Chukchas blame this as the primary reason why the T-80 sucks?I remember one bydlo telling me how the tanks in Grozny would have somehow magically withstood much better to rpgs if the carousel was horizontal
Yeah, but the T-80s had weaker side protection than the T-14 to begin with. For starters, the side armor of the T-14 features a thin layer of composite which is understandable given that even the hatch is made of composites, and is just generally thicker. Side ERA is also rated against tandem-shaped munitions and KE rounds. And finally there's the Afghanit APS designed against both ATGMs and APFSDS. If there are disadvantages with the vertical storage in terms of the vulnerability of the ammo the designers have more than adequately compensated for it.

>Does the Armata still use that moronic 2 piece ammunition
They use a much longer ~1m projectile with the propellant stub, yes. Thanks to this arrangement the APFSDS round can use the much longer penetrators for the job with a powder volume comparable to the 130 mm gun while still being capable of firing legacy ammo.

How much does the t-14 weigh?
I Keep seeing 48 tons but due to how big it is i find this hard to believe

>They made the top of the turrets super thin for the entire T54 derivative family, from T-54 to T-90
Everybody made the top of the turret thin as fuck. The Abrams is particularly notorious for having one of the thinnest roof armor of all modern tanks, with a thickness of 40 mm. In contrast the T-90 has 55 mm of steel armour sandwiched by combined 50 mm of antiradiation liner and of course K-5 ERA which on its own significantly raises the protection against heat warheads by 600 mm.

Keep in mind the T-14 in the pic had six pairs of roadwheels so the weight could be bumped up ecen higher, closer to 60 tons.

Attached: 1778542_original.jpg (613x960, 81K)

i thought it would weigh around that much, i sincerely doubt it will weigh under 50 desu

Why do infantry exist? A kid with a pocket knife can stab those niggas to death.

Boom, I just deleted all war, forever. You can thank me on my official twitter/instagram page, and my patreon. You are WELCOME.

Just want to point out the Russian way of testing

- Initial test of the company where they test the basic build of the prototype (Sukhoi, Almaz-Antey, UVZ etc)
Lada failed here, sent back to the drawing board
T-50-1 to T-50-9 of Su-57 was here
T-14, Bumerang and Kurganets when it went to their first May 9 Parade was here, you can see the differences on the succeeding parades afterwards.

-Final test of the company to check out all the nitty details before passing it over to the military
T-14 is here
Su-57 is here
Karakurt is here
Kasatonov is here

-Military trials of the equipment before accepting it into service
Gorshkov is here (they've passed it but they're still doing tests on it, the Poliment-Redut system just completed passing its final tests a while back)
Kazan is here

>The T-14 commander has a Facebook button

The Israelis are going the same way with close hatch operation with their new carmel. That two tank users with recent history of urban ops are opting for a more revolutionary approach should tell you something.

>screen shot isnfrom a drone

You’re thinking about buried IED’s. Tanks are most likely never going to be used against eachother in large numbers like a WW3 scenario, so they’ll just keep on getting pinned into this awkward roll of being a rolling anti personnel pillbox in a 3rd world country with low enemy troop density. The roles these things serve can be done by a stoned high schooler piloting one remotely with a Xbox controller.

>They made the top of the turrets super thin for the entire T54 derivative family, from T-54 to T-90
So did everyone else.

Attached: 1472603244046.jpg (1051x716, 153K)

What mother fuckers have ac in their tank, and where do I sign up? Abrams are hot as balls unless you're the tc, in which case your balls are still hot but everything outside the turret in winter is frozen.
>implying your heater isn't broken

Urban operations sure, it's good. Most analysts agree majority of wwIII/big state war will be fought in cities.
The moment they go off road I see these flipping constantly, terrain is going to kill more of them than US CAS or armored bct ever will.

The turret design has been finalized and might look a little different. I'm also pretty sure that the plans for the 152mm gun have been dropped and so the production design will have less unused space.

While I agree that sensors and cameras cannot replace actual vision over an area, tank commanders now are pretty much taught to stay buttoned up. Sticking your head out invites gunfire and opening up the hatches when there's explosives flying around is a bad idea and always has been. Commanders only used to stick their head out so much because their optics weren't as good or they had limited fields of view.

Screenshot is taken from inside a drone dumbass.

Armata cannon has longer barrel and, from what I understand, some system to automatically correct information put into ballistic calculator.

Armata canon can accommodate longer shells.

The Canadian tanks were all retrofitted with AC units.

Chinese tanks are far better

> Overall gun lengthened to 7 meters
> Improvements to the breech to improve autoloading
> Overall computerization/digitalization of the gun-system, being able to feed more data and more accurate ballistic information to the gunner.

>What mother fuckers have ac in their tank
Everybody who built and designed there tanks when the date was 20 and not 19.
Yeah, because sticking your head out in unsecured urban environment just for a peeksies is pretty fucking stupid and unnecessary.
Old ass legit boomer detected.

These machines are covered in cameras and optics, and inside is lined with screens. And they have powerful internet connections with each other and can use each others cameras. And drones.

This doesnt take away from having less escape hatches but whatever.

>when someone reposts an image you made

Attached: 1283014718321.jpg (605x650, 100K)

ssshhh hell call you a vatnik

>More accurate
>Still miss

Attached: lolmiss.jpg (850x474, 61K)

No, I meant this
>Overall gun lengthened to 7 meters
Poorly worded from me

The turret is tiny compared to everything else...
Also, most armor is spent on the crew compartment, since modern ATGMs can punch even through the frontal turret armor of any tank, it doesn't make much sense to use an obsolete armor layout which just makes the tank uneccessarily heavy.

50-ish lbs single piece ammo that will literally rip open if mishandled is somehow better?

>50t
Keep telling that to yourself...

nice pic user well done

>nogunz detected
what is parallax?

>i thought it would weigh around that much, i sincerely doubt it will weigh under 50 desu
Its only bound to go up; the first serial tanks would even have significantly thicker side ERA given that the old ones weren't up to snuff.

Well can it beat an Abrams one on one now?

Those guys don't have enarly the bullseye painted on them that a tank does though. A tank cannot hide in a blown out house the way a man can and a tank basically cannot move without being spotted. Killing every individual tank you see is a priority, killing every individual soldier is not. Existing in a warzone as a tank makes you a priority target in a way that simply does not apply to any individual infantryman. Kill a conscript soldier and you have destroyed a few thousand dollars of equipment a few weeks of training time all of which will be replaced within hours likely. Kill a tank and you have destroyed millions of dollars in equipment, 2-4 relatively highly trained specialist soldiers and dealt a blow to the enemies capability to attack in the area, each tank lost is a tactically and strategically significant event, each infantryman lost is a fully expected and planned for occurence.

Is totally irrelevant until they have a few thousand of them. The better question is how well can it or its operational unit defend itself against top attack missiles launched by drones.

>blown out house
And what is a blown out house but an immobilized, poorly armored and armed tank? Mobility is always going to trump concealment and/or protection, which is why you don't see serious militaries investing in fortifications.
Modern infantrymen also cost 2 mil USD a pop not factoring maintenance, while an Abrams 2.39 mil USD and have the benefit of each tank being as good as the last: experienced soldiers are priceless.

Also the Better question is how does it stack up against LEO2 and whatever the chinks latest and greatest is.

The Likelyhood of Russian tanks Fighting American tanks is very very low now, the likelyhood of china attacking the russian far east to gain resources if and when their "friendship" ever sours of the chinks become desperate is a lot more plausible. China has a huge surplus of military aged males, Chinks have been trading human lives for geopolitical gains for millennia and Russia and China hate each other historically. They fought small border wars during the cold war, even while they were Fraternal Socialist Brothers.

Modern AMERICAN infantrymen.
Modern Russian Infantrymen cost a lot less.
Modern Syrian infantrymen are probably only 4 or 5 digits.

the house is immobile and exactly which house is relatively easy to both conceal and change. The house isn't mobile but it can be abandoned. The idea is that infantry are easy to conceal, tank are not, they're loud, hot and large.

And to say and abrams costs 2.39 mil is silly. What about it's four soldiers? They cost more than the average Infantryman. Just that raises the Price to Ten Mil.

American Experienbce is urban warfighting is really skewed, we havent fought a peer enemy in a city since Vietnam and, really since Germany. American tank crews feel immortal becasue the people we've fought haven't had ATGMs, tank comparable to our own or any air capability at all. Sure I'd rather be an American tanker in In Iraq rather than an American Infantry, but thats because American tankers have operated in an environment of total ground Supremacy, where the most dangerous thing out there for them is actually blue on blue fire. The biggest stones the Iraqis had to throw at Americans in 2003 were AT mines, IEDs, and RPGs.

>Well can it beat an Abrams one on one now?
From paper specs, the T-14 has the Abrams beat in all departments. Not surprising given that its a clean-sheet design while the Abrams is pushing 40.

>The better question is how well can it or its operational unit defend itself against top attack missiles launched by drones.
Given that the Russian BTG roll with organic air defences that can take down drones I doubt the T-14 tankers would mind the drones much.

>Also the Better question is how does it stack up against LEO2 and whatever the chinks latest and greatest is.
The thing is legacy tanks can always be upgraded to meet the challenge of the T-14, but the problem is at the end of the day you'd end up with close to 100 ton behemoths after applying all relevant upgrades. A bigger gun (130 mm Rheinmetall for example) means a bigger turret, which also requires more armor to defend against the T-14's weapons. Suddenly your suspension can't handle it, and you need a beefier, and even heavier suspension. All that weight kills mobility so you need a more powerful engine, which is even heavier, and the fuel for that eats up more internal volume and so on. Its a vicious cycle, and one the Russians have tried to avoid by going unmanned turret design, just like they did with the AL for the second generation MBTs. And we all know how that turned out: the Russian MBTs were routinely lighter by 10-15 tons yet packing the same level of firepower and protection at least in a more mobile package while achieving the minor miracle of being cheaper than their counterparts.

That picture.

Attached: belarused.gif (500x281, 845K)

>The Likelyhood of Russian tanks Fighting American tanks is very very low now, the likelyhood of china attacking the russian far east to gain resources if and when their "friendship" ever sours of the chinks become desperate is a lot more plausible.
Given that its much, much cheaper to trade than going to war, against a nuke power even, I don't think the Chinese share your sentiments.

>China has a huge surplus of military aged males
More cannon fodder

>Chinks have been trading human lives for geopolitical gains for millennia
Guess what, every group does the same.

>Russia and China hate each other historically. They fought small border wars during the cold war, even while they were Fraternal Socialist Brothers.
The Russians and Chinese have a full nearly 1000 years of history between themselves with no conflict. They spend a year in a border conflict and now they hate each other historically? Pull the other one.

Russians don't use tanks to take out tanks. That's the job of the Russian Artelery.

Read a book vatnik

>Same level of firepower and protection.
That's just not true. They have similar numbers on paper but the reality of performance is that russia designs intentionally inferior tanks with the expectation of winning via numeric advantage. They never planned for the T-80 or T-90 to defeat the M1 1 one one, they intended to field a platoon of T-80s for every M1 in service.

The Armanta is a deviation from that philosophy somewhat, but the fact that they left the turret ring ammo in means that they still think the same way. They accept the increased risk to the vehicle in exchange for the improved fire rate and ammo capacity affording by putting it there. The plan is to lose tanks, but to have enough of them to win anyway. Americans designs tanks to be invulnerable, Russians design tanks to be Cost effective. Historically speaking, the Russian theory is more successful, but it require the admission that in russian tank theory keeping the tank intact and crew alive is a secondary concern.

Making the turret unmanned and thus less likely to explode its own crew is a move toward valuing the survival of the vehicle and crew, but only a little bit, truth is even with the armor between turret and operators, that ammo cooking off is still likely to cook the crew with it either inside the tank or as they try to escape. Americans compromise the effectivness of their tank and increase its cost to avoid the possibility of catastrophic kills, the Russians value that effectiveness above the lives of the crew. To be honest i expect the reduce crew capacity has more to do with the cost and availability of crew than it does with keeping them safe. Modern tankers are highly trained soldiers and russias two year conscription means the bulk of their tankers are probably career troops, meaning there's not as many of them available as people would like. that puts a premium on crew requirements and reducing the tanks crew means increasing the number of tanks you can field.

You got so many things wrong I don't think its worth any effort to even to try and debate with you.

Tanks are direct fire artillery.

Shit that guy's got 254 unread messages, commander must be mad at him

M1 Abrams couldn't penetrate T-72B, let alone T-80U with absolute best ammo while both handily penetrate even HA variants of Abrams with latest ammo of the time. Death of Soviets stopped all tank developments from being fielded while US continued and that's where supposed superiority resides.

>russian tanks are SO GOOD that the only times they have ever faced western tanks, they have been completely obliterated and 0 western tanks have suffered any damage or casualties at all

that about sums up this thread right?

Attached: 1550025611537.jpg (714x960, 52K)

Iraqis dont count. Infantry armed with AKs and flip flops routinely rout entire divisions of them.

>Iraqis dont count.

Right because if we did count them that would make Russia look pretty fucking retarded, and we can't have that happen can we?

Still not used when removing tanks. Rocket artillery or self propelled guns are more likely to be used rather than conventional tanks, if they seen each other, the other side would rather likely use longer ranged gun launched missiles once needed, or call someone else to launch anti tank munitions.

>Tank sees tank 20km away
>Other tank calls in helicopter, 10 minutes away
>The other tank calls in Self propelled ATGM carrier, Kornet-D, 2 minutes away
>Kornet-D gets 15km away from target
>Launches 4 missiles at the same time
>Leave after hit

Both tanks did not even have to come within range of each other.

This, it's like giving them Abrams and them leaving the tanks behind and running away at the first sight of ISIS with AK-47s. Which would never happen of course.

>>Tank sees tank 20km away

I stopped reading right here

The reason the Iraqis ran away is because western tanks are so bad. They knew that staying inside of them and attempting to fight would lead to their demise.

He's sitting at the commander's seat, so he must be the commander. And those are just photos of little boys, he'll look at them once the camera guy leaves the tank.

>Right because if we did count them that would make Russia look pretty fucking retarded, and we can't have that happen can we?
We can give them the very best of our arsenals and I guarantee you some coked up ninja shouting snackbar would still beat the shit out of them.

Looks like armatard is back in the saddle.

Combined arms my nigga. Tanks are excellent for performing reconnaissance through fires, and are sturdy enough to keep the enemy in place while artillery doea its job.

But he's not wrong though.

>you was supposed to turn right
>stop dude go back and turn right
>YOU DUMB SHIT TURN RIGHT DONT GO THERE
>you there?
>STOOOOOOOOOOP
>T
>U
>R
>I will report you to high command

Is that a drone?

>scenario includes 1990's heavy ERA on the vatnik side and 1970's 105mm projectile on the other
Totally legit

Considering they either don't train people to use the machine before sending them out or its so bad it breaks down when traveling forwards at 4kmh, I don't think anyone has anything to worry about

Exactly, and that makes tank vs tank fights not that common, it doesn't matter if T-14 can beat an Abrams 1 vs 1 or not as asks.

Yes, the guy is inside a drone as you can clearly see the top of the tree line.

Reminder that it is still an IR missile magnet. It's signature is too easy for IR missiles to lock on to, the Russians still need to develop their heat signatures. It is too high compared to very cool American tanks.

Attached: nmfe49m218xy.jpg (798x436, 32K)

>turn or i feed

120 mm M829 cant pen T-72B user.
t. Manfred Held

I think you should take into account the different perspective when looking at this tank from the top. Both the turret and the hull are as cool (blue) as the ground which makes me think it would be just fine.

Attached: images (3).jpg (739x415, 39K)