Russian Armata tank

considering that the first thing it did was to break down on the red square, i think it's a bit of a paper tiger at this point in time

>>33715815
Okay, but that is one small incident. Let us pretend it never happened. Is is truly superior to all other tanks or are Russians bluffing?

>>33715822
We don't know, nor won't know until it's actually combat tested.

Considering the number of them being produced they most likely won't see combat for a long time.

>>33715757
call me when it does anything

>>33715822

Russians have a long history of bullshitting their equipment's capabilities. It will no doubt be proven quite mediocre if it's ever used in anger.

Not OP but wait, the Russians still did not test it in combat? Wtf are they waiting for? They could have send some to Syria?

File: screen-shot-2016-01-03-at-12-23-59-pm.png (85KB, 869x485px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 869x485px

>>33715830
>being produced

Computer says no

Russian army plans to get 2300 T-14, deadline is 2020. Yeah, not gonna happen.

File: Type_69_Iraq_1.jpg (774KB, 1728x1152px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1728x1152px

>>33715757
If I were Russia I'd be more interested in acquiring larger numbers of small, mobile SAM systems and better ATGMs.

Tanks seem like a low priority considering any conflict with NATO will be decided in the air, and T-90s are fine for 'hybrid warfare' and such.

File: M1-T14-size comparisson.jpg (2MB, 6018x6000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6018x6000px

>>33715757
>t-14-chart-english.jpg
>Low silhouette
That brash lying.

>>33715822
Russia is infamous for paper-tiger propaganda.

On paper I'm sure it's a solid tank. But something designed by Russian engineers, built in Russian factories, maintained by Russian soldiers and supplied by Russian logistics is never going to match on-paper performance.

>>33715933
>Better ATGMS
Sorry but Kornet is best cost effective ATGM in the world and Thor is best mobile SAM in the world

>>33715835
Americans have a long history of underestimating their enemies equipment's capabilities. It will no doubt be proven quite good if it's ever used in anger.

I'm less concerned with how good it is, but rather how many they can actually afford.

File: pokpung-ho_ii.png.jpg (239KB, 740x486px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 740x486px

>>33715757

after all these years and only best Korea ever thought about adding a 10 kg AA, 60k $ system to protect from air threats(aka main earthling predator) its 50t 2500k$ weapon system without requiring the impossible task of achieving air supremacy over western enemies.

Why no one has ever though about adding manpads to tanks except the norks dammit?

>>33715992
WEW
E
W

Before any war with Americans, armchair critics big up the enemy military. After the war, everyone suddenly changes opinion and talks about how it was retards and monkey models.

Example: Iraq in the first Gulf War, with a bleeding edge IADS, hordes of battle-hardened troops and tough, reliable Soviet armor, vs Americans with green troops reliant on over-complicated technology sure to fail in the desert sands.

America underestimates itself. Everyone else overestimates themselves. When the two collide, hilarity ensues and excuses follow.

>>33716011
>MANPADS on tank
kek

File: nork tanks 2017 parade.jpg (2MB, 4746x3096px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4746x3096px

>>33716011
ATGMs too

They do it because they know their air defence system isn't up to the job of defending the country. Over reliance on MANPADS is a sign of desperation more then anything.

>>33716011
Because only NK is dumb enough to ignore basic combined arms. Tank vibration means high peacetime maintenance for your MANPADS, and in war tanks attract shrapnel and don't have the situational awareness needed to use them.

Better to stuff some dudes with missiles in an APC, set back from the front lines; or have a dedicated AA vehicle.

>>33716054
What are those machine guns? 20mm?

File: nork tanks 2017 parade 2.jpg (1MB, 5586x3792px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5586x3792px

>>33716054
Another

You see them on pretty much every North Korean armoured vehicle, and also some of their trucks with ZPUs on the back.

File: T-90 Rush.jpg (779KB, 2100x1344px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 2100x1344px

I like the old T-90 look more then this Armata, It just seems kinda boring for the Russians.

File: nork chomna ho.jpg (4MB, 2814x1864px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2814x1864px

>>33716079
I was thinking they might be grenade launchers.

I assume all these systems can be operated from inside the tank.

File: gallery-1452281638-gettyimages-71667449.jpg (23KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 980x490px

>>33716079

>>33716099
Look at the coax machine gun to the left of the barrel, it looks like its the same as the dual pintle mounted ones up top from the barrel profile.

>>33715757
Russia is famous for disinformation campaigns.

In reality most of their military equipment is from 60s and 70s, and only small amount of it is on the level that NATO achieve in early 90s.

Not mentioning that right now large percent of their population is starving and dying from HIV and drug overdose.

So, you shouldn't even ask this question.

>>33716084
Meh, Ralph Peters predicted Russia going to a RWS based tank back in 1991. The US armor branch tested automated turrets on the Abrams about as far back.

It's a doctrine thing. Tanks are no longer the main force where cutting edge research goes, air is. Having a tank that can sustain a steady, high optempo is what counts, and a 4-man crew is more useful for the attendant maintenance and simply staying awake than a 3-man crew. A automated loader is nice, but it's main benefit is boosting intermediate rates of fire, which is totally pointless in the US style of war.

>>33716126
In contrast, Russian doctrine (due to being a land power 1st; and having conscripts with shit tech 2nd) needs to reduce overall casualties, but not casualties in indivdual units. Instead of an around-the-clock advance with the same units, it has to zerg the enemy straightaway, and can't afford to stop and maintain vehicles or personnel. Instead, it leapfrogs new echelons into the fight.

That's why the US invented deep battle doctrine in the cold war.

>>33716126
It is a shame to see machines of war that I like grow out dated, but I suppose that's how its always been. Not looking forward to when they replace the Mi-Mi 24 though, though surely interesting to see what they make.

>>33716162
>That's why the US invented deep battle doctrine in the cold war.

Wasn't deep battle made by the soviets in WWII?

>>33716162
>In contrast, Russian doctrine (due to being a land power 1st; and having conscripts with shit tech 2nd) needs to reduce overall casualties, but not casualties in indivdual units. Instead of an around-the-clock advance with the same units, it has to zerg the enemy straightaway, and can't afford to stop and maintain vehicles or personnel. Instead, it leapfrogs new echelons into the fight.

Ihave trouble buying that as their doctrine as any modern conflict they've participated in had none of that and on accoun of potential opponents, the armies of NATO, PAL and other such superpowers the'd actually fight a conventional war with have more personnel as well as vehicles.

Their other potential opponents (ex-USSR) are unsuitable for large scale operations as well because of the mountainous terrain.

What's the source of these so-called 'Russian doctrines' you're quoting here?

>>33716397
>>33716427
The Soviet doctrine was invented in the 20s-30s. The US invention (as a response to it) was in the 1970s - Assault Breaker effectively birthed Western precision warfare.

It's a highly successful tank based on how much butthurt it's generated among the burgers

>>33716488
This!

>>33716488
True, propaganda warfare is the primary goal of any Slav weapon.

File: 14926023806261.jpg (372KB, 1096x735px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1096x735px

T-14 inside.

>>33716011
>>33716054
>>33716081

>infrared lamp nightvision

>>33716525
>>33716535
>>33716547
>>33716555

>No anti spall lining

The T-90 had this... Shit even the T-72 did.

>>33715757
It's the T-64 all over again.

Russia unveils a brand new modern main battle tank, makes NATO panic and causes them to create new tanks also. Thus the Chieftain, Abrams and Leopard 2 are born. It's the same thing now, the M1A3, Leopard 3 and new Challenger.

File: 1023874617.jpg (63KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1000x541px

>>33715757
Sexy

>>33715757

Nobody knows because the only thing we've ever seen it do is drive down a road and then break down.

>>33716594

You can clearly see the liner in these pictures

>>33716525
>>33716535

Or did you think the walls of the tank were made of cloth?

>>33715902
>deadline is 2020
kek

Aren't the supposed to be more powerful than NATO by 2025 ? How are they planning to achieve this ?

File: 1461833406001.png (404KB, 904x596px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 904x596px

>>33716488
>>33716502
>>33716512
That obvious vatnik samefagging.

>>33716555
This guy has a lot of unread emails.

>>33715822
We have seen it once. That one time it broke down and it hasn't been seen since.

Doesn't look very good.

>>33715757
It can be good but it still don't change the fact that Ivan should stand in line for bread.

After sanctions it basically turn into North Korea on steroids.

>>33715992
Historically America underestimates itself and overestimates its enemies.

File: 14121876145660.jpg (770KB, 2009x3000px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 2009x3000px

>>33715757

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv1hUAOF0lg

>>33720397
21 unread sms, 18 unread email and 42 unread grinder messages from putin himself.

>>33716488
The amount of vatnik butthurt when it turned out to look nothing like the fanart was glorious.