4 ms·

Apparently, one of the Armatas broke down during the Parade, and one of the Buk missile launchers caught fire. Admittedly, the Tank looks usable, but the quest

Apparently, one of the Armatas broke down during the Parade, and one of the Buk missile launchers caught fire. Admittedly, the Tank looks usable, but the question of the value of a completely new MBT is a really urgent one. Especially as the worth of armor diminishes more and more, as it already did once in the 60s. Modern ATGM are capable of smashing every modern MBT at the first hit, and the only protection are active protection systems as fitted to modern Israeli Merkavas. As long as the russians don't equip this Tank with one of those, its as big a casket as an old T-54.

mtarnovan 11y ago
"In addition to reactive armour the T-14 features an active protection system Afghanit (Russian: Афганит). This system includes a millimeter-band radar to detect, track and intercept incoming anti-tank munitions, both hypersonic kinetic energy penetrators and tandem-charges." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata
- exar0815 11y ago
  Thank you, I must admit modern Tanks are not really my field of expertise. If this tank works in the way it should, it should be superior to most current western Tanks, especially while most western countries phase out more and more of their tanks.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    The thing about Russian equipment is that the gee-whiz features almost never work as intended. The real strength of Soviet- and Russian-made military equipment is the reliability of its basic features. The problem with modern Russian manufacturing is that there is a lot of corruption at the top, and this leads to poor manufacturing implementations winning government contracts that otherwise would never have made the cut with proper QA. This is why the Russian military is always towing equipment back to base. The Russian navy in particular is renowned for towing a significant part of its fleet back to port after dry-fire exercises.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
This a million times. Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something Russians are prone to do. Russia doesn't even have the autonomy to properly invade a non-military power like Ukraine without the West stepping in, thus all the "that's not really us" shenanigans. I'm not sure what enemy they plan to use this stuff on as anyone within their limited military range can trivially get Western ATGM's or already has them. The reality is that long-range power projection, automation/comm/logistics, long range targeting, advanced arms, drones/UAVs/unmanned, air superiority, quick carrier group deployments, etc decide modern war outcomes. Russia struggles with this level of sophistication, hell, they are trying to get the French to build carriers for them and are woefully behind in several critical key measures. Pretending its still WWII and bulking up in armor, especially ones without counters to modern ATGM's, makes as much sense as building another Maginot line. Russian reactive armor leaves a lot to be desired. ATGM tech usually outstrips armor tech quickly and NATO's current offerings are pretty impressive. Not to mention the cost of reactive armor raises the cost, per tank, anywhere between 300-500k, which makes it economically infeasible to retro-arm older tanks frequently. Russia's tank force is mostly a 1970s relic, the T-72. Constant retrofitting is still lipstick on a pig and to NATO forces. Older DU based munitions like the M829A3's and others punch through these things with ease. Fifth generation M829E4's take out the best Russian armor today. A $10,000 NATO round punches through $500,000 tank armor. Tank armor is a fool's errand at best, as munitions catch up too fast and armor development takes too long/tank lifespan is too long/tank retrofitting is too expensive. The Russians know this, but lack the sophistication to modernize in other ways, so they double-down on tanks, which will probably have a long service life on the usual parade route, but not be effective in combat. Especially now that Putin has rebranded himself anti-NATO, anti-West, anti-Democracy, pro-Autocracy, pro-Annexation, pro-Assad, pro-Jong-Un, etc. He's not partnering up with NATO for some peace mission, he's pointing his guns at them and compared to NATO he's at a massive disadvantage militarily with these tanks, which just become very expensive coffins for Russian tank crews.
- MrZongle2 11y ago
  "Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something Russians are prone to do." I agree with your second point, but not with the first. Armor is useful for claiming and holding territory, especially in the face of infantry. Yes, AT armament has come a long way; I've personally observed the effect of Western arms against Soviet-made armor. But not every opponent will have air supremacy to fly ground attack assets with impunity. And not every soldier equipped with an AT weapon will fire it successfully. And some tanks will be equipped with reactive armor that will work as intended. Armor is not yet at the stage of horse-mounted cavalry, and will likely always have some role in modern military forces. Consider the switch to carrier-based forces the U.S. Navy underwent in WW2: it was a paradigm shift that led to inevitable retirement of the battleship class, but it has yet to eliminate the need for heavy guns or armored ships.
mauricemir 11y ago
Trouble is an ATGM is in some ways easier to defend against with point defense systems that a straight 120mm DS round. for example Futzing with the guidance of a fragile missile or using point defence and at some point in the future Lazers.
thescrewdriver 11y ago
> Apparently, one of the Armatas broke down during the Parade By all reports it stalled, and later drove away under its own power.
- chokolad 11y ago
  It also happened during rehearsal run for a Parade, not during Parade itself.

mtarnovan 11y ago

"In addition to reactive armour the T-14 features an active protection system Afghanit (Russian: Афганит). This system includes a millimeter-band radar to detect, track and intercept incoming anti-tank munitions, both hypersonic kinetic energy penetrators and tandem-charges." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

exar0815 11y ago
Thank you, I must admit modern Tanks are not really my field of expertise. If this tank works in the way it should, it should be superior to most current western Tanks, especially while most western countries phase out more and more of their tanks.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  The thing about Russian equipment is that the gee-whiz features almost never work as intended. The real strength of Soviet- and Russian-made military equipment is the reliability of its basic features. The problem with modern Russian manufacturing is that there is a lot of corruption at the top, and this leads to poor manufacturing implementations winning government contracts that otherwise would never have made the cut with proper QA. This is why the Russian military is always towing equipment back to base. The Russian navy in particular is renowned for towing a significant part of its fleet back to port after dry-fire exercises.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

This a million times. Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something Russians are prone to do. Russia doesn't even have the autonomy to properly invade a non-military power like Ukraine without the West stepping in, thus all the "that's not really us" shenanigans. I'm not sure what enemy they plan to use this stuff on as anyone within their limited military range can trivially get Western ATGM's or already has them. The reality is that long-range power projection, automation/comm/logistics, long range targeting, advanced arms, drones/UAVs/unmanned, air superiority, quick carrier group deployments, etc decide modern war outcomes. Russia struggles with this level of sophistication, hell, they are trying to get the French to build carriers for them and are woefully behind in several critical key measures. Pretending its still WWII and bulking up in armor, especially ones without counters to modern ATGM's, makes as much sense as building another Maginot line. Russian reactive armor leaves a lot to be desired. ATGM tech usually outstrips armor tech quickly and NATO's current offerings are pretty impressive. Not to mention the cost of reactive armor raises the cost, per tank, anywhere between 300-500k, which makes it economically infeasible to retro-arm older tanks frequently. Russia's tank force is mostly a 1970s relic, the T-72. Constant retrofitting is still lipstick on a pig and to NATO forces. Older DU based munitions like the M829A3's and others punch through these things with ease. Fifth generation M829E4's take out the best Russian armor today. A $10,000 NATO round punches through $500,000 tank armor. Tank armor is a fool's errand at best, as munitions catch up too fast and armor development takes too long/tank lifespan is too long/tank retrofitting is too expensive. The Russians know this, but lack the sophistication to modernize in other ways, so they double-down on tanks, which will probably have a long service life on the usual parade route, but not be effective in combat. Especially now that Putin has rebranded himself anti-NATO, anti-West, anti-Democracy, pro-Autocracy, pro-Annexation, pro-Assad, pro-Jong-Un, etc. He's not partnering up with NATO for some peace mission, he's pointing his guns at them and compared to NATO he's at a massive disadvantage militarily with these tanks, which just become very expensive coffins for Russian tank crews.

MrZongle2 11y ago
"Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something Russians are prone to do." I agree with your second point, but not with the first. Armor is useful for claiming and holding territory, especially in the face of infantry. Yes, AT armament has come a long way; I've personally observed the effect of Western arms against Soviet-made armor. But not every opponent will have air supremacy to fly ground attack assets with impunity. And not every soldier equipped with an AT weapon will fire it successfully. And some tanks will be equipped with reactive armor that will work as intended. Armor is not yet at the stage of horse-mounted cavalry, and will likely always have some role in modern military forces. Consider the switch to carrier-based forces the U.S. Navy underwent in WW2: it was a paradigm shift that led to inevitable retirement of the battleship class, but it has yet to eliminate the need for heavy guns or armored ships.

mauricemir 11y ago

Trouble is an ATGM is in some ways easier to defend against with point defense systems that a straight 120mm DS round. for example Futzing with the guidance of a fragile missile or using point defence and at some point in the future Lazers.

thescrewdriver 11y ago

> Apparently, one of the Armatas broke down during the Parade By all reports it stalled, and later drove away under its own power.

chokolad 11y ago
It also happened during rehearsal run for a Parade, not during Parade itself.