What does /k/ think of the T-14 Armata? Bias aside.

>>28671498
Pretty terrible.

File: 1430768740498.png (1MB, 2500x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2500x1800px

Has a nice looking hull but the turret is fucking hideous.

>>28671498
Interesting idea, poor craftsmanship. Also, it looks like a Merkava fucked a T-72 and this was the result.

>>28671498
I spoke to someone at TARDEC at one point about it. Her reply basically went like this:

>It's a good enough tank if it's legit, but we don't have enough data
>It has some pretty neat ideas
>It could match or even surpass the Abrams
>Too bad we've been building something better for the last few years so it doesn't matter

>>28671498
Neat tech demonstrator, if they had the funds that'd would be pretty cool but desu they'd be better off just buying/upgrading to the T-90SM

As far as i'm informed the Armata is rather a platform than just a tank. The turret section can be modded so it can act as an AA, mobile radar system, SAM etc. In it's tank configuration it features the first unmanned turret, so there's that. I try put my aesthetic preferences aside and talk technical usefulness of the vehicle..

File: armata tank.jpg (87KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 900x500px

>>28671600
>>Too bad we've been building something better for the last few years so it doesn't matter
kek'd. it will cost 2-3x as much yet it will still be vulnerable to fucking ATGMs like every other tank. At least Rusikes are putting in data links and remote control systems into theirs so they can be driven by remote tank crews.

Here's a vid of Saudi Abrams, with uranium plates upgrade, being BTFO with a Fagot ATGM (vid says it's Korent.. it's not. It's an ancient AT-4 Spigot aka Fagot).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBwKYvINTds

>>28671922
Imagine a next gen american tank
Completed autonomous/remote control, except for the single human loader
Truly the future

File: tanks ball.png (206KB, 808x2055px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 808x2055px

>>28671959
>except for the single human loader
kek'd. Pentagon still doesn't want to put in an autoloader because then women would be qualified for tank crews.

russians have had autoloaders for decades... but then again, they don't have insane SJWs running their politics...

File: 1438806781148.jpg (80KB, 900x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 900x720px

>>28671959
>Completed autonomous/remote control, except for the single human loader

File: armata-diagram.jpg (175KB, 933x705px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 933x705px

>>28671498
I think Russia deserves credit for FINALLY catching on to the crew/ammo isolation meme. Not only that, but they managed to come up with their own solution to the issue without just mimicking the Abrams/Leo2 solution. I believe the Armata solution is actually superior to the Arbams/Leo2 solution in many ways.

Armata can literally do ye olde jack-in-the-box with the crew surviving unscathed.

>>28671922
>Saudi Abrams, with uranium plates upgrade
[citation needed]

No Heavy Metal Module for Abrams has been sold to any foreign customer ever. Further, you do a great job outing yourself when you describe it as plates.

>>28672005
>would be qualified for tank crews.
its doctrine m8, they have a loader because its much easier to load different types of ammunition and while the autoloader is a good idea, the US has already played with it before and didn't buy into it.

Plus an autoloader is just another thing that can break down on you, except this time it can mean the entire tank is a liability due to the possibility of it not being able to fire

>>28671498
>finally realizing that ammo should go beneath the turret ring

wew, its like they just figured out why their tanks did a jack in the box after all these years

>>28672361
Read the fucking comments to that video. They received the upgrades and there's a paper trail.

And just imagine... if an AT-4 wrecked it that bad, just imagine what some of the modern ATGMs would do to it.

It's Merkava all over again...

>>28672544
Except that having a person sitting in the tank doing makework is fucking dumb, and a giant misuse of personnel & money.

Goes the same way for a dedicated driver or gunner too, desu

>>28672662
>Read the fucking comments to that video
that counts as sources now?

Hell I might as well post on there saying it was a t90 and it counts as a source according to you

>bias aside
>/k/ - NEET Politics

>>28672674
it does though. To have someone control more than one element of the tank is absurd. If you divide up the work you allow for the specialization of the components.

I assume that you mean the gunner should also be the commander, but the commander is supposed to maintain a "birds eye" perspective and also coordinate with other tanks/infy. If you also have him worrying about either driving/shooting or whatever you want to put him in, then he can't put enough focus on being the commander.

its basic division of labour man. I know its a bad comparison, but just look at assembly lines. You don't have one guy build an entire contraption, you have multiple people work on each individual piece. That way each person can specialize in their given task

>>28672674
An extra pair of hands always comes in handy for the times when you aren't doing the shooty parts of combat.

>>28672782
I think driving and aiming/firing could be done almost entirely by computers.
For tricky parts the commander could manually drive the tank, but for driving in formation, or down a road, an auto-driver is good enough.

>>28672544
>its doctrine m8, they have a loader because its much easier to load different types of ammunition and while the autoloader is a good idea, the US has already played with it before and didn't buy into it.

You can tell an autoloader which ammo you want. It's not a technological issue at all.

The doctrine is that they don't want one because women would be qualified. It's as simple as that.

>Plus an autoloader is just another thing that can break down on you, except this time it can mean the entire tank is a liability due to the possibility of it not being able to fire

Except that almost every other MBT has one and they don't break down.

>>28672892
>think driving and aiming/firing could be done almost entirely by computers
too many variables imo

I mean its much easier to have a human drive, fire and aim since I don't see either the advancement of AI to be enough to allow for that.

Even if the commander could drive during the tricky parts, it would be better for him to scan the area, talk to other tanks and decide where the tank should go.

To have him burdened with possibly driving, and on top of that maybe even gunning is absurd.

File: 1431627204910.png (14KB, 221x120px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 221x120px

>>28671498
>/k/ - Tank veterans/engineers/tactical analysts

>>28672913
>don't break down
um, point is that they can, not that they haven't

and no, with autoloaders you're stuck with the ammo you've put into the autoloader in sequence since theres no mechanism to manually select the type of ammo used in an autoloader

>>28673040
Everything can break down. It's just that there are other things that can break down sooner than an autoloader (which is one of the simplest mechanical devices ever since it's "powered" by gravity and a single actuator. And autoloaders load faster than any human can anyway.

>>28671498
RT needs to stop shilling it here.

>>28672968
Sure 4 people will be "better" than 1
But if it could be done, adequately, with 1 or 2 person crew in the tank, no reason not to do it.

Thats what the whole 5th gen thing is about, networking, clearer display of information, sensor fusion, etc.

Computers are perfectly capable of path finding, and coordinating with nearby vehicles, not hitting anything.

A commander with one of those F-35 helmets could designate a target, then let the computer fire on it.

Scanning will likely be less relevant with the proliferation of drones too.

>>28673200
I can think of a situation where 4 crew is better than two- breaking track.

>>28673368
Have the infantry in bradleys help out.
Or a dedicated support vehicle on abrams chassis per formation.

>>28671922
>it will cost 2-3x as much
Actually - no. UVZ has working tank building conveyor. Serial production + modular design will make this tank pretty affordable. That's the fucking point of unified platform.
>they can be driven by remote tank crews.
It's safety/emergency measure, not something they're gonna use everyday.

File: noDU4u_1.png (464KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1080x1920px

>>28672662
protip, the backside of an Abrams turret does not have composite armor

>>28673482
Or have the infantry do what the infantry was trained to do, and have the tank crew do its maintenance (as well as have extra eyes/ears/hands).

File: noDU4u_2.png (541KB, 1341x551px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1341x551px

>>28673687

>>28673623
The expensive parts (gun, FCS, sights etc.) do not get cheaper because the hull is shared.

>>28671498
Breaking down on its victory parade march is not a good sign

File: noDU4u_3.jpg (125KB, 855x1063px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 855x1063px

>>28673724
The worst part is, if it wasn't for KSA crews being shit that Abrams would probably be recoverable.

>>28672662
>Read the fucking comments to that video. They received the upgrades and there's a paper trail.

M1A2S = old Saudi M1A2 tanks (including export armor package) with updated electronics taken from SEPv1

>>28673711
Or have dedicated mechanics handling several tanks because its not like tank crew spend all day maintaining shit
Nor is fixing a track an hourly occurance.

No reason to have people doing makework in a tank simply because "muh 4 hands and 4 eyes"

>>28673814
So instead of having 1 extra body, you now require multiple as a repair crew plus multiple more to escort them in a combat zone.

Absolute genius.

>>28671498
>shoot no-armor turret
>tank now useless

File: very heavy armor comrade.jpg (493KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1200x800px

>>28671498
I don't like the idea of moving towards APS being the end all be all, and then having it protected by armor that 80mm shell splinters can penetrate and damage the sensitive electronics inside.

>>28673895
That is not armor, its supposed to lower the thermal/RCS signature of the tank.

File: 1453604090788.jpg (7KB, 255x189px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 255x189px

>>28673920

>>28673931
I did say 'supposed to'.

>>28673860
You could say the same thing for literally every other tank in service including the Abrams. There is no tank in existence that can stop a 120mm APFSDS ADEP round.

>>28673959
And you know this because?

>>28672361

M1A2s from the 1989 contract had full DU inserts.

>>28673993
Source?

>>28673854
no
You just build a new support vehicle like the hercules, but on the abrams/next gen tank chassis, and add an extra couple crew members to it for those sorts of jobs that need extra hands.

Eyes are replaced by cameras and a nice fancy helmet, like the F-35 one.

>>28674043
Calling me a liar?

File: 1452189147446.jpg (122KB, 594x594px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 594x594px

>>28674088
Sure thing.

>>28673200
First you say this:
>Thats what the whole 5th gen thing is about, networking, clearer display of information, sensor fusion, etc.
Then you say this:
>Thats what the whole 5th gen thing is about, networking, clearer display of information, sensor fusion, etc.

If I were you I would look into these two topics:
1)Informantion overload,
2)Crew Resource Management.

The modern battlefield already taxes crews' abilities to observe, orient, decide, and act. Reducing the number of people who have to shoulder this much data is counter-productive.

The mimimum number of crew members should be 3.
1) Driver: responsible for vehicle status, Stores, tools, driving, front line preventative maintainance, and cooking.
2) Gunner: responsible for gun condition, coax gun, fixed gun, grenade launchers, ammo for all of the above, and front line preventative maintainance. 2nd in command.
3)Crew commander: responsible for cooridination of the two above roles. Scans for threats using built in sensors and also manages feeds from uav's and other sources. keeps track of other friendly forces and how the tank fits in with the overall plan/situation.

If you are watching the road you cant watch for the enemy and you cant look at the map.
If you are watching the enemy you cant watch the road or look at the map.
If you are looking at the map you cant watch the road and you cant watch for enemy.

>>28671498
meme tank

File: Houthi Rebels Destroy M1 Abrams Tanks With Basic Iranian Guided Missiles.jpg (75KB, 677x272px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 677x272px

>>28673687
>>28673724
Fucking ANCIENT sources retard. KSA has received upgrades which DO INCLUDE depleted uranium panels. KSA always gets the latest stuff because they're the biggest customer of US-made arms.

Just fucking THINK, José, if the latest Abrams got BTFO with a fucking 40 year old missile, just think what a new one would do to it. It would be just as bad.

ALL tanks are fucking death traps. There isn't a tank in the world that can survive shaped charges.

>>28674088
Yes, see >>28673748

>>28673744
It was a practice, and it also didn't break down. The crew had only 1 month to train on using an entirely new tank. Not their fault

>>28674785
Your picture says that M1A2 SEP have enhanced depleted uranium armor and updated electronics, not that M1A2S do.

As you are probably ESL, your lack of reading comprehension is forgiven.

File: 1378876393626.png (119KB, 1776x1018px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1776x1018px

>>28674785
Oh wow, you are quoting Foxtrotalpha over actual manufacturer statements.

>>28671498
has the turret ever moved?

>>28675196
No.

>>28675196
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCGdvMkDlVc
yes

File: 1453438155520.jpg (2MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7680x4320px

>>28673959
>unmanned turret having the same protection as manned turret

>>28671498
It's a very interesting development, it shows that the Russians have theoretically closed the gap in armour development.

The best things about the vehicle is it's layered defences. Russians have been doing Hard-Kill APS since the late Soviet era, and in the T-14 it's been designed with APS in mind, rather than being a bolt-on upgrade.

To my knowledge, no NATO tank uses hard-kill APS, so the Armata is ahead in that regard. Soft kill APS is also something that NATO hasn't widely adopted like the Russians have, at least to my knowledge.

I'm a little critical of the unmanned turret solution. In theory it should give superior performance to a manned turret, but that's just theory. How it works in practice we'll have to wait and see.

I like the hull, the turret looks funny. The idea is good, second only to unmanned tanks and bipedal robots exported from Japan.

Was surprised it uses an anti magnetic proximity fuse APS. Also I believe the problem that it is penetrable from the sides of the bubble is true, that's probably the purpose of the external ERA on the front side of the tank.

>>28671725
Thats not very revolutionary though.

File: 1354170888852.jpg (223KB, 1280x787px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1280x787px

a wild ignorant appears.
the turret to me looks... fragile? all those nooks and crannies.

in general i'm seeing a lot of tanks with very "square" turrets. wouldn't something smooth and round, like picture, be better?

>>28676948
angles are basically irrelevant if they aren't so steep that heat charges cant prime themselves so like 15 degrees or steeper

>>28671498
Over glorified spg.

Its like a better striker mgs.

Impressive

Russians have made a good novelty. The advancements are good but there are also disadvantages. That is why Chinese researchers that poured in blood, sweat and tears to cultivate the Chinese way of research and development did not lead this kind of technology. Because it is not as good as the current tank technology of China and will be like a sore thumb in the grand logistics scheme of China. The Chinese way of tanking is like the Yangtze river, swift, powerful, overflowing yet ever changing and firm. Novelties such as the Russian tanks are best for recreation and a few laughs.

In a situation that greatly benefits T-14, a single Type 99A, at most, can destroy 3-5 T-14s.

>>28673040
man, iirc someone has posted an info about Russian autloaders - their autoloaders could be manually loaded by a crew member

>>28671498
Paper tiger like most new Russian equipment

>>28673931
As (another anon and neutral here) it does make sense - it just makes an air gap and provides a flat surface to help facet the turret while the thicker armour is further in, requiring less armour surface area and therefore less mass.

>>28677465
Man, that's a first-class imitation of the classic Chinese-Patriot-on-the-Internet. It's all there: slightly odd grammar, nonsensical pro-China position, zero evidence provided, and especially bringing up China when nobody had mentioned them.

I guess if I had to shill Chinese armour to get a free pass through the Great Firewall of China, is do it too, but access to our memes is only with so much humiliation.

>>28677565
apparently it could literally be a paper tiger. It's twice the size of the t90am but only weighs 5 tons more. so unless they are using some kind of slav magic NERA it probably has horrible armor in it's current iteration.

File: 1514444_original.jpg (69KB, 650x900px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 650x900px

>>28673040
>theres no mechanism to manually select the type of ammo used in an autoloader
There is.

>>28673920
>>28673931
>>28673954
>>28677613

Point out that under the cover are a lot of ugly bolted-in armor module blocks much like ERA blocks (one is obvious in the picture) and covers help with things like crew access, external wire runs, water ingress and so on.

>Bias aside
>/k/

>>28677695
>人不犯我,我不犯人。人若犯我,我必犯人
A stern warning to American capitalists from the Great Helmsman, do not anger the giant.

>>28671959

Dumbshit here. Why can't the loader be automated as well?

>>28677914
murrican negros are capable of lifting 50kg shells unlike their dainty european and slavic counter parts

>>28677914
it's far cheaper and easier to exploit young african americans than to automate their labor

>>28677622
>is do it too

You have good dubs, but your grammar is an unacceptable reply to a post that has shows honor and dignity and reason, before you reply, make sure to take attention to the words of your mouth, it is how the world gives the impression on your race.

>>28678054
Holy run on sentence, batman!

File: 1441723354706.jpg (56KB, 1074x655px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1074x655px

>>28673895
>>28673931

File: 1448726543694.jpg (75KB, 601x422px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 601x422px

>>28676292
Abrams have had AN/VLQ-6 for some time now.

>>28677914
Becouse russiboo apdfs are abel to pen ouer tanks and do demage. Dont belive the indestructibel tonk meme.

Cleaning the remenants of the loader is easier and cheaper and faster then fixing a auto loader.

>>28673895
>>28678464

Good pair of pictures here.

The actual turrent is compact and heavily armored. However, the turret is covered with external sheet-steel "hat", which is designed to protect the turret sensors from weather, dirt and light fragments. In the first picture you can see the cotter-pins which hold the "hat" in place.

>>28678500
I think i just watched the English language perform suicide.

>>28676948
Angling is irrelevant all modern shells completely normalize. The only thing it does is marginally increase the thickness however you can put more armor on a flat surface anyway and it increases space inside the tank.

>>28675137
>didn't break down
>that's why it had to be towed away and the brake couldn't be undone

File: 1315774577001.jpg (16KB, 450x370px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 450x370px

>>28679650
Yes, because they didn't know how to get it moving again.

File: New American Tank (1967).webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>28677914
They wanted autoloader in MBT. It had 152mm gun. Shells and Shillelagh missiles were heavy. So, Germans had 120mm cannon and operational autoloader in their Kpz70. Soviets had 115mm (later 125mm) cannon and operational autoloader. US had operational autoloader who was very complex and unreliable. Because 152mm, duh. Attempts to make autoloader and blast panels in same time limited RoF to 6RPM. Krauts had better. Germans and Americans failed to finished MBT70 and they build a new tank from scratch leaving all expensive stuff outside. Autoloader was one of that things along with guided missiles and advanced suspension. It wasn't about crew efficiency or about reloading time. It was about fucked up MBT70.

File: Spetshaz hostage rescue.gif (2MB, 530x291px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 530x291px

>>28679691
>it didn't break down
>we totally know what we're doing, guise

>>28673895
>Let's put the sensitive sensors inside the armor
>The sensitive sensors can't see shit through the thick steel plates
How do you even breath?

plastic model fag, I like it. Nice new variety more or less. That's all I really care about in tanks

>>28678652
>heavily armored
please 70% of that turret is the breach and autoloader. chances that the armor package is anywhere close to a foot thick on any piece of that turret is nil.

>>28673985
Because he's a typical burger that has been from the birth taught that US is the bestest at everything and since Abrams can't defeat one then no one else can either.

Outside the lala-land both Israeli and Russian APS systems are decades ahead of everyone else and do indeed have the capability to defeat KE rounds. There's even jewtube videos of the Russian system in action demonstrating this.

>>28680221
>The sensitive sensors can't see shit through the thick steel plates

I wonder how you think thermal sights work when they're armored.

File: 1416223808091.png (60KB, 860x650px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 860x650px

>>28680391
>APS systems are decades ahead of everyone else and do indeed have the capability to defeat KE rounds. There's even jewtube videos of the Russian system in action demonstrating this.

File: Challenger 1 Falcon.jpg (167KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1280x960px

>>28671725

>In it's tank configuration it features the first unmanned turret

Challenger 1 Falcon beat you to it. (And if you want to get onto 'not in service' things, the US had an M1 prototype with one too. But you could go even further back to the Comres 75 the British made post WW2)

>>28680406
>I wonder how you think thermal sights work when they're armored.
With exposed lenses I would guess unless your trying to say thermal optics can see through steel plates now.

>>28678652
If you consider steel plate heavily armored for a MBT.

>>28679730
All German MBT-70s had a 152mm gun.

>>28680424
I once saw this pic on /k/ and didn't know what tank it was. My mistake was not checking the writing on the tank.