Secret Russian T-14 Armata Tank Revealed

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Secret Russian T-14 Armata Tank Revealed

New tank will replace Russian Federation's T-72 and T-90 tanks.

Technology marches on, and given the turmoil over in Russia, it seems logical that that technology comes in the form of new armor for the battlefield.

The Russian Federation's T-14 Armata tank, which was developed by the same company that manufactured the Russian Federation's T-72 and T-90 models has been unveiled. According to International Business Times, the new T-14 will replace the older models as Russia's main battle tank.

The heavy armor has a bit of a different look than the previous models.

"This is the least Russian-looking Russian tank I've ever seen," said a Russian defense expert, speaking to The Escapist on condition of anonymity. "But the photo leak suggests we'll see substantial numbers of T-14 prototypes in May, as the Russian military had previously stated. There was a rumor there would only be three T-14s in the Victory Day parade."

In an opinion piece run on Russian state-owned Sputnik News, the T-14 was classified as "on par" with the German Leopard 2 and the American M1A2 Abrams tank, which are currently the most advanced models run by each country.

Blogger Alexey Khlopotov graced us with a few shots of the elusive tank (seen above). Some of the images are taken from YouTube user Alexander Smirnov's video supposedly showing the new T-14 tank.

What are your thoughts on the new T-14 tank?

Source: International Business Times

Permalink

NoShoes:
What are your thoughts on the new T-14 tank?

How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Seriously though, i dont quite know what i can say about it, since both its specs and those of its competitors are at least partially classified.

gigastar:
How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Why would they hand out the newest weapon to anyone?
More likely scenario: They sell the older variants to anyone willing to pay. (possibly including some eastern uropean warzones)

Where is the Russian megalomania? That thing is a normal size.

This looks very unconventional for a tank, honestly.
First of all, there is no visible fume extractor - which means that it either A. doesn't exist or B. extracts fumes from the gun's base. Seeing as B is extremely inefficient as it negates a major part of the gun's power, I'd say it leans more towards A - but that would make the turret and the connecting hull part (mainly the driver's compartment) incredibly toxic. Meaning it would be manned entirely from the hull while the turret would have only electronic control systems and an automatic loader - similarly to the Object 95 design.
It also has a very low profile turret, which is very, very good - but it's almost negated by its long hull - meaning it would still be exposed in warfare that takes place in hills or any other non-bunkered positions. That would mean it would be ideal for fortifying defenses, but not so much when going on the offensive and using natural cover.
The hull design and its size relative to the turret, including the supposed placement of the entire crew inside it, make it very vulnerable (without taking into account the tank's armor).
I can't really comment on the tank's armament, but it seems like it couldn't have some of the more exotic capabilities, such as a mortar launcher and a non-axial machine gun, so it should fare badly in close quarters situations.

This is my analysis of it, anyhow. I don't think it would be a major improvement over modern tanks like the Leopard 2 or the M1A2 Abrams in asymmetrical warfare, but it's definitely a different approach - so that may lead to new tanks designs in the future.

Westaway:
Where is the Russian megalomania? That thing is a normal size.

They are a country that worships tanks. They know that big tanks = idiotic design. So you wont see such tanks :P

"In an opinion piece run on Russian state-owned Sputnik News, the T-14 was classified as "on par" with the German Leopard 2 and the American M1A2 Abrams tank, which are currently the most advanced models run by each country."

Which is strange as the Leopard 2's best models are superior to the American machines, and the best T-90 models too were superior to the Abrams (this is according to the Russians and I dare agree this time, the T-90 > Abrams) :P ...

Made in China:
This looks very unconventional for a tank, honestly.
First of all, there is no visible fume extractor - which means that it either A. doesn't exist or B. extracts fumes from the gun's base. Seeing as B is extremely inefficient as it negates a major part of the gun's power, I'd say it leans more towards A - but that would make the turret and the connecting hull part (mainly the driver's compartment) incredibly toxic. Meaning it would be manned entirely from the hull while the turret would have only electronic control systems and an automatic loader - similarly to the Object 95 design.
It also has a very low profile turret, which is very, very good - but it's almost negated by its long hull - meaning it would still be exposed in warfare that takes place in hills or any other non-bunkered positions. That would mean it would be ideal for fortifying defenses, but not so much when going on the offensive and using natural cover.
The hull design and its size relative to the turret, including the supposed placement of the entire crew inside it, make it very vulnerable (without taking into account the tank's armor).
I can't really comment on the tank's armament, but it seems like it couldn't have some of the more exotic capabilities, such as a mortar launcher and a non-axial machine gun, so it should fare badly in close quarters situations.

This is my analysis of it, anyhow. I don't think it would be a major improvement over modern tanks like the Leopard 2 or the M1A2 Abrams in asymmetrical warfare, but it's definitely a different approach - so that may lead to new tanks designs in the future.

That is what I thought. On Wikipedia it says:

The "Armata" Universal Combat Platform is a Russian prototype of an 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 is also intended to serve as the basis for artillery, air defense, and NBC defense systems.

So that explains a few of the issues I had with what I could see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

Charcharo:
Which is strange as the Leopard 2's best models are superior to the American machines, and the best T-90 models too were superior to the Abrams (this is according to the Russians and I dare agree this time, the T-90 > Abrams) :P ...

I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.

OT: The tower seems small. Wiki* says a lot more automatization than before, maybe a 2 man crew?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

I assume it was designed to take on T-72s and T-84s (hint, hint), which is why it looks so different from the T-90 which is basically a modernised T-72. Anyway, I think traditional MBTs are becoming largely obsolete, the "great tank battles" are a thing of the past and IFVs and hybrids like the Merkava are more useful in modern urban warfare.

K.ur:

Charcharo:
Which is strange as the Leopard 2's best models are superior to the American machines, and the best T-90 models too were superior to the Abrams (this is according to the Russians and I dare agree this time, the T-90 > Abrams) :P ...

I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.

OT: The tower seems small. Wiki* says a lot more automatization than before, maybe a 2 man crew?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

Manual loading is faster and gives more options for shell loading which is why USA and UK tanks still use manual loaders even though Russian tanks have had autoloaders since the T-64 from the 1960's (guess which tanks have more combat victories).

gigastar:
How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Handing out arms like this would kinda punch a hole in the plausible deniability thing he has going on right now.

P-89 Scorpion:

K.ur:

Charcharo:
Which is strange as the Leopard 2's best models are superior to the American machines, and the best T-90 models too were superior to the Abrams (this is according to the Russians and I dare agree this time, the T-90 > Abrams) :P ...

I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.

OT: The tower seems small. Wiki* says a lot more automatization than before, maybe a 2 man crew?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

Manual loading is faster and gives more options for shell loading which is why USA and UK tanks still use manual loaders even though Russian tanks have had autoloaders since the T-64 from the 1960's (guess which tanks have more combat victories).

Same reason the german leopard has manual loading. A well trained crew can load shells faster then any autoloader.. plus the mentioned flexibility in choice of ammunition comes to mind.

I have a hard time taking any russian tanks serious thought since they simply lack the technology to keep up with modern western designs. What good is a brand new tank when all rival tanks can hit you more reliably due to better targeting technology?

Russia has no high tech sector to speak off and now with heavy sanctions where will they get any computer systems worth a damn for a combat vehicle?

In this day and age with tanks all over the world having comparable armaments its more important then ever to be the first to shoot and land a hit... and in that department the russians have ALLWAYS... even since WW2 times lacked behind everyone else.

So without a decent targeting system all this new tank will be good for is beating down countries that dont have much of an army to speak of anyways... like former sowjet states for example.

008Zulu:

gigastar:
How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Handing out arms like this would kinda punch a hole in the plausible deniability thing he has going on right now.

If it were plausible, that is. All I see is a man with cold war joneses

D3s_ToD3s:

gigastar:
How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Why would they hand out the newest weapon to anyone?
More likely scenario: They sell the older variants to anyone willing to pay. (possibly including some eastern uropean warzones)

Why would that be the case? After all everyone knows you can get a T-14 at any military surplus store.

008Zulu:

gigastar:
How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Handing out arms like this would kinda punch a hole in the plausible deniability thing he has going on right now.

As if it hadnt already been perforated by the multitudes of Russian military personell who happened to be "on leave" in Ukraine.

Westaway:
Where is the Russian megalomania? That thing is a normal size.

Thats germany actually.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav

Note the words: largest ever built

M1A2 replacement already well underway, so that won't be our best for much longer.

Are you kidding me? OF COURSE the russian news media said it was "on par" with the leopard and abrams.

My question is how long before we can drive it in World of Tanks?

freakonaleash:
Are you kidding me? OF COURSE the russian news media said it was "on par" with the leopard and abrams.

Every military says that about all their shit, or more often they will say their shit is the greatest shit that has ever been shat.

Anyway knowing how these things are made "all new" it probably has about 95% of the same parts their current stuff has. Not sure what the Russian defense expert was looking at but that T-14 form looks almost identical to a T-90 without side skirts.

They should give it a proper launch. Hand one to Pierce Brosnan and have him flatten half of St Petersburg in it.

Yeah we just filed a patent on force fields. Sorry about that Russia. Seems like you're several turns behind on tech in this game of Civilization.

Well my first thought here was that I imagine these will be heading into Poland soon. Russia moves into Ukraine, the western world does nothing. Russia seizes control of the Black Sea, the rest of the world does nothing. Poland goes "holy crap they are on our borders again, this never ends well" and begins military exercises, Russia unveils a new tank for ground combat.

Oh and for those who have decent long term memory you might remember the US has missile interception technology it developed in violation of previous agreements with the USSR (which no longer exists) which makes the old MAD equasion more or less irrelevant. During the invasion of Georgia there was a lot about this because Poland plays host to US missile interception bases in order to keep the East penned in. Russia said flat out if Poland kept that base they were going to attack it, nuking Poland in retaliation if necessary. Here we are a few years later and Russia is right on the border and rolling out new armor which it's now in a position to deliver due to controlling the Black Sea. This is a big part of why the US and EU should have sent troops to Ukraine, not just because we promised we wouldn't let Russia take control like they wound up doing, but also because if Russia regained control of The Black Sea they would be more difficult to contain. Of course true to form Europe's major powers are refusing to do anything until they are getting clobbered and have people right on their borders, and with our current anti-military leadership the US wasn't about to do anything either. As a result another one of our closest allies is being menaced again... but hey, that's part for the course right now, we're letting China build military bases in Filipino territory while harassing their shipping vessels, and sail navies around Japanese island territory. With Obama at the helm (love him or hate him) nobody can rely on us to honor our alliances and he can't even keep Kim Jong Un in line, so honestly what are real countries worried about.

Right now I can virtually guarantee that if Russia doesn't move on Poland within Obama's presidency, it will probably do so during the next presidency if we have another anti-military liberal in charge, and really Poland is one of those countries that has backed us on a lot of things, and whom we should be there for 100%. We should never have let Russia get into a position to menace their borders this way.

With everything going on, I take the new tank as a sort of statement of intent. I doubt it will find it's way into the hands of Ukrainian militants simply because Russia never really wanted Ukraine specifically, it wants control of the Black Sea via Crimea which is what it already has. As long as it has that kind of control it's happy, it's all a means to an end, it doesn't have to directly control the entirety of Ukraine to unbottle itself.

P-89 Scorpion:

K.ur:

Charcharo:
Which is strange as the Leopard 2's best models are superior to the American machines, and the best T-90 models too were superior to the Abrams (this is according to the Russians and I dare agree this time, the T-90 > Abrams) :P ...

I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.

OT: The tower seems small. Wiki* says a lot more automatization than before, maybe a 2 man crew?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

Manual loading is faster and gives more options for shell loading which is why USA and UK tanks still use manual loaders even though Russian tanks have had autoloaders since the T-64 from the 1960's (guess which tanks have more combat victories).

The tanks that fought monkey models, were largely on the defensive, and had better logistical support, tactics and strategy.

BoogieManFL:
M1A2 replacement already well underway, so that won't be our best for much longer.

The T-90 is already superior to the M1A2. So is the Leopard... and the Leclerc... and the K2... and the Type 10...

Pr0:
Yeah we just filed a patent on force fields. Sorry about that Russia. Seems like you're several turns behind on tech in this game of Civilization.

The T-90 already is closer to a "force field".
The T-90 already activates rockets before they reach it. Something the Abrams cant do :P.

freakonaleash:
Are you kidding me? OF COURSE the russian news media said it was "on par" with the leopard and abrams.

Which is strange as they also say that the T-90 is superior to the Abrams and on par with the Leopard.
A claim I think holds true...

Fijiman:
My question is how long before we can drive it in World of Tanks?

Never.
Tier 9 Armored Warfare though.

008Zulu:

gigastar:
How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Handing out arms like this would kinda punch a hole in the plausible deniability thing he has going on right now.

The AN-94 Abakans (Special Forces weapon of the Russians) was already seen in Crimea. That is a state of the art ultra high class weapon.
Reports of it in the rebels exist. Wont surprise me.

It doesn't look all that impressive. Which is fine, really. Funtion > form.
Besides, making the enemy underestimate you might work in your favor. But yeah, the Russians really saved on design costs it seems.

K-lusive:
It doesn't look all that impressive. Which is fine, really. Funtion > form.
Besides, making the enemy underestimate you might work in your favor. But yeah, the Russians really saved on design costs it seems.

That's what they've always been doing, and funnily enough the Americans too in WW2. But these days the Americans have taken Nazi Germany's tanks design philosophy. You'd think they'd know better, as they freakin' -beat- Nazi Germany with the opposite.

Cowabungaa:

K-lusive:
It doesn't look all that impressive. Which is fine, really. Funtion > form.
Besides, making the enemy underestimate you might work in your favor. But yeah, the Russians really saved on design costs it seems.

That's what they've always been doing, and funnily enough the Americans too in WW2. But these days the Americans have taken Nazi Germany's tanks design philosophy. You'd think they'd know better, as they freakin' -beat- Nazi Germany with the opposite.

When you have the luxury of air superiority and strategic bombing of enemy heavy industry, tank design philosophy is not very decisive. The question isn't really decided.

Seanchaidh:

Cowabungaa:

K-lusive:
It doesn't look all that impressive. Which is fine, really. Funtion > form.
Besides, making the enemy underestimate you might work in your favor. But yeah, the Russians really saved on design costs it seems.

That's what they've always been doing, and funnily enough the Americans too in WW2. But these days the Americans have taken Nazi Germany's tanks design philosophy. You'd think they'd know better, as they freakin' -beat- Nazi Germany with the opposite.

When you have the luxury of air superiority and strategic bombing of enemy heavy industry, tank design philosophy is not very decisive. The question isn't really decided.

So... just because you have a lot of stuff, you simple MUST be sub-optimal with some of them?
I dont get it. I really dont.

Sounds like a way to send some US soldiers back home in body bags. Nothing more. That is not an excuse.

Charcharo:

Seanchaidh:

Cowabungaa:

That's what they've always been doing, and funnily enough the Americans too in WW2. But these days the Americans have taken Nazi Germany's tanks design philosophy. You'd think they'd know better, as they freakin' -beat- Nazi Germany with the opposite.

When you have the luxury of air superiority and strategic bombing of enemy heavy industry, tank design philosophy is not very decisive. The question isn't really decided.

So... just because you have a lot of stuff, you simple MUST be sub-optimal with some of them?
I dont get it. I really dont.

Sounds like a way to send some US soldiers back home in body bags. Nothing more. That is not an excuse.

I was referring to the conditions in WW2. German tank design philosophy was not why they lost.

And as for Shermans and Sherman Fireflies vs Panzers and Tigers, you're a lot more likely to be going home in a body bag (all other things being equal) on the Allied side of that equation. Crew survival was not the main strength of the Sherman, mass production was.

Seanchaidh:

Charcharo:

Seanchaidh:

When you have the luxury of air superiority and strategic bombing of enemy heavy industry, tank design philosophy is not very decisive. The question isn't really decided.

So... just because you have a lot of stuff, you simple MUST be sub-optimal with some of them?
I dont get it. I really dont.

Sounds like a way to send some US soldiers back home in body bags. Nothing more. That is not an excuse.

I was referring to the conditions in WW2. German tank design philosophy was not why they lost.

It wasnt. It helped though. Stupid designs, sub-optimal planning, wasted resources... all those definitely helped them lose faster.

Also using slave labor for weapons of war... and then being surprised when they break... yeah.

Charcharo:

P-89 Scorpion:

K.ur:

I think (technically) t-90 trumps both because of the automated shell loading. The other two still have manual loading.

OT: The tower seems small. Wiki* says a lot more automatization than before, maybe a 2 man crew?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform

Manual loading is faster and gives more options for shell loading which is why USA and UK tanks still use manual loaders even though Russian tanks have had autoloaders since the T-64 from the 1960's (guess which tanks have more combat victories).

The tanks that fought monkey models, were largely on the defensive, and had better logistical support, tactics and strategy.

BoogieManFL:
M1A2 replacement already well underway, so that won't be our best for much longer.

The T-90 is already superior to the M1A2. So is the Leopard... and the Leclerc... and the K2... and the Type 10...

Pr0:
Yeah we just filed a patent on force fields. Sorry about that Russia. Seems like you're several turns behind on tech in this game of Civilization.

The T-90 already is closer to a "force field".
The T-90 already activates rockets before they reach it. Something the Abrams cant do :P.

freakonaleash:
Are you kidding me? OF COURSE the russian news media said it was "on par" with the leopard and abrams.

Which is strange as they also say that the T-90 is superior to the Abrams and on par with the Leopard.
A claim I think holds true...

Fijiman:
My question is how long before we can drive it in World of Tanks?

Never.
Tier 9 Armored Warfare though.

008Zulu:

gigastar:
How long until one ends up in the hands of Ukranian rebels?

Handing out arms like this would kinda punch a hole in the plausible deniability thing he has going on right now.

The AN-94 Abakans (Special Forces weapon of the Russians) was already seen in Crimea. That is a state of the art ultra high class weapon.
Reports of it in the rebels exist. Wont surprise me.

On those tanks being superior, many experts disagree with you. And I think most of us will believe them over you.

And if some of them are, it's not by much despite the Abrams design being like 3 decades old and as I said their replacement is well underway. It's also more battle proven than other other tanks and the crews them most experienced. Something to consider, at least.

BoogieManFL:

Charcharo:

P-89 Scorpion:

Manual loading is faster and gives more options for shell loading which is why USA and UK tanks still use manual loaders even though Russian tanks have had autoloaders since the T-64 from the 1960's (guess which tanks have more combat victories).

The tanks that fought monkey models, were largely on the defensive, and had better logistical support, tactics and strategy.

BoogieManFL:
M1A2 replacement already well underway, so that won't be our best for much longer.

The T-90 is already superior to the M1A2. So is the Leopard... and the Leclerc... and the K2... and the Type 10...

Pr0:
Yeah we just filed a patent on force fields. Sorry about that Russia. Seems like you're several turns behind on tech in this game of Civilization.

The T-90 already is closer to a "force field".
The T-90 already activates rockets before they reach it. Something the Abrams cant do :P.

freakonaleash:
Are you kidding me? OF COURSE the russian news media said it was "on par" with the leopard and abrams.

Which is strange as they also say that the T-90 is superior to the Abrams and on par with the Leopard.
A claim I think holds true...

Fijiman:
My question is how long before we can drive it in World of Tanks?

Never.
Tier 9 Armored Warfare though.

008Zulu:

Handing out arms like this would kinda punch a hole in the plausible deniability thing he has going on right now.

The AN-94 Abakans (Special Forces weapon of the Russians) was already seen in Crimea. That is a state of the art ultra high class weapon.
Reports of it in the rebels exist. Wont surprise me.

On those tanks being superior, many experts disagree with you. And I think most of us will believe them over you.

And if some of them are, it's not by much despite the Abrams design being like 3 decades old and as I said their replacement is well underway.

Define "many" :)

There ARE experts that disagree and call the Abrams the best. But they are not really the majority.

HOWEVER! You do have to understand that all modern tanks are QUITE close.

Even if the Abrams is inferior to the Leopard overall, or the T-90, it would STILL be *more* then able to win engagements with them. The differences in these machines mostly amount to crew training, tactics, strategy and luck. That is what would decide battles between all of the mentioned vehicles.

Also there is a difference in design. The T-90 is an assault tank, the Abrams is a defensive one (MAINLY!).

So comparing vehicles that are so close is actually quite hard. Even if your country's Abrams tank is "inferior" it is still quite close and deadly.

Charcharo:

BoogieManFL:

Charcharo:

The tanks that fought monkey models, were largely on the defensive, and had better logistical support, tactics and strategy.

The T-90 is already superior to the M1A2. So is the Leopard... and the Leclerc... and the K2... and the Type 10...

The T-90 already is closer to a "force field".
The T-90 already activates rockets before they reach it. Something the Abrams cant do :P.

Which is strange as they also say that the T-90 is superior to the Abrams and on par with the Leopard.
A claim I think holds true...

Never.
Tier 9 Armored Warfare though.

The AN-94 Abakans (Special Forces weapon of the Russians) was already seen in Crimea. That is a state of the art ultra high class weapon.
Reports of it in the rebels exist. Wont surprise me.

On those tanks being superior, many experts disagree with you. And I think most of us will believe them over you.

And if some of them are, it's not by much despite the Abrams design being like 3 decades old and as I said their replacement is well underway.

Define "many" :)

There ARE experts that disagree and call the Abrams the best. But they are not really the majority.

HOWEVER! You do have to understand that all modern tanks are QUITE close.

Even if the Abrams is inferior to the Leopard overall, or the T-90, it would STILL be *more* then able to win engagements with them. The differences in these machines mostly amount to crew training, tactics, strategy and luck. That is what would decide battles between all of the mentioned vehicles.

Also there is a difference in design. The T-90 is an assault tank, the Abrams is a defensive one (MAINLY!).

So comparing vehicles that are so close is actually quite hard. Even if your country's Abrams tank is "inferior" it is still quite close and deadly.

I can define many by pointing out military shows, reports, and even simple googling but you can do that yourself.

Typically I see the Abrams in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on specifics on rating. The higher ones when judged more on real combat tested platforms. Most commonly 2nd or 3rd, which is good for such an aged design which has seen many upgrades over the years. Not at the bottom like you labeled it.

But all things considered (and a little off topic) the fact they are the most combat proven and experienced crews would make me bet on them over any others in current operation. Also (according to most estimates) the Abrams is a very large portion of the US tank arsenal (over 6000), where for example Russia's most common tank by far is the aged T-72 (4000-5000) and only a small number of them are kept in service. Virtually all Abrams are service and are not mothballed.

So while Russia may have more tanks, most of them aren't even in service and are older, lesser designs. I guess that massive US defense budget is going somewhere.

BoogieManFL:

Charcharo:

BoogieManFL:

On those tanks being superior, many experts disagree with you. And I think most of us will believe them over you.

And if some of them are, it's not by much despite the Abrams design being like 3 decades old and as I said their replacement is well underway.

Define "many" :)

There ARE experts that disagree and call the Abrams the best. But they are not really the majority.

HOWEVER! You do have to understand that all modern tanks are QUITE close.

Even if the Abrams is inferior to the Leopard overall, or the T-90, it would STILL be *more* then able to win engagements with them. The differences in these machines mostly amount to crew training, tactics, strategy and luck. That is what would decide battles between all of the mentioned vehicles.

Also there is a difference in design. The T-90 is an assault tank, the Abrams is a defensive one (MAINLY!).

So comparing vehicles that are so close is actually quite hard. Even if your country's Abrams tank is "inferior" it is still quite close and deadly.

I can define many by pointing out military shows, reports, and even simple googling but you can do that yourself.

Typically I see the Abrams in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on specifics on rating. The higher ones when judged more on real combat tested platforms. Most commonly 2nd or 3rd, which is good for such an aged design which has seen many upgrades over the years. Not at the bottom like you labeled it.

But all things considered (and a little off topic) the fact they are the most combat proven and experienced crews would make me bet on them over any others in current operation. Also the Abrams is a very large portion of the US tank arsenal (over 6000), where for example Russia's most common tank by far is the aged T-72 (4000-5000) and only a small number of them are kept in service. Virtually all Abrams are service and are not mothballed.

So while Russia may have more tanks, most of them aren't even in service and are older, lesser designs. I guess that massive US defense budget is going somewhere.

Yes, the fact that the Abrams has seen battle, even against inferior equipment and monkey models, is a fact. And it is a pro showing how good the design was for its day. It STILL is competitive. Maybe inferior to newer designs, but VERY close.

The only REALLY shitty thing on the Abrams is its engine. The rest is STILL competitive.

The T-72 is an aged MBT. It is inferior to the upgraded Abrams tanks. Do know, however that the Russians have real, upgraded models of it firing high quality munitions... so it CAN technically destroy and Abrams frontally. Not like the ones the US army has encountered so far.

"So while Russia may have more tanks,"

Russia has less tanks then the US. The T-90SM is what I am talking about.

"I guess that massive US defense budget is going somewhere."

I already explained where a PART of the budget is going.

Also, the Abrams is NOT the most expensive tank if cost/budget is what you consider to be "proof". The Leclerc is a lot more expensive.

Charcharo:

BoogieManFL:

Charcharo:

Define "many" :)

There ARE experts that disagree and call the Abrams the best. But they are not really the majority.

HOWEVER! You do have to understand that all modern tanks are QUITE close.

Even if the Abrams is inferior to the Leopard overall, or the T-90, it would STILL be *more* then able to win engagements with them. The differences in these machines mostly amount to crew training, tactics, strategy and luck. That is what would decide battles between all of the mentioned vehicles.

Also there is a difference in design. The T-90 is an assault tank, the Abrams is a defensive one (MAINLY!).

So comparing vehicles that are so close is actually quite hard. Even if your country's Abrams tank is "inferior" it is still quite close and deadly.

I can define many by pointing out military shows, reports, and even simple googling but you can do that yourself.

Typically I see the Abrams in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on specifics on rating. The higher ones when judged more on real combat tested platforms. Most commonly 2nd or 3rd, which is good for such an aged design which has seen many upgrades over the years. Not at the bottom like you labeled it.

But all things considered (and a little off topic) the fact they are the most combat proven and experienced crews would make me bet on them over any others in current operation. Also the Abrams is a very large portion of the US tank arsenal (over 6000), where for example Russia's most common tank by far is the aged T-72 (4000-5000) and only a small number of them are kept in service. Virtually all Abrams are service and are not mothballed.

So while Russia may have more tanks, most of them aren't even in service and are older, lesser designs. I guess that massive US defense budget is going somewhere.

Yes, the fact that the Abrams has seen battle, even against inferior equipment and monkey models, is a fact. And it is a pro showing how good the design was for its day. It STILL is competitive. Maybe inferior to newer designs, but VERY close.

The only REALLY shitty thing on the Abrams is its engine. The rest is STILL competitive.

The T-72 is an aged MBT. It is inferior to the upgraded Abrams tanks. Do know, however that the Russians have real, upgraded models of it firing high quality munitions... so it CAN technically destroy and Abrams frontally. Not like the ones the US army has encountered so far.

"So while Russia may have more tanks,"

Russia has less tanks then the US. The T-90SM is what I am talking about.

"I guess that massive US defense budget is going somewhere."

I already explained where a PART of the budget is going.

Also, the Abrams is NOT the most expensive tank if cost/budget is what you consider to be "proof". The Leclerc is a lot more expensive.

From what I understand the engine is an issue, but one cool thing is how it can utilize so many different things as fuel. But from what I read it is a difficult thing to maintain and support.

As for the T-72, sure some have been upgraded but there are like 1000-1200 in service. Lesser tanks before and after upgrades and if I recall from.. somewhere.. their effective engagement ranges are shorter and they can't fire as quickly or as well on the move, but I could be remembering that wrong.

Russia has more tanks the US, but the vast majority are aged designs and are in storage.

I never said it was the most expensive, nor that alone as a reason for saying it's good. Makes more sense to have the best tank you can get for the cost, and I have no idea what the cost effectiveness per current gen tank models are. But they've gotten their money's worth as very few have been destroyed in combat. Helps to offset the logistical support a bit I'd imagine.

This is straying more and more off topic, but experience is a vital factor and no other tank has seen the amount of real action. Their training is very good, and the support they operate with is second to none. So it's not so easy to take something that is but one part of a larger machine and judge it's effectiveness because that isn't how they operate in the real world.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here