Armata bad

>ammo rack
>right next to the crew
I'm glad that the the good old soviet tradition of cooking the crew and throwing the turret to the moon is still here.
If they went all in in to the unmanned turret why did they not put the rack there and get rid of the carousel autoloader ?

shut up

Attached: Tiger 1.jpg (481x435, 140K)

The German-Franco tank is actually the only tank project within the NATO anyway.

Attached: 1872ce_78ca43b79559447bade410783577ec3d_mv2.png (868x1228, 993K)

*gets off the train*
*breaks down*

Its not offered for export because it has a ton of new tech no other country has.

Their APS and radar triggered ERA alone make all missiles, shells and long rod penetrators obsolete. Their rf jammers make all gps bombs, fused shells and command mines obsolete. Their multispectral jammers make laser guided weapons obsolete. The stealth shaping makes all synthetic aperture radar and radar guided weapons obsolete. On top of all this it has more composite armor than a T-90 which is already beyond lecrlerc, ariete and leopard.

Its god of the battlefield until someone comes up with a weapon that can kill it.

>tanks are a flawed concept

Attached: 79add6ef.jpg (1920x960, 198K)

Makes me wonder how many of those "operational" Armata even have all those advanced technologies.

The issue with all of those systems is that they need electricity to work. So if the crew leaves the tank such as at a base, or they shut it down to conserve power, or they don't enter the right code, or there's an electrical failure, or they have to shut down for maintenance in the field... the tank suddenly stops being "God" on the battlefield and becomes just another IFV with MBT level protection in the crew capsule, which can and will get hit with an ATGM.

Passive armor works all the time, active armor works when the light switch is on.

All of them, grow up.

All of those 24?

dude you're retarded for sure
ever heard of batteries auxiliary power units?

This, leave to the Germans to design tanks

doubt that even half of that is true

In none of the situations I mentioned a battery would help.

It is 100% true, look up every one of their systems, they are tested and functional. These guys basically invented APS in the 70s.

Why is the US so invested in the Abrams?

A fine tank, no doubt, but you'd think they'd be looking for a replacement by now

The answer to that kind of questions is usually contractors' money

>but you'd think they'd be looking for a replacement by now
There is, it's just early in development

Attached: f-mbt.jpg (810x768, 30K)

>m1a3
>45t
>unmanned turret
>autoloader
>3 man crew
>era
>aps
>shtora
>barrel fired missiles
Because the replacement is literally the russian armata tank and they don't want to admit to being wrong for 40 years.

Attached: TTB 3.jpg (606x415, 35K)

The T-14 seems like technological dead end. Perhaps worth trying and producing on some level for testing but it's not going to become standard. Even within the Russian Army. Going from a 3-man vehicle with cramped conditions (2 in the turret and 1 in the hull) to a larger vehicle (with all 3 in a hull compartment). What is gained other than not having the gun breech between two crew members?
An unmanned turret is not conducive to good situational awareness and the argument of "We can't see but at least we have APS and ERA" doesn't hold up when the tank is larger than most. It is going to get spotted quicker and shot at more and once sensors start going down then it is a big problem. As a family of vehicles the Armata wasn't a bad idea to make life better for the mechanized forces of the Russian Army, but an MBT done with that idea doesn't do anything better than the T-90 and T-72B3 tanks they already have.

>ERA stopping a hypersonic tungsten dart

*sips beer*
Now THIS is a good tank

Attached: 1550625747931.png (904x851, 1.32M)

By limiting your crew to one are of the tank most of the time, it lets you layer armor where its needed instead of putting it everywhere. Or using the same level of armor in one area, and cutting it everywhere else for huge weight savings.

>situational awareness
How is this an issue?

Attached: paint.jpg (1258x596, 51K)

The Jordanian Falcon design could be a good compromise. Gun has an autoloader and is isolated from the crew. Crew in the turret still has vision blocks and can poke their heads out to look around. Lower profile for the crew so armor can be built up around them and reduced on other parts of the vehicle.
Give them some raised periscopes or build one into the turret for the TC and it seems like this layout could work without being too different from the norm.

Attached: falcon_turret2.jpg (1024x768, 301K)

I love all the high schoolers on 4channel debating tank design as if they know wtf they're talking about

fuck off

So thew crew is protected, but their vehicle is not. Take a hit to the gun and the tank is no longer fighting back. Take a hit to the engine and your tank is sitting still. Those are problems on tank tank but you pointing out that armor is being thinned except around the crew compartment means you want a bunker (which is sometimes mobile) and not a tank.

>How is this an issue?
Because nothing works as well as the eyeball. Give a crew too much technology and they will become fixated on it. If that technology breaks down then the crew will be lost without it.

>ever heard of electronics-frying cruise missiles with hundreds of shots?

Who would win, one CHAMP or an armata battalion (do that many even exist?)

It's good enough for now, and they are looking for unmanned replacements instead of the remote-turret tanks the US developed before Russia and discarded. Pic related.

Attached: RCV-H.jpg (582x418, 93K)

They tested it IRL and it was rejected. The inferior situational awareness is adequate on the defense, but crippling otherwise.

When T72s are better, you know it's a bad idea.

We are talking about composite armor levels, the tank is fully protected by ERA and APS. Also IIRC the T14 is protected against heavy autocannon (S-60 57mm APCBC) strikes everywhere except the crew capsule, the crew capsule itself has enough composite armor to withstand an MBT (125mm, 120mm etc) strike.

It's just a more optimal layout of armor. ON TOP of this composite armor layout we have the ERA and APS.

>nothing works as well as the eyeball
The turret is optionally manned, you can still have Mk1 eyeball he just has to accept the level of protection for an IFV instead of a MBT when he's standing out there basically open to enemy fire.

I don't know what gave you this impression but the crew isn't permanently welded into the protected crew capsule....

boner why?

No decision was even made to develop a new tank.

Because tank on tank warfare is symmetrical and retarded. Tanks are better saved as hard hitting weapons platforms and leaving the numerous antitank systems on other platforms to the mission of killing tanks.

Having a 140mm isolated tank taking a few hits is pointless when a helo can pop up over terrain for 10 seconds. Launch a salvo of hellfires and duck back down laying chaff before AA can hit it.

In a symmetrical conflict attack helicopters are eaten alive. The only vehicles with a shorter calculated battlefield lifetime than a tank in the Cold War.

Yes and?

Attached: 69035454_2639884272709434_8153060976896245760_o.jpg (1747x1248, 451K)

Apart of all the memes, I'm genuinely curious how the Armata will do in combat and what its next upgrades will look like.

>Its not offered for export because it has a ton of new tech no other country has.

We know that the Armata was pitched to Egypt, China and India.

I think against other tanks it would do fine. My biggest question is how do the cameras stand yup to being hit with fire from something like an IFV. If cameras and stuff start getting knocked out then what can the crew do to not get flanked and killed?

Soviets, and now the Russian Federationians don't export their advanced modelsm

May as well go the Jew way at that point
put everyone in the back behind a bulkhead
all the hatches are on the back of the tank

Attached: 5x1nxc.png (724x968, 789K)

It will rape infantry and do very well against MBTs.

It will struggle with IFVs, if it spots them first it will rape them, but if they spot it first and fire 2:1, 3:1 or 4:1 it's going to be in trouble.

Also it will be in trouble from glide bombs.

tl;dr it's a good system overall

>armata good
>abrams actually exists

>slavs are back again to make really shitty renders because armata is so ugly

Poor T-14, could have been so sweet, but it was born dead.

Attached: T-90s In Parade.jpg (3075x2045, 795K)

Russki's can't into new hardware

Attached: Russian_Air_Force_Ka-60.jpg (1278x743, 375K)

You totaly ignore the advances of a turret: You can turn a portion of your armor with most of your crew behind it to a threat even on the move.

>It is 100% true,
It is not and too many idiots already had made similar claims about other russian systems that all turned out to be absolute disapointments.

Vatnik detected

Source please.

GDLS must be giving really good head to someone.

Why cant that be done with Armata?

It looks 'bad' because it scatters radar.

>helicopter actually has the speed to get to the combat zone
vs
>tank that has to bumble for hours before it can be seen and killed

>It looks 'bad' because it scatters radar.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

>M1A4
>12t
>completely unmanned
>automated manual mechanical loader
>-2 man crew with sixteen spares
>ERA
>APS
>AVG
>RBI
>BLT
>Missile fired barrels
See user, I can pull bullshit out of thin air too!

Attached: 1548228030793.png (184x184, 63K)

>it scatters radar.
Well since we know Russia can't into RAMs and the thing is the size of a house (a real house, not a Siberian shack) I doubt it really does much good.

give it a hunter/killer set of independent gunner/commander views on the top of the turret like a bradley and it might be worthwhile

Elbit has developed that Iron Vision system which supposedly gives the same kind of situational awareness that new fighter jet helmets can do. I wonder if that will change the way tanks are designed.

>Blocks your trajectory

D'oh

Attached: Rm4wcpP.jpg (1109x469, 91K)

Abrams a shit.

Attached: 1556138844041.webm (1280x720, 1.94M)

Attached: 1485316776224.jpg (96x96, 2K)

Pshh, the turret was designed to be a last ditch blow-off panel.

That's a demolition, not an attack on an active vehicle.

ERA doesn't stop darts. Man guided missles still work. Dumb bombs still work. Mines still work. Artillery still works. It's a fantastic tank but far from "invincible."

>ERA doesn't stop darts

It does. Look up the latest Russian ERA and the Ukrainian Nozh system.

It will probably be another 10-20 years before Russia begins exporting them.

Radar triggered ERA detonates before the APFSDS hits, splitting it into dozens of small pieces.

Attached: era anti apfsds.jpg (600x736, 64K)

Everyone has had frangible tipped APFSDS to defeat that since the early-mid 2000's.

>i dont know anything about the history of its development that means the things you said were made up!
Yeah.

It scatters radar to make it seem like the tank is destroyed, not invisible. The turret itself looks wrecked and the rear of the tank also looks blown up. Technically you can still see it and launch missiles at it, but you'll be forced to waste multiple missiles on blown up tanks as well because you can't tell one from the other.

It's a dirt cheap way of saying "Fuck You" to an enemy.

>ERA doesn't stop darts.
It does.

>Man guided missles still work.
Yoiu can guide them to the tank, but they'll get shredded by APS, they'll get shredded by radar triggered ERA, the regular plate ERA will disturb the penetrator formation, and finally it has a shitload of armor around the crew and engine so there's nothing on it you can really hit.

>Dumb bombs still work.
This is true, see >Mines still work.
Magnetic sensing and command mines don't. Only sound sensing mines and pressure sensing mines work.

>Artillery still works.
Not if it has electronic fuses.

>It's a fantastic tank but far from "invincible."
It's the best protected, but nothing is invincible. Just send niggers to rape the tank crews family and they'll all suicide even if they're driving Optimus Prime.

No my dude, frangible APFSDS are designed to defeat the older form of ERA which is contact detonating heavy ERA.

See it used to detonate when APFSDS hit it, and SHEAR off the tip. This made it difficult for the APFSDS to bite into the armor and it reduced penetration. Prefragmented APFSDS basically were fine with losing an inch tip or two of penetration because they had pre-shaped sharp tips right behind it, many of them.

Nothing to do with radar triggered ERA which is next gen, it actually works better with prefragmented APFSDS.

That depiction of ERA both ignores physics and is not how either Russian or Ukrainian ERA works.

>what is programmable APFDS with separating precursor to pre-activate radar triggered and conventional ERA

Attached: g_rman engineering.jpg (923x500, 46K)

ERA like Relikt do not 'shear off the tip' of an APFSDS, upon detonation they feed their flyer plate laterally into the rod which greatly eats up its ability to penetrate the tanks underlying armor.

That is a patent for an APFSDS where you can screw on different tips depending on the intended target.

> they feed their flyer plate laterally into the rod which greatly eats up its ability to penetrate the tanks underlying armor
... by shearing it.

I don't think you understand what lateral movement is.

>you'll be forced to waste multiple missiles on blown up tanks as well because you can't tell one from the other.
Well I mean one moves when you shoot at it. I really don't think the military of a nation practically run by the world's most lucrative arms industry is going to have much issue firing missiles at just about anything they think is a baddie tank, especially if that tank is one of your enemy's 100 or so "super tanks". Like, sure...
>It's a dirt cheap way of saying "Fuck You" to an enemy.
...but also when you're fighting a war it's not so much about saying "fuck you" as it is about winning.

Yeah

Guess what the datalink and flight-detachable head are for.

Even the Poles figured out this one.

ERA isn't one thing, it has generations.

Not something that exists, and not what that image is about, but a good idea. Another way to go would be stealth shaping for the KEW so the radar on the radar triggered ERA doesn't see it.

Attached: ERA gen.png (628x1492, 54K)

A data link and in flight detachable heads are not what the patent image you posted describes.

corrosionpedia.com/definition/1025/shear
>Shear refers to a type of material strain experienced in a structure due to the lateral shifting of its inter-granular plates relative to each other.

Cool tech like a working transmission?

It inconveniences the enemy to waste thousands of munitions on blown up shit, and it costs the designers nothing. Its not like oddly shaped sheet steel costs any more than aesthetically shaped sheet steel.

Why wouldn't they do this?

I can't figure out what problem you have with this design.

>working transmission
What are you a faggot?

>The degree of tolerable shear stress of a metal is a strong indicator of the metal's resistance to wear and degradation.

ERA does not induce shear in an APFSDS, but I applaud your effort to educate yourself on terminology.

>kills your fuel dump
>kills your ammo dump
>kills your bridges
>kills your resupply convoys
t. american air power doctrine since the Cold War

If you say so ;)

Attached: 48748498751_4c93b93e3d_b.jpg (768x1024, 380K)

>inconvenience

Just letting you know, since you are apparently unaware, shooting missiles and cannons at shit is fun as fuck. Nobody is inconvenienced by getting the opportunity to wargasm with a TOW or whatever except the taxpayer, who is a tree-hugging bisexual who’s opinion is irrelevant anyway.

>decoys still work

Maybe against russian electronics. Western battle computers were screening MMW returns for hulks in the 1980s.

>but muh concertina retroreflectors at NTC!

Yeah
not anymore

Nah, just a guy who prefers MBT’s that are able to move.

>Maybe against russian electronics. Western battle computers were screening MMW returns for hulks in the 1980s.
Then why did they shoot like three tanks in yugoslavia and fall for every decoy lol?

Attached: NATO.jpg (561x425, 52K)

Yes that is a picture of an M829A4 cutaway, as is this, the M829A4 does not feature the manually screwed on tips of the patent image you posted.

Attached: jB1pcFp.jpg (3023x4031, 2.89M)