Is the T-14 "Armata" needed in Ukraine

Source: 9111.ru

"Armata" against NATO

Unrest on social media and patriotic communities has sparked footage of reservists training at tanks T-14 "Armata". Presumably, the shooting took place in Kazan at the training ground of the local Higher Tank Command Order of the Zhukov Red Banner School. The combat coordination of reservists from Tatarstan also takes place here. There is a lot of strangeness in this version of the origin of the video.

The first thing that caught your eye was why, as stated in the description, were mobilized people put into the newest tanks? With all due respect to the reservist tankers, it is impossible to master a fundamentally new vehicle in a month and a half, which were taken for training. And the T-14 has not yet left trial operation, by the way.

We cannot exclude the option of an advertising campaign by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. If so, then it turned out well - for many, the appearance of the T-14 in Ukraine may become a symbol of the long-awaited "action in full force." But we will consider not advertising, but the real prospects of the latest Russian tank on the Ukrainian front.

"Armata" rides around the range. They say near Kazan... Source: youtube.com

It's worth starting with the fact that a certain number of T-14s are already in the army. According to Vladimir Artyakov, First Deputy General Director of Rostec, the first experimental industrial batch of tanks was shipped last summer. They went in addition with several dozen deeply modernized T-90M "Breakthrough". At the last Army-2022 exhibition, an export version of the Armata was shown, which indirectly indicates the formation of the final appearance of the machine.

Most likely, tanks from an experimental industrial batch will be sent to Ukraine. Unless, of course, an appropriate decision is made. We hope that the crews will be recruited from regular tankers, and not from mobilized, albeit with combat experience. Ukraine will not be the first armed conflict for "Armata". According to Denis Manturov, the combat vehicle has been successfully tested in Syria.

The number of T-14s in the troops can be indirectly judged by the 2020 contracts, according to which Uralvagonzavod was to supply 132 tanks to the army. The deadline is the end of last year. According to other sources, there are now no more than 20 vehicles in combat units. This was announced at the end of last year by Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchenko.

What are the prospects for the newest car in the confrontation with Bandera? First of all, in a high level of security. If "Armata" appears in Ukraine, then it will be the first Russian tank with active protection in the NVO. And not just any, but from the most modern KAZ "Afghanit". Considering the saturation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with Western anti-tank weapons, this looks like an important argument. There are doubts about the effectiveness of "Afghanit" against the Javelins.

The T-14 will not be completely defenseless against the American ATGM of the third generation - two launchers on the roof are provided to repel an attack from above. But this, so to speak, is not the most priority area of ​​\u14b\uXNUMXbactive defense of the "Armata", the tank is much more powerfully protected from side and frontal projections. The experience of Ukraine should show new ways of modernizing tanks, including the T-XNUMX.

The second advantage of the T-14 is the Malachite dynamic protection complex.

Little is known about this system, but with a high degree of probability we can talk about the integration of remote sensing into the Afghanit active protection complex. In particular, an active defense radar can "warn" dynamic units about the approach of a munition, initiating an early detonation. In this case, "Malachite" can be considered a kind of hybrid passive-active protection system.

According to another version, the DZ is equipped with its own inductors that react to the magnetic field of an incoming ammunition.

In any case, "Malakhit" is a qualitatively new product, even in comparison with "Kontakt-5" and "Relikt". The placement of the latest DZ units on the roof becomes the final obstacle for the notorious missiles Javelins.

The layout solution with the placement of all three crew members shoulder to shoulder behind the upper frontal part also significantly increases the protection of the machine. The tower is uninhabited, and this, by the way, is part of the tank, where most often it flies from enemies.

With a high degree of probability, it can be argued that in any duel against Ukrainian tanks, the Armata will emerge victorious. What can not be said about the confrontation with modern NATO ATGMs, but in any case, the protection of the crew will be qualitatively higher than that of any other domestic tank. Moreover, the main caliber of the "Armata" is redundant for the Ukrainian theater of operations - for the entire existing range of armored vehicles, the standard 2A46M-5 gun from the T-90M "Proryv" is quite enough.

This is where the reasons for sending the "Armata" to the Ukrainian front end. Further - only unjustified risks.

T-14 in Ukraine

There are not many tanks of the latest generation in the Russian army, but this is not the main argument against the use in Ukraine. BMPT "Terminator" is also sparse, but they were used in the NWO, and very successfully. The main advantage for which it was started at all story with "Armata", it became possible to participate in a network-centric war. The T-14 is one of the most important players in the Constellation-M Unified Tactical Control System, which makes it possible to exchange information about the progress of the battle in real time.

In Ukraine, only a part of the T-90M Proryv tanks are equipped with terminals of this system, which does not allow it to be used effectively in battles. There is too little technology for a full-fledged network-centric control system. In addition, the T-90M has already fallen into the hands of the nationalists, in which, with a high degree of probability, there were elements of the Constellation-M controls. The system is also installed on a new modification of the Msta-SM2 self-propelled gun, but nothing is known about the use of this self-propelled guns in Ukraine.

Therefore, in Ukraine, the T-14 should appear not alone, but with a whole retinue, starting with the Boomerang and ending with the Coalition, which is impossible for obvious reasons.

The T-14 is an expensive tank, the cost of which in serial production can exceed 350 million rubles. If you collect piece by piece, then up to 500 million per copy is not far away. By world standards, it is inexpensive, but upgrading the T-72 to the B3 version costs 52 million rubles. That is, for the price of one "Armata" you can bring at least seven tanks to the modern level. And in terms of combat effectiveness, the T-14 will never block the seven T-72B3. Interesting in this situation is the cost of the T-90M "Breakthrough" at 200 million rubles.

Source: odetievbrony.ru

If we add to this situation the special regime of secrecy of the "Armata", then it is not entirely clear where it will be possible to use a promising tank. Unit commanders will literally be responsible for the safety of the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armata" at the front will inevitably delay the cover, so that the tanks are not prematurely destroyed or captured.

There are a lot of things in the T-14 that NATO specialists would be happy to profit from. These are the above-mentioned "Afghanit" with "Malachite", and the active phased antenna array of the radar, and the x-shaped motor A-85-3A.

If the loss of a serviceable T-90M has already become a tragedy, then what will happen if the Armata falls into the hands of the enemy? You can, of course, run the car in Ukraine under a reduced program, not allowing it to reach the front line. Take a few ceremonial photos, intimidate the enemy. To identify the resource of transmission, suspension and engine, to test the ergonomics of workplaces.

Only now this is perfectly tested deep in the rear away from the NLAW, Javelin and other evil spirits. T-14 is a machine designed to work in the hearth itself, and it needs to be tested in this very hearth. So that “Afghanit” together with “Malachite” fights off controlled and uncontrolled weapons. One caveat - and all this can be organized in the rear, in particular, in Kubinka. Fortunately, there are plenty of captured vehicles.

Why is it all? Moreover, the project of the promising tank "Armata" must be put on the shelf. At least until the end of the special operation. If the car remains in the mobilization state defense order, then an amazing vinaigrette will eventually appear on the fronts from relatively modern tanks - T-72B3, T-80BVM, T-90M and T-14 to boot. The latter, as we know, are tipped off for a place in some elite tank units.

However, recent events in Ukraine show that the degree of elitism is not measured by the quantity and quality of military equipment. It is possible on the T-62M, with proper motivation, to fight with superior enemy forces, or you can leave the T-90M to the enemy during the "regrouping".

By the way, about "Breakthrough"

According to open information, only three tanks were lost in Ukraine - two were destroyed, one was captured. For such a large-scale conflict, this is very little, even with the limited use of the T-90M. Therefore, the best "Armata" for SVO are hundreds of fresh "Breakthroughs".

Comments

[Krilion]

if you don’t use the tank now, then it’s not at all clear why it is needed and what to expect to use it .. third world war or something? so you need to use it now, so that later it will not be excruciatingly painful ..

[Horus]

Needed for parades and cutting. It seems that the roasted rooster has already pecked, and they are all calving. Let them calculate how much Abrams costs and how the Americans use it, they also lose them and nothing.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Krilion

if you don’t use a tank now, then it’s generally not clear why it is needed and what to expect to use it ..

The tower is uninhabited, and this, by the way, is part of the tank, where most often it flies from enemies.

In addition, the T-14 turret is also much stronger protected by armor from above than any other tank, it is enough to compare the height of the turret above the gun, and the absence of turrets allows you to organize additional armor in their place.

[Civil]

1. That's why, interestingly, Stalin approved the mass production of the IS-2? When was it full of proven T-34-85s? What if the Germans would have taken over?

2. And in order to preserve the entrusted property (a tank, for example), Article 348 was tightened in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Loss of military property. Up to 7 years in prison.

[Postcode]

Stalin "approved" the production of IS tanks, because it is a heavy tank, T 34 medium. These tanks have slightly different tasks))))))

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from Cap

Stalin "approved" the production of IS tanks, because it is a heavy tank, T 34 medium.

It was full of proven HF ...

[Aviator_]

It was full of proven HF ...

That's because the attorney, and therefore changed to IS-2. Look in Svirin's book (Steel Fist of Stalin. History of the Soviet Tank 1943-55, M, 2006)

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Aviator_

That's because the attorney, and therefore changed to IS-2. Look in Svirin's book (Steel Fist of Stalin. History of the Soviet Tank 1943-55, M, 2006)

Thank you, don't... as they say, I forgot more on this topic than Oleg (Sar) knows.

Quote from Cap

Stalin "approved" the production of IS tanks, because it is a heavy tank, T 34 medium.

[Postcode]

Firstly, it was almost gone by that time, and secondly, the IS series, a fundamentally new and more modern machine at that time, including, it was a response to the new Tigers and Panthers.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from Cap

a fundamentally new and more modern car at that time,

That's why the T-14 is needed.
And about HF - I forgot to add the word "irony".

[Postcode]

I wrote somewhere that t 14 is not needed?
On account of the irony of the KV: the tank was very raw in terms of transmission, the main losses in 1941 of these tanks, precisely because of the loss of power, therefore, in 1942, it was decided to stop mass production, which, in fact, was and quite expensive. The new "platform" of the IS turned out to be so successful that the line of the tank underwent changes even after the Second World War.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from Cap

At the expense of irony in terms of KV: the tank was very crude in terms of transmission, the main losses in 1941 of these tanks, precisely because of the loss of power

There is an expression: "I forgot more than you know."
The KV-1S, KV-85 and IS-1 were in service, the IS-2 was put into service earlier than the T-34-85.

[Postcode]

There is another expression: when you consider yourself smarter than others, it looks stupid.
KV-1 - 120
KV - 2 - 200
KV 85 - 150
This is the approximate number of cars produced TOTAL
The KV 85 was produced for less than a year, since it had already been approved for production as a more modern and promising IS 1, only during the war years several thousand vehicles were produced on the IS "platform".
What is information on T 34 here at all? this is a fundamentally different machine, for other purposes and tasks.
"It's good when I knew and forgot, worse when I didn't know, I also forgot")))

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from Cap

There is another expression: when you consider yourself smarter than others, it looks stupid.

Yes, it looks ok.
KV-1S - 1121 pcs.
By the way, it looks like you didn’t understand, you didn’t like the T-34, well, the KV was mastered in production ..

[Jager]

In addition to the planetary gearbox, there was nothing fundamentally new in the IS-2. The KV series has evolved into IC without any revolutions, as some people think.

[BigMaxMack]

If approved, then it was already an unambiguous need. And in general, I heard a bunch of stories about how Stalin deliberately slowed down the release of promising technology, because. I thought that it was not in its quality, but in quantity ...

[zenion]

When 34 was updated, Stalin climbed into the tank. After that, he said - now we will find out what they will write to us from the front. The workers turned white. There are some bugs, but the bugs will be fixed during the release process. Stalin checked each new tank personally. We get a lot of letters from the front, where the tankers are asking to do this and that, can you? They did. IS-2. Then they walked around Berlin, the Allies looked quietly and annoyed. An impenetrable tank with a round turret and beveled sidewalls.

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: zenion

When 34 was updated, Stalin climbed into the tank. After that, he said - now we will find out what they will write to us from the front. The workers turned white. There are some bugs, but the bugs will be fixed during the release process. Stalin checked each new tank personally. We get a lot of letters from the front, where the tankers are asking to do this and that, can you? They did. IS-2. Then they walked around Berlin, the Allies looked quietly and annoyed. An impenetrable tank with a round turret and beveled sidewalls.

With a "round" tower, the IS-3 participated in the parade in Berlin.

[Oleg Ogorod]

IS-2 is my battle tank in the army. I was in it and slept on the cannon lying.
They inflated 34, got is-2.
But the IS-3 is completely different. This is already a modern tank, his own father and mother rolled into one.
It can be seen then that aliens flew in and whispered to the creators of Ises how to make tanks.
I even fired regular shells from it as a gunner. Impressed. In general, then it was really a breakthrough. Not the same as today.

[Barberry25]

it's simple: no one put mobs in T-14s... The video was filmed by Razvedos at the Kazan Armored School, where he and other instructors teach mobs military affairs, and at the neighboring training ground, cadets study the T-14... then he posted the video, it was copied, then again, and in the end it all came out as "mobs are being taught on T-14s"

[SincerityX]

This is called, somewhere they heard, did not understand, and then they also confusingly retold) I would even introduce the concept of "unintentional fakes" I, too, went nuts that mobs are put in the newest tank) There are principles there, for sure, like in aviation, they don’t put them on the newest or expensive cars below a lieutenant colonel)

[Barberry25]

as in that joke, not in the lottery, but in the cards and did not win, but lost

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

it’s simple: no one planted mobs in the t-14 ..

Yes, I don’t lean that the T-14 will go to the front of the troops, and even under the control of reservists, I’m talking about the fact that the tank is head and shoulders more secure than the rest, even if KAZ is not counted.

[Barberry25]

Well, this goes without saying, but given that the main losses of equipment are from mines and artillery now, the T-14 will not be particularly effective than other tanks

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

the main losses of equipment are from mines and artillery now

Are our tanks from art?

[Barberry25]

including the enemy also knows how to use artillery.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

including the enemy also knows how to use artillery.

Including - this is not the main ...

[Barberry25]

taking into account the data that is on the network, more than, the more basic ones are just abandoned with malfunctions.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

taking into account the data that is on the network, more than, the more basic ones are just abandoned with malfunctions.

Yes, what data? The main defeats by anti-tank weapons!

[Barberry25]

on the same Lost Armor, they were quite actively monitoring the loss of our armor.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

on the same Lost Armor, they were quite actively monitoring the loss of our armor.

Well, here's how to believe you, if they write this:

Attention! Losses of armored vehicles of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are not published until the end of the SVO.

[Barberry25]

office the data is not published, but in fact the analysis was carried out and there were a lot of data - the main losses were losses and abandoned, then from artillery strikes and then much less from anti-tank systems

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

but in fact the analysis was carried out and there were a lot of data - the main losses, losses and abandoned, then from artillery strikes and then much less from anti-tank systems

Okay, give us a source for our loss analysis.

[Barberry25]

open any 5-6 telegram channels like "war history weapons" and posts on destroyed equipment are regularly posted there.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

open any 5-6 telegram channels like "war history weapons" and posts on destroyed equipment are regularly posted there.

Clear.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
So, on the oryx, out of 10 destroyed T-90As, only three somehow fit, and that’s not a fact, under the destroyed artillery.

[Barberry25]

Oryx is a garbage dump that brings any losses in our direction.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

Oryx is a garbage dump that brings any losses in our direction.

Maybe a dump, but do you know a lot of T-90A in service with the Khikhlovermacht? I think none.
So I chose a normal tank for the analysis of weapons.

[Barberry25]

to understand how they were destroyed, you need to examine them in detail .. so in case of fire, any tank with ammo turns into "was destroyed by anti-tank systems" ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

so in case of fire, any tank with ammo turns into "was destroyed by anti-tank systems" ..

In case of fire, yes, but the results of shelling by artillery are visible in the photo, there are craters, damage to surrounding buildings ... Here in 7 out of ten there was nothing close.

[Barberry25]

as I wrote - abandoned and then burned

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Barberry25

as I wrote, abandoned and then burned

Abandoned and burned are written separately. But of course, the oryx is a dump, and the T-90A broke down on every bump.

[Barberry25]

Well, the situations were different, I mean that they can register one T-90 as captured, and then burn it .. the situations were different. in this case, if you already look at the anti-tank missile system, then the cheapest option is to equip with spacing and remote sensing

[vlad106]

Is the T-14 "Armata" needed in Ukraine

Quote: Vladimir_2U

the T-14 turret is also much more heavily armored from above than any other tank

It's time to use these towers in Ukraine. en masse!

[Mikhail Drabkin]

Vladimir_2U:

In addition, the T-14 turret is also much more protected by armor from above than any other tank,

—-On the tower, in the turret, delicate sensors of the LIDAR type are installed for target recognition, situational assessment, anti-battery warfare... and more.

—-they are not of the periscope type: they do not dive. But constantly on top, in the turret and on the periphery.

—-If something flies from above, even a grenade, the sensors will be in trouble. The tank's automated control system will not be able to solve a whole range of tasks on analysis, prediction and modeling of the current situation.

-It's great that the crew is protected. Only instead of a computer with a gun, Armata without sensors for automated control systems - a suitcase without a handle

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Mikhail Drabkin

On the turret, in the turret, gentle LIDAR-type sensors are installed for target recognition, situation assessment, anti-battery combat ... and more.

Are you confusing a tank with a Tesla? This "Tesla", together with a lidar radar and a UV detector, will fall apart under fire, and on a tank, a lidar (and is it by the way?) In an armored box, not one and albeit expensive, but a consumable.

Quote: Mikhail Drabkin

If something comes from above - even a grenade, the sensors will not seem enough. The ACS of the tank will not be able to solve a whole range of tasks for analyzing, foreseeing and modeling the current situation.

Sadness, trouble! Analysis and foresight! It’s as if you are writing about some kind of “Evangelion” ... Some functionality will decrease, there will be one more semi-blind zone and that’s all, and then for a while before leaving the battle. And the chances of an "Armata" with an isolated crew and well-covered ammo are much higher than those of a conventional tank. This is if she still does not fight off the anti-tank weapons.

[Mikhail Drabkin]

Vladimir_2U:
ABOUT BROKEN SENSORS ON THE TOWER AND IN THE TOWER:

it will become one more half-blind zone and that's it, and then for a while before leaving the battle. And the chances of an "Armata" with an isolated crew and well-covered ammo are much higher than those of a conventional tank.

—- You write that the Armata has a higher chance of getting out of the battle (repairable after the battle).

—-This means that in an average battle, she will retain combat capability for longer (at least she can inflict fire damage) ... "with one half-blind zone longer, that's all ..."

— Its sensors, data processing algorithms, and communications are the basis for using Armata as an automated, autonomous control center for tanks... mobile equipment... to carry out combat missions - this is her primary mission on the battlefield With sensors - a computer and a communication center with a gun. Blind and dumb and deaf - a cannon on wheels. Not combat-ready. Like a "Pantsir" with a non-working tracking radar.

—- Collecting data from some sensors is a discrete but continuous process. For example - about the goals and means in the area of ​​responsibility: who, where is and is directed, binding to the card and the card itself, the communication signature. This requires a prowling LIDAR. throughout the front area. And probably - and throughout the wind rose.

—- This means that the LIDAR in the turret must see and receive information at least with a frequency of 10Hz, and for identifying enemy ammunition - at least 1000Hz. 180 or maybe 360 ​​degrees in azimuth. The turret does not rotate with an equivalent number of revolutions, or with a segmented, multi-sensor architecture N - with an equivalent number of revolutions N times less.

—-Be that as it may, LIDAR is completely unprotected during operation, it is naked before the enemy. And its functioning is most necessary before the first shot.

—- So, no, the failure of LIDARA is not another "one half-blind zone", but the deprivation of the ability to direct the battle. It is a lack of awareness of the battlefield. This is the deprivation of Armata combat capability. Cannon on wheels. You don't understand the unique meaning of LIDARA, and its functioning.

ABOUT THE ROLE OF ARMATA:

Sadness, trouble! Analysis and foresight! You seem to be writing about some kind of "Evangelion" ...

— Armata is a smart tank. Its combat effectiveness is determined by real-time battlefield awareness, analysis, foresight and simulation of the current situation. Communication, battle management to perform a combat mission in a group ... And yes, the impossibility of this computer function ... is the deprivation of the meaning of the Armata tank. It is form without content. You do not understand the role of Almaty.

ABOUT YOU:

Are you confusing a tank with a Tesla?

—-Your arrogance is not backed up by knowledge. And rudeness is based on narcissism and lack of self-respect. Your LIDAR is broken by you, Vladimir, and is incorrigible.

—-I don't downvote on principle, even if my comments are very critical. This contributes to the quality of awareness, and the quality of comments and dialogue.

—- I do not answer either trolls, or pseudo-professionals who love to listen to themselves, or people who are “nasty” from the word “I am against it.” No know-it-alls with a monopoly on the truth.

—-I think that “ranks and stars” on VO are superfluous. There are better methods than counting +, especially since they are often for form without content, playing up to emotions... and by agreement. But if they exist, I expect full service compliance from the generals, and not the manners of a wedding general, and without references to Manga.

— Health, success to you.

I have the honor!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Mikhail Drabkin

This requires a prowling LIDAR.

Now indicate where a certain LIDAR not Armata is continuously prowling.
Only without off-scale pathos, pliiz. And then after all, this style is adored by round dduraks.

[Denis812]

You are directly not Mikhail, but Artem Drabkin.
Have you thought about publishing the book "I fought in the Armata" yet?
Seriously, I'll be glad to see the lidar on the serial Armata. But for now, alas.

And about the minuses and asterisks - you were the first to speak. So it plays a role for you :)
I've been banned here a hundred times already. Yes, and the flag is in their seagull.

[zenion]

I'm more afraid for the sides of the tank. You need to change the configuration. Of course, I'm not a tanker, but it's a pity for the tank.

[Misha Mihalkov]

Now 800 T-62 tanks, night and thermal devices are being deeply modernized at tank factories, engines of 1200 horses each are being installed, well, armor is being strengthened, and most importantly, powerful guns are on them ....

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Misha MIHALKOV

Now 800 T-62 tanks, night and thermal devices are being deeply modernized at tank factories, engines of 1200 horses each are being installed, well, armor is being strengthened, and most importantly, powerful guns are on them ....

Brad what. The T-72 is not pumped as much as you thought about the T-62 ....

[SincerityX]

Well, you can pump 62 as well, as a comrade spreads, just with equipment from Aliexpress, it will turn out even no worse, "there's just one caveat," as the joke says.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from SincerityX

it doesn't even get worse

With a 115 mm gun?!

[Barberry25]

here you need to understand that everything depends on tasks: the basic task is to provide personnel with sufficiently modern equipment in a short time in large quantities, for example, if I’m not mistaken, modern tanks of the t-72b3m, t-80bvm, t-90m levels come in quantities of the order 200 units per year, and if the same Atamanovsky BTRZ can produce 250-300 tanks in one person in one year, then that will be cool .. We need to shake up our reserves so that they are ready in case of a big war and now the principle is better to have Why not have 6 extra tank battalions, here the question is precisely in the modernization itself, if you put sights, then you need to put the SLA

[cat Rusich]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote from SincerityX

it doesn't even get worse

With a 115 mm gun?!

1963...
T-62AM - variant with gun caliber 125mm and AZ (automatic loader...)
1967...
T-62AM with gun D-81 125mm and AZ was demonstrated to the Minister of Defense Industry S. A. Zverev - the minister proposed to put AZ on the T-64 ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: cat Rusich

T-62AM - variant with 125mm cannon and AZ (automatic loader...)
1967...
T-62AM with a D-81 125mm cannon and AZ was demonstrated to the Minister of Defense Industry S. A. Zverev - the minister proposed to put AZ on the T-64 ...

Now, if such an option was released in at least some significant amount, then of course. Only there are none.

[SincerityX]

Yes, even with him. The BMP-3, for example, if memory serves 100mm, and what, will your tongue turn to say that this weapon is not capable of killing a person, or a group of people? Or maybe it will not penetrate the armor of the infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers that are in service with the rebellious outskirts, or NATO countries?
Although if you want to know my opinion, it would be better to have a rifled 100mm U-8TS with a muzzle brake than a smoothbore 115mm U-5TS. Because a rifled gun will provide greater accuracy, and if the tank is modernized, including adding add-on armor and a new engine, then its weight will increase and the 100mm U-8TS could significantly increase the rate of fire. But these are my wet thoughts about a tank with a 100mm autocannon. The thing would be the most advanced in a defensive order, where there is no problem quickly reloading the ammo when it is depleted. Or during an offensive by a replacement echelon, when the first echelon stops when the ammo is depleted, changes places with the second echelon and replenishes the ammo, then replaces the (already first) echelon, and so on. Again, there is a lot of light equipment on the outskirts now, and the rifled U-8TS will be a wonderful means of combating such targets, including mortars, since

Maximum firing range - 14 650 m.

Sighting, of course, most likely lower, but still higher than that of a 120mm mortar, which has a range of 7-9km.
Well, the third plus that came to mind is the theoretically possible unification of the BK with the BMP-3, but it’s too much out of my head, because I didn’t compare the shells.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from SincerityX

Sighting, of course, most likely lower, but still higher than that of a 120mm mortar, which has a range of 7-9km.

Hmm, compare a gun with high ballistics and a mortar ...

[SincerityX]

Of all the text that I typed, you noted only this for yourself?
Yes, where is the comparison? Where am I, apart from the range of application, a characteristic that is decisive for the "hunter" and the "victim". Because such a tank, it seems to me, would have shown itself remarkably well as a hunter for mortar crews, ATGMs, MANPADS, air defense systems and other evil spirits with the appropriate optics, of course

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from SincerityX

Of all the text that I typed, you noted only this for yourself?

Because it's an indicator.

Quote from SincerityX

Because such a tank, it seems to me, would wonderfully show itself as a hunter for mortar crews

And this is an aggravator.
Mortars are now hitting strictly from closed positions, you propose to "destroy" them with a high-ballistics cannon.

Specifically, I didn't like this passage:

Quote from SincerityX

and at least with it. the BMP-3, for example, if memory serves 100mm, and what, will your tongue turn to say that this weapon is not capable of killing a person, or a group of people?

A washing machine can kill a group of people if you drop it on them, and now what, will you dare to say that it is not necessary to put it on the T-62? Something like that.
The rest I read already heavily prejudiced.

[SincerityX]

Because it's an indicator.

Unless for me, because you can pull anything by the ears.

Mortars are now hitting strictly from closed positions, you propose to "destroy" them with a high-ballistics cannon.

And a smoothbore gun of a similar caliber will most likely simply not spit at them. And the rate of fire will immediately suffer (I assume that a gun upgraded with a tank would become faster, remember, right?) And ammunition. Still, is it better to lay 3 shells in the same time it takes to fire one 125mm shot? Because if there is a deviation of the projectile (and it will be at 10 km), then out of 3 if at least one projectile with a controlled detonation scatters its 2.5 heavy fragments (I exaggerate), then it will have more chances to hit a mortar, or a member of the calculation, than 125mm projectile that fell 500m from the target. Or am I wrong?

[Barberry25]

one BTRZ was given a contract for 3 years, there was news, with the modernization of 800 tanks and the t-62 was mentioned there about modernization .. apparently they decided to modernize and capital everything that was possible.

[Vladimir_2U]

No, well, of course it is possible to shaman, and even necessary, but not to the detriment of stronger and fresher cars.

[Barberry25]

Well, I haven't heard about UVZ starting to conjure up the T-62, so we can be calm about deliveries of the T-72B3M, etc. I think that given that they started to deliver the equipment "ahead of schedule", their order was increased. I just think that the Ministry of Defense realized that in the event of a global conflict we will need not just a lot, but a LOT of tanks, so the attempt is not to reinvent the wheel. And continuing to work with the T-62 is quite understandable. Although I personally don't understand why we haven't heard about work with the T-72/T-72A, there seem to be quite a lot of them in storage.

[alexmach]

It depends on what kind of modernization we are talking about. It seems that during mobilization it is already too late to modernize anything massively.

[Barberry25]

Well, according to the information that at the factory they have the main profile - the modernization of the T-62, they promise to update the heat packs and nightlights with the engine + hang DZ

This is what happened in the Army .. The T-80s also shone at the factory, so the tanks will capitalize different

[alexmach]

Honestly amazing. I read it and did not believe it, then I saw it at the bmpd. With reference to a certain Andrei Gurulev

[Barberry25]

Yes, today he traveled with local TV people, by the way, the BRDM-2 Snipe also lit up there

[Alexga]

Brad what. The T-72 is not pumped as much as you thought about the T-62 ....

These are the words of Mr. Gurulev, who is currently at the plant in Atamanovka. The 103rd plant received such a task to modernize the T-62. According to him, almost everything in the hood will be replaced, except for the gun. At least it will be possible to shoot OFS with a shrapnel effect. With AZ and MZ this is impossible.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: AlexGa

These are the words of Mr. Gurulev. which is now at the plant in Atamanovka. The 103rd plant received such a task to modernize the T-62

Yes, I saw it at the bmpd. The gunner's sight is for replacement, it is not clear about the commander's device, and the engine is by no means 1200 hp, but 720. (but also not bad)

Quote: AlexGa

At least it will be possible to shoot OFS with the effect of shrapnel. With AZ and MZ this is impossible.

It is possible, if the Ainet Remote Detonation System is installed. But with 115 mm, in that regard, it is a problem, because the detonator will either fit 115 mm or not, but the programmer is definitely very inconvenient for manual loading in a tank, because it must work before loading the shell. But in general, it is possible.

[Alexga]

So far, all this has not reached the troops, and it’s expensive. I met ATP needles at the training grounds, mows the grass, they stick into the trees not at all deep, they easily reach with their fingers. But it was in 90, they were tested, as I don’t know now.

[ramzay21]

This is because the capitalists put money more expensive than lives, therefore it is necessary to pay for each killed tanker as for an Armata tank, and officials who are responsible for rearmament should also pay, then they will not talk nonsense about the fact that the T-62M is more needed on the battlefield and cheaper than the Armata tank.
The most precious thing is life, and if it is possible to save as many lives as possible, this should be used, otherwise why would our country take money from the same people mobilized today and pay for the creation of Almaty?

[Barberry25]

t-62M with modern optics and normal capital will cost a maximum of 30-50 million rubles .. and the T-14 costs 350 million rubles .. simply put, 1 t-14 will account for 10 t-62m-2022

[stelltok]

t-62M with modern optics and normal capital

And what about the Tank-robot "Sturm"?
https://rg.ru/2022/03/14/tank-robot-shturm-nachnut-ispytyvat-v-aprele-on-mozhet-okazatsia-kruche-armaty.html

[Alexga]

then they won’t talk nonsense about the fact that the T-62M

Colleague, in terms of foolproofness, the T-62 has no rivals. As for Almaty, with that level of automation of all processes, the requirements for crew training are very high. Moreover, military tests with these samples were not carried out.

[Bulgarian_5]

The T-14 is an expensive tank, the cost of which in serial production can exceed 350 million rubles. If you collect piece by piece, then up to 500 million per copy is not far away. By world standards, it is inexpensive, but upgrading the T-72 to the B3 version costs 52 million rubles. That is, for the price of one "Armata" you can bring at least seven tanks to the modern level. And in terms of combat effectiveness, the T-14 will never block the seven T-72B3. Interesting in this situation is the cost of the T-90M "Breakthrough" at 200 million rubles.

But the crew does not burn out alive after hitting and breaking through the tower / automatic reloading ...
But forgive me, I scored that in Russia the human stomach has never had dignity in the eyes of the authorities.

[SincerityX]

Well, why, these 7 tanks can still be given remote control for a couple of million and then these 7 tanks + KM will be more effective than armats. True, before entering the KM.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Bulgarian_5

But the crew does not burn out alive after hitting and breaking through the tower / automatic reloading ...
But forgive me, I scored that in Russia the human stomach has never had dignity in the eyes of the authorities.

I won't even write anything about the fireproof crew-saving Bulgarian tank, I'll just write that all Western tanks have combustible cartridges, and have ammunition stowage and tanks in the crew compartment. If you understand what I'm talking about, of course.

[Barberry25]

the problem is the availability of limited resources i.e. a tank battalion for the same amount will consist of several commander's t-14s and the rest of the t-72Bs, or it will consist entirely of t-72b3m .. Not to mention the fact that no one refuses to produce t-14s

[ramzay21]

the problem is the availability of limited resources i.e. a tank battalion for the same amount will consist of several commander's t-14s and the rest of the t-72b, or it will consist entirely of t-72b3m.

This is a problem of power and not tankers.
If the authorities had built LNG terminals instead of gas flow sawmills, they would have saved at least $100 billion. Considering that one T-14 tank in mass production costs 350 million, then even at the rate of 70 it is 5 million dollars or 20 thousand Armata tanks that were drowned at the bottom of the Baltic.
You can recall the $360 billion that Nabiulina and other liberals lost, and these are 72 Armata tanks that were donated to the West, and you say there is no money in the country.
If our country had made at least 2 thousand T-14 Armata and the same number of T-15 IFVs, the SVO would have gone in a completely different direction and with completely different losses.
Only fools save on strength and spend, apart from the show, stupidity and trinkets.

[Barberry25]

this is the mathematics of large numbers - 10 current Armat will not be able to perform tasks that an entire tank battalion t-72b3m can perform. Where did you get 100 billion bucks from? can produce a very limited number of T-14s, and even in the most optimistic options, this number will not reach 100 units per year for a very long time in the future .. And if we suppose they were produced, then we would now have several hundred lost armats , for many, many tens of billions of rubles ... it’s just that Armata can be blown up by a mine in the same way, smashed from artillery and it can also run out of fuel .. So there’s nothing for the T-14 to do within the framework of the NWO, it’s not warm there, not hot..

[ramzay21]

Where did you get 100 billion dollars from?

The cost of building Nord Stream 2 is $50 billion plus at least $100 billion for Nord Stream 1, former South Stream and now Turkish Stream and Blue Stream. A total of 150 billion plus Gazprom's spending on football clubs, parties, animal welfare clubs, offices and other nonsense for a total of several more billion dollars.
The construction of a pipeline to Murmansk and the construction of terminals and LNG plants there would cost a maximum of $50 billion, more than $100 billion remains.

Well, these are trifles, the problem is that these are all your Wishlists, but the reality is that UVZ can produce a very limited number of T-14s, and even in the most optimistic options this number will not reach 100 units per year in the future for a very long time

UVZ could normally produce 1500 tanks a year, and it is quite possible to reach production of up to 500 T-14 Armatas a year with adequate management and planning. Although effective managers will certainly not do this.

And if we suppose they were produced, then we would now have several hundred lost armats, for many, many tens of billions of rubles ... it’s just that Armata can be blown up on a mine in the same way, broken from artillery, and it may also run out of fuel

Firstly, we would have lost much fewer crews simply due to the fact that when it hits the roof-breaker tower on the T-62 / T-64 / T-72 / T-80 / T-90, it kills the entire crew and does not kill anyone in the T-14 and a tank with a damaged turret but with a whole crew can drive itself to the base.
Secondly, the losses of the T-14 would be ten times less due to better protection, because according to statistics, most of the losses in tanks are from anti-tank systems and artillery falling into the upper part of the tank and especially the turret.
Thirdly, the T-14 has a modern combat control system, which significantly increases the effectiveness of combat, and therefore the T-14 regiment on the battlefield is much more effective than three T-72 regiments, will suffer much less losses than three T-72 regiments in equipment and what is more important in people. And a soldier in a war is the main character and everything must be done so that as few of them as possible die and they complete the task as efficiently as possible.

And why do we need to make new tanks then? Show off on TV and at parades, burying your people in junk?

[Barberry25]

Do you think that building LNG terminals and a fleet of gas carriers will be much cheaper? Compare the numbers and you will understand the difference. About "but they could have done it earlier" - let me remind you of the saying "if grandma had a dick, she would have been a grandfather". Do you have a time machine? No, then leave the stories about "but if they had done it this way, they could have changed this and that", we are not in history class... About "we would have lost much fewer crews from rooftop bombers". Do you have statistics on these losses? Because according to my statistics, rooftop bombers did not show themselves very well. About "tank losses from artillery" - a tank, when it is immobilized due to a broken track, is a target for artillery and the main principle is to immobilize and finish off. About "but one regiment on a T-14 will prove itself more effective than three regiments on a T-72". Perhaps, only the talk is about the T-72B3M and the superiority of the T-14 three times in relation to it does not provide, since we do not have tank battles and when ordering one regiment on T-14 we will have to leave another 2,5 regiments on T-72B without modernization.. so by saving one regiment in theory you ruin 2.5 regiments on T-72B. By the way, according to your logic, the USSR during the war should have stopped production of KV-1 and T-34 and devoted all its efforts to production of T-34M.. although the USSR was in no hurry to switch to T-44 even at the end of the war.

[ramzay21]

The construction of LNG terminals and plants, as well as pipelines to them of comparable capacity from Yamal, costs much less than $ 50 billion if you do not cut money on it, and ALL companies in the world, including the Russian NOVATEK, are building LNG because it is much more profitable than the pipeline. Today they build a pipe ONLY for cutting or for their needs. The same NOVATEK refused to supply its gas to the pipe ONLY because LNG is much more profitable.
And by the way, 25 gas carriers can be built for $500 billion.

The T-34 at the beginning of the war was raw and was just at the level of Armat, it had just begun to enter units and get used to it. And according to your logic, it was necessary to increase the production of cheaper, simpler and more refined T-26 and BT.
And precisely because Stalin is not the current guarantor, we won that war, and now we are retreating from the Ukrainian troops.

And during the war, the USSR for some reason also mastered the Isa and self-propelled guns Su-100, Su-122, Su-152, Isu-122, and Isu-152.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: ramzay21

The construction of LNG terminals and plants, as well as pipelines to them of comparable capacity from Yamal, costs much less than $ 50 billion if you don’t cut money on it

You forget about one small point: LNG needs a fleet of gas carriers and receiving terminals on the other side.

Quote: ramzay21

ALL companies in the world, including the Russian NOVATEK, are building LNG because it is much more profitable than a pipeline.

Geography is a pseudoscience.
We build pipelines because only we have mining companies and consumers located on the same continent.

By the way, since it is more profitable to liquefy than to drive through a pipe, why then does LNG cost more than pipeline gas? Or have you forgotten - who and why started this mess with the Flows?

Quote: ramzay21

And during the war, the USSR for some reason also mastered the Isa and self-propelled guns Su-100, Su-122, Su-152, Isu-122, and Isu-152.

He mastered the ISs of the USSR because he could not design the HF normally. The chassis, designed for 40 tons, could not carry the normal armor of a heavy tank, and what it could carry after modernization did not suit the army in terms of armor protection. Plus, after the evacuation, there was a huge shortage of armored products with a thickness of more than 45 mm (even a GKO decree had to be issued). So I had to make a new heavy weight practically from scratch - only rollers remained in it from the old models. And then, when it became better with the rental, to strengthen its armor protection (VLD).
And all SU and ISU are, by and large, wartime ersatz. SU-85, SU-100 is a solution to the problem of the impossibility of installing a powerful gun in the ST tank turret and the lack of tractors for its towed version using the available means. The SU-122 is generally a "homemade product on the knee" - they took the swinging part of the M-30 and shoved it into the wheelhouse, moreover, the states of the glanders and the qualifications of the l / s allowed firing only direct fire. The SU-152 grew out of work on adapting the KV-7 hulls that turned out to be superfluous.

[ramzay21]

You forget about one small point: LNG needs a fleet of gas carriers and receiving terminals on the other side.

Do you think our tankers carry our oil? And no one is stopping us from building our fleet, only it is not profitable for the capitalists, they draw up their fleet where there are no taxes.
And there are a lot of terminals all over the world, they are in India, China, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan and many other places. Everyone who counts money, including our NOVATEK, does not rely on LNG because they are dumber than Gazprom managers.

We build pipelines because only we have mining companies and consumers located on the same continent.

And how does it help us? Here we swelled 100 billion dollars in a pipe to Germany. We were sent, we lost 100 billion now we are pumping another 100 billion dollars into the pipe to Turkey. And what will happen if Erdogan sends us in 5 years or dies? Again, to invest only 200 billion already to build a pipe to China? Then what? spend 300 billion on a pipe to India and hire an army to guard the pipe through Afghanistan?

But to spend 50 billion on a pipe to Murmansk and the construction of LNG plants and terminals there would make it possible to supply gas to anyone, while ALL infrastructure is being built on our territory and works according to our laws without any hemorrhoids with transit countries.

By the way, since it is more profitable to liquefy than to drive through a pipe, why then does LNG cost more than pipeline gas?

Because the pipe has only two ends, and at the other end we were squeezed out for discounts, but from the LNG terminal the tanker can go in any direction, and it will always go where they pay more. And that is why NOVATEK refused to pump gas into Nord Stream with discounts according to energy packages and focused only on LNG. For the same reason, Qatar earns more than Gazprom by extracting much less gas.

[Barberry25]

Novatek refused to supply its gas due to the fact that then it would no longer be his gas, but Gazprom's, which is why they got into LNG. You obviously embellished about "much cheaper", not to mention the fact that where you were going to take 500 gas carriers .. I gave you a concrete example that knowing that there is a much better model in the form of the t-34m, and then the t-44 of the USSR, so as not to lose the required number of tanks at the front, even though the performance characteristics were worse than the riveting of the t-34, and not the t-34m, and then when everything was already done, the pitchfork began to make the t-34-85, which, in fact, was adapted for the new t-34 gun, but on the t-44, even despite the end of the war, they didn’t even look .. so now, there are no such tanks that can be 1 to 5 in efficiency, so no one will stop the whole plant to completely convert it from t-72b3m to t-14, this is without taking into account the fact that the price difference is 3,5 times nowhere won’t go away ... I repeat, enough mriy about “what if yes if only” .. you are not 14 years old

[ramzay21]

Novatek refused to supply its gas due to the fact that then it would no longer be his gas, but Gazprom, which is why they got into LNG.

Awesome statement! Only you seem to be off topic. When our first JV was built, the EU came up with Energy Packages, according to which Gazprom could only use half of the pipeline and the other half should be used by independent suppliers, and NOVATEK just fell under this definition and was persuaded by everyone, both Gazprom and the Europeans, and offered discounts on transportation. There was no talk of selling gas to Gazprom at all. NOVATEK just counts money just like the Qataris, and Gazprom was dragged into pipes due to cuts. Look who are the permanent contractors for the construction of these pipes and to whom they belong, and you will no longer have any questions.
[quote I gave you a specific example, that knowing that there is a much better model in the form of t-34m, and then t-44] [/ quote]
I also gave you a concrete example.

The T-34 at the beginning of the war was raw and was just at the level of Armat, it had just begun to enter units and get used to it. And according to your logic, it was necessary to increase the production of cheaper, simpler and more refined T-26 and BT.

The T-34M was a modernization of the T-34, but the T-34 at the beginning of the war was a revolutionary tank, just like the Armata, and like the Armata, it was raw, but Stalin decided to increase the production of the T-34 and not the time-tested and well-mastered T- 26 and BT.

[Barberry25]

If we take into account, then Armata is T-34M, and T-34 is now T-90M... And yes, you can ask the tankers yourself - who is cooler - 1 Armata or 4 T-72b3M and whether they can complete the task of a tank platoon with one Armata. It's just that one guy named the video incorrectly and a bunch of experts who point-blank didn't think to look at the original source began to actively argue about nonsense... in general, I don't see the point in further arguing, because it's stupid

[ramzay21]

Armata cannot be, by definition, the T-34M, because the T-34M is an upgrade of the finished T-34.
And when compared with the Second World War, then the T-90M is just the last MODERNIZATION of the T-26, and the T-34 is an ABSOLUTELY NEW TANK just like ARMATA and not a MODERNIZATION of the proven T-72

And if we draw analogies, then the same T-34 did not show itself in any way in Ukraine in 1941, but after their competent use near Moscow, everyone understood what the T-34 was. Same with Armata. If the Armat regiment is used correctly, then it will do things and show what the T-14 is.

[Consultant]

Walk trump aces against sixes? We know practically nothing about new weapons from the United States and other members of the alliance, but even what is known from the media suggests that they have developed a lot of things! If you use the T-14 now, then why surprise NATO later - with the modernized T-55s? After all, as soon as characteristics are removed from the equipment, the enemy immediately begins to develop countermeasures.
In addition, conditionally 100 available Armats from the near future would not replace hundreds of tanks of other series, but would be an error.
Instead, it is better to put Arena and Malachite on all armored vehicles, where possible.

KAZ "Arena-M" can be installed both on the upgraded T-72B3, T-80BVM and T-90M "Proryv" tanks, as well as new models of weapons such as BMPT. Also, with these systems it will be possible to strengthen the survivability of infantry fighting vehicles BMP-3 and landing BMD-4.

[alexmach]

If power instead of sawmill gas flows

Forgive me, but streams are not sawmills, but a serious infrastructure project, with a premise for a geopolitical result.

[ramzay21]

NOVATEK's LNG terminals are a serious infrastructure project, which is entirely located on our territory, operates according to our laws and brings huge profits.
LNG terminals in Qatar is also a serious infrastructure project that allows Qatar to earn more on gas than Gazprom, producing many times less gas.

And the pipelines, on which a certain circle of people earned money and in which about 100 billion people's dollars were invested, are now just a pile of scrap metal lying at the bottom.

[alexmach]

As the "partners" say, "if you are so smart, then why don't you line up"?
That's where you personally were with your after-knowledge 10 years ago, then you would have worked at Gazprom and taught everyone the mind, or at least scribble letters to the president. Did you scribble?

NOVATEK's LNG terminals are a serious infrastructure project, which is entirely located on our territory

Yes, yes.. Guess what.
In order for the terminal to operate on our territory and according to our laws, somewhere on the "other side", a terminal must also be built, ready to receive gas from ours and it will work on that side according to those laws.

In addition, gas from our terminal, which operates according to our laws, must also be transported to that non-our terminal. Imagine you need to transport through international waters, and even the vehicle itself, which you also need to transport, and then there are some questions with insurance and all that.

[ramzay21]

That's where you personally were with your after-knowledge 10 years ago, then you would have worked at Gazprom and taught everyone the mind, or at least scribble letters to the president. Did you scribble?

Do you believe that people are appointed to such positions on business qualities and not on personal relationships with the first person? Or are all those who worked with him in St. Petersburg very talented people?
You also say that Gazprom's contractors accidentally got to his friends and they honestly win all the contracts, and Gazprom does not stop building gas pipelines, because this is such a need, and is not very upset when investments of 100 billion turn into scrap metal.

In order for the terminal to operate on our territory and according to our laws, somewhere on the "other side", a terminal must also be built, ready to receive gas from ours and it will work on that side according to those laws.

Don't you know that LNG terminals have been operating all over the world for a long time, from the EU to India, China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Pacific Islands? Or do you think how LNG is sold by Qatar, USA, NOVATEK?
Or do you think it would occur to someone in Pakistan to pass a law obliging not to load gas into one tanker from one LNG terminal or to bring it in half full tanker? The Europeans adopted such a law, because we will not be able to supply gas to others through the pipes into which we have spent 100 billion, and if Pakistan adopts such a law, the tanker will go to India, which is growing rapidly and needs this LNG.

[alexmach]

Do you believe that people are appointed to such positions on business qualities and not on personal relationships with the first person? Or are all those who worked with him in St. Petersburg very talented people?

I believe, because if there weren’t people with the necessary qualities there, everything would have collapsed a long time ago. And about those who worked with him in St. Petersburg - I know of course and understand

Don't you know that LNG terminals have been operating all over the world for a long time, from the EU to India, China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Pacific Islands?

All the same, in order to sell it to someone, there must be this someone who is ready to buy it, including technically.

The Europeans have adopted such a law, because we will not be able to supply gas to others through the pipes into which we have threatened 100 billion

So they will adopt a law in the same way that will ban a tanker from going to our LNG terminal. Well, really, who could have known that they would turn out to be so...

In general, Putin somewhere recently hinted at the Power of Siberia-2, so if Russia had managed to implement this project in time, it would have been much easier. But better late than never.

[ramzay21]

And about those who worked with him in St. Petersburg - I know of course and understand

Then why are you writing?

That's where you personally were with your after-knowledge 10 years ago, then you would have worked at Gazprom and taught everyone the mind, or at least scribble letters to the president. Did you scribble?

if you understand this, then you also understand how the companies created under the USSR for the construction of gas pipelines ended up in the ownership of two people from their company and why Gazprom has been sawing gas pipelines for the last 17 years without stopping.

All the same, in order to sell it to someone, there must be this someone who is ready to buy it, including technically.

Once again, especially for you. There are NO problems with LNG reception in the world, terminals and infrastructure for LNG reception are being built by ALL countries of the world that need gas, Indians and Pakistanis, Chinese and Vietnamese ALREADY HAVE LNG TERMINALS and ARE BUILDING MORE, because their demand for gas is growing at a tremendous pace together with the economy.
NOVATEK, Sakhalin-2, and Sakhalin-2 have NO PROBLEMS with LNG sales. The Japanese are ready to increase LNG intake by ANY QUANTITY.

In general, Putin somewhere recently hinted at the Power of Siberia-2, but if Russia had managed to implement this project in time, it would have been much easier.

The Power of Siberia-2, of course, will be built, it will be the largest cut in our history and it will cost our country 100-150 billion.
And the cruel truth is that through this pipe we will sell gas to the Chinese for $350, even if the Indians are willing to pay us $3000. We can sell LNG to anyone who pays more, like oil. And the construction of a terminal in Murmansk and Kaliningrad, taking into account the pipelines of the northern streams, will cost less than $50 billion.

[SincerityX]

If at least 2 thousand T-14 Armata and the same number of T-15 infantry fighting vehicles were made in our country, then the SVO would have gone completely differently and with completely different losses.

I think if we had 2 "Armata" tanks, then the mattress toppers would have scored a point to incite the Ukroreich to hate Russia.

[alexmach]

But the crew does not burn out alive after hitting and breaking through the tower / automatic reloading

By the way, the T-62 does not have a loader And it burns out just the same less often :)

[Alexga]

And it burns out just the same less often :)

I will continue, because the sleeves are non-combustible and in the body of the machine are placed in rack tanks.

[Viktor Sergeev]

This is a tank for the war with the US and NATO. Ukraine needs a lot of T62 tanks, in huge numbers, and a dozen T14s are expensive toys that can be lost, for example, as a result of drone strikes, min.

[Alf]

Quote: Victor Sergeev

This is a tank for the war with the US and NATO. Ukraine needs a lot of T62 tanks, in huge numbers, and a dozen T14s are expensive toys that can be lost, for example, as a result of drone strikes, min.

And why then did they drive the SU-57 to Syria? The Basmachi have no aviation.

[Viktor Sergeev]

The Su 57 was driven to test weapons in conditions in which the probability of defeat was zero, in fact, there were greenhouse conditions for testing not the aircraft, but its weapons, the operation of weapon control systems. With T14 the situation is different, there is a high probability of being hit by means from which he has no means of protection, while no new data will be received.

[Alf]

Quote: Victor Sergeev

The Su 57 was driven to test weapons in conditions in which the probability of defeat was zero, in fact, there were greenhouse conditions for testing not the aircraft, but its weapons, the operation of weapon control systems.

If there were greenhouse conditions, how did they differ from the same conditions here?

[Ryusei]

As for what, as a testing ground for testing new elements with their subsequent installation on linear machines.

[ZuekRek]

The issue is the nature of the use. Armata, as it was correctly written, is one of the elements of a network-centric war. Those. these combat units should be used within the framework of the concept in which they were developed: interaction (and in many aspects automatic) between different combat units of different branches of the armed forces (the most complete situational awareness on the battlefield, up to the soldier). If you manage to create something like this and test it - it's reasonable. To use simply as a replacement for the T-72, in the form in which the T-72 is now used, is not reasonable and harmful.

[bayard]

Quote: Krilion

if you don’t use a tank now, then it’s generally not clear why it is needed and what to expect to use it ..

First you need to equip at least one tank regiment with such tanks. Better yet, a division. Then, how to master it with its l \ composition, work out the tactics of using, combat interaction in the Constellation system (otherwise, why bother with all this at all). To work out the combat interaction of such a formation with other branches of the military, in order, again, to get the maximum return from this "white elephant" in battle.
And before all this, as you understand, it is still very far away. This is in fact still a prototype, because even the first shows of it caused a lot of questions and bewilderment from the military authorities (profile) - what justifies this mass of "gold" if it has the same gun as the T-90M ?? More survivability? But this is partly offset by the much larger size of such a seven-roller bulk.
It would be a completely different matter if a tank of this size and price were armed with a more powerful gun. Then the sky-high price (by our standards, of course) would be justified by much greater combat capabilities. And KAZ, in the end, can be installed on both the T-90M and the T-80BVM, and then the return on each ruble invested will be much greater due to the larger number of tanks received in the ranks.
But the gun is 152 mm. would give "Armata" completely different qualitative capabilities - the capabilities of an assault tank with an ultimatum caliber for direct fire analysis of any enemy fortifications, including capital buildings during the assault on cities and fortified areas. For tanks do not always fight with tanks, and the greatest threat to them is posed by infantry armed with ATGMs, high-precision artillery shells and aviation (usually front-line).
And yet - a tank in a war is a consumable. And the current conflict clearly shows HOW great their expenditure in a war with an equal enemy can be. And if so, then there should be a LOT of tanks for such a war, their development and operation should not be overly complicated, the industry should be able to make up for losses, and this already means that the technical process for their creation should be worked out, based on the continuity of experience in the production of previous machines , spare parts should be interchangeable to facilitate the logistics of ongoing repairs and restoration in the field ... And as we can see, such a tank cannot be an "Armata" in any way. "Armata" is an expensive toy for politicians, and not at all for the military, an occasion for PR and propaganda, and not for solving specific combat missions.
But at the same time "Armata" with 152 mm. a weapon may well fit into the tasks of modern warfare. But not as an MBT, but as a HEAVY STORM AND BREAKTHROUGH TANK, with ultimate weapons and for use in specific specific conditions. A kind of analogue of the IS-2, which was also created not to fight tanks (too low a rate of fire), but to STORM highly protected defense lines, fortified areas and cities with capital buildings. And the current conflict clearly shows HOW exactly such a tank is needed when storming cities and fortified areas. It is this "Armata-152" that will find a niche for use in modern warfare.
And for all other tasks, the T-90M, T-80BVM and T-72B3 \ B3M are quite enough.
We are now returning to service and modernizing the T-62 at an accelerated pace !! Order for modernization as much as 800 pcs. !! The quantity needed is hundreds and thousands of new tanks, not 20 units. raw, undeveloped and dubious "white elephants".

[123_123]

It is quite possible to test in the event of a cauldron of the environment of Ukrainian gangs. In this case, the transition to the side of new technologies is unlikely, on the one hand, on the other hand, the technology will be tested relatively fully.

[guest]

Quote: Krilion

it is not at all clear why it is needed

Well, you need it for parades.

[Sergei Kazarin]

The Ministry of Defense had parades in priorities .....................

[Oleg Ogorod]

There are really few of these tanks.
There are production problems starting with the cannon.
The military's Wishlist is ahead of our stagnant oligachaic reality.
Art production has long been killed in the country and was practically killed.
But in addition to the trunks, the production of military electronics was killed. Which for a long time gave birth in the throes of the USSR.
Javelins can be fought if several of their own far-sighted eagle drones fly over the tanks. Which can track the huge optics of the javelins. Anti-sniper systems have been around for a long time. They can be found by glare. And the turret quickly turns and the shell spat. And there is neither a javelin nor a donkey under it.
But we do not have such unmanned eagles. Only greedy lazy donkeys. The more tanks burn down and explode, the more they can be delivered to the state for the money of the state. Having made a good margin on this.

[Mainjet88]

And you can also build Bismarck and Tirpitz.
Lose the first one in the first campaign, shake the whole war over the second, so as not to break the pier.

[Lukachevsky]

And you can also remember the Yamato, about which the Japanese sailors themselves bitterly joked that “there are three biggest and most useless things in the world: the Egyptian pyramids, the Great Wall of China and the Yamato battleship.

[skeptick2]

Quote from Ddd

The question is, why the hell did you build Armata if you are afraid of losing it? Are you idiots?

Well, how the hell is that?
After all, he rode parades on Red Square so beautifully!
How many laudatory articles have been written about him! Even here, on this resource. How warmed the soul of a patriot was this wonderful phrase "unparalleled in the world"!
True, this piece of metal, which has no analogues in the world, turns out to have one very significant drawback: it cannot be used in hostilities. Those. exactly what it was made for.
Why? The secrecy is great. The hour is not even, the tank will get to the adversary. And he will find out all the secrets of this super-weapon.
In short, in order for this tank, which has no analogues in the world, to appear on the battlefield, it must be guarded by two dozen ordinary tanks that have analogues in the world of tanks.
But the question, of course, is not removed from this - what the hell was it to do? Fuck a bunch of dough into it? If you are afraid to release into battle?
Yes, and there is no need. For all performance characteristics, it turns out, "are perfectly checked deep in the rear away from NLAW, Javelin and other evil spirits."

[ZuekRek]

Is it possible to open the lid of a canned food with a surgical scalpel? Can. But, is it necessary? Armata reveals its potential when used in accordance with the concept of network-centric warfare, when everything on the battlefield (all armored vehicles, all artillery, all UAVs, and ideally every soldier) are connected to each other and in many respects all interactions are automatic (UAV detected calculation of the ATGM - sent a notification to all armored vehicles about a probable attack and a specific vehicle - the task of suppression; after the impact - checked and either confirmed the destruction, or gave a new command. At the same time, the ATGM appeared on the maps of all participants. This, of course, is an ideal - but some approximation already possible). If this is not the case, it will be better for business to install KAZ on the T-72.

[Koronik]

In addition, the T-90M has already fallen into the hands of the nationalists, where did they get it from?

[Nexcom]

There was information. The broken truck flew off. The crew abandoned the tank, they didn't blow it up, they didn't burn it. This is how the Nazis captured an almost completely serviceable car. With ammunition.

[Seryoga Nemuslim]

https://topwar.ru/202055-pochemu-brosili-t-90m-v-ukrainskom-lesu.html

[Nikolay310]

so Ukrainians We ourselves conducted a tour of the captured tank, which simply lost a track and was abandoned by sprinters who did not even try to disable the newest equipment inside the tank...

[d.zacharith]

Most likely, he was left to Khokhols for money. Negotiable shorter

[Krilion]

so there was a detailed video with an inspection of this tank .. the caterpillar flew off, and the crew apparently had to repair it as scrap ... not only did they throw the tank, it also included a cloak camouflage accessory, which reduces visibility from the thermal range .. the tank commander should shoot... I'm serious..

[tone]

Of course you don’t need to, send the T-34 and IS-2

[vfrcbv1965-2011]

with the T-90M tank, another disgrace. In general, the current leadership of the army, for me, is a bunch of downs, to put it mildly. I'm talking about higher colonels, although the colonel is already almost a strategic commander. Afraid to report, order - what? Or they are not used to thinking at all. I am sure of victory, but damn it, with such commanders and planning when - only Allah knows. Only on the conscience of such military thinkers are the dead guys, the newest tanks given away, and the population who believed and remembered their grandfathers and our history. By the way, the population is already being exterminated.

[white fall]

It’s as if you weren’t in the army - there is even a saying “It’s too early for the captain to think, But it’s too late for the Major”

[Alexga]

with the T-90M tank, another disgrace. In general, the current leadership of the army, for me, is a bunch of downs, to put it mildly.

Maxim, the disgrace in this case concerns the army authorities far from the first place. The stupidity lies in the fact that in this situation, the determining factor is that the NWO is going on, and not the war. And the crew, destroying their tank, would cause crazy damage to the state, this is for the Prosecutor's Office and other lawyers. And the boys from the court units are very careful in these matters. And if they just left the tank in the forest, then responsibility for the abandoned weapons may not come, the situation is not military. Brad, of course, but anything can happen.

[Bodipancher]

The Armata needed to be armed with a 152 mm cannon so that it could perform the role of a highly protected self-propelled gun and command tank. Paired with a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, it would be an ideal assault tool for breaching fortifications.

[paul3390]

The question is not in technology, but in those who leave it on the battlefield .. It’s not very clear how the vaunted contract professionals managed to fall in love with the whole newest tank .. Well, at least it was possible to blow it up when retreating, if you didn’t leave? I think that counterintelligence should have sooo many questions for them ..

[Nexcom]

Duck as how ... The truck was killed, the crew and abandoned. this is how they loved it. With full ammunition. They threw it in a forest plantation.
That's why they didn't even try to undermine - the question is .....

PS maybe they expected to return, maybe not ... rotten story ...

[paul3390]

But this is like the elite of the Armed Forces, since they were entrusted with such a piece of iron? How so? Okay, remove the secret equipment there - but could you at least throw a grenade into the ammunition load? Or was this not included in the terms of their type contract?

I read somewhere that in Korean - the Chinese were very offended when ours called them soldiers .. They asked to be called fighters - they say, we are not fighting for soldo ..

[Nexcom]

Why ask me about this? How do I know why the crew did this? In theory, a couple of grenades into the hatch and scratch to your own if you are afraid to pull the track ... I can’t say anything about the crew - I don’t know. I suppose that after the media coverage of the capture, the crew's seats were rouged to the fullest for this. At least they could try to burn it - the detonation of the ammunition load could help destroy the car. Why so frankly drape ....

[Barmaglot_07]

Was there a command to undermine? Did not have? Here are the bribes smooth. And then only what they conceived, to spoil state property.

[Nexcom]

Well, they "presented" the proto-Ukrainians with a practically working vehicle with a full set of ammunition. Now they will tinker with all the equipment and fire at the tank at their own training ground with all the ensuing consequences.

[Barmaglot_07]

What are the consequences? Well, the American testers at the test site will neigh - well, maybe someone there will tear his stomach from laughter, and that’s good. But if you cultivate initiative and other free-thinking in the troops, the consequences of this - for the country's top leadership - can be much more difficult and far-reaching.

[Vladimir 290]

We don't know how it all happened. The question is very interesting, for example, imagine yourself in the place of the crew, you hit the tank, the caterpillar is broken, there are enemies around, while there is still an opportunity to leave. How to burn a tank in a limited time. How to undermine it? Most likely, even from a grenade thrown into the hatch, nothing particularly terrible will happen, but if the ammunition detonates (there is such a possibility too), then what? How many steps the tanker will run in 4 seconds, he is not a kamikaze and the point is not iron. For example, in Soviet times, a short circuit (shaped charge) was attached to each container with tactical special ammunition and the point of its installation was indicated. The commander was obliged to undermine the container in case of a threat of capture, but what about the tank?
I read the memoirs of the Great Patriotic War, after the order "not one step back" tankers could not leave a destroyed tank if there was still an opportunity to shoot, otherwise everything was in accordance with the order...

[Nikolay310]

just about ... and to these "sprinters" the author of the article also suggests giving Armata ukram for fun ...

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: paul3390

Well, at least it was possible to undermine it during the withdrawal, if you didn’t leave?

So for the destruction of military property, the term shines.

[Konnick]

Moreover, the main caliber of the "Armata" is redundant for the Ukrainian theater of operations - for the entire existing range of armored vehicles, the standard 2A46M-5 gun from the T-90M "Proryv" is quite enough.

Fantasies and the rod of the author.
And what is the main caliber of the Armata?

[Nexcom]

But isn’t Armata also the main caliber like a cruiser or what? There seems to be one tank gun.

[Konnick]

There seems to be one tank gun.

And the same caliber as the T-72,80,90 ...

[Nexcom]

Probably due to unification. It seems like they wrote that there is a cannon with increased shot power.

[Alex777]

The gun of Almaty has many differences.

The 2A82 tank gun with an auto-bonded and partially chrome-plated barrel uses all existing 125 mm ammunition and new advanced ammunition. In particular, BPS "Vacuum-1" (tungsten), "Vacuum-2" (uranium) length 900mm, OFS "Telnik" with detonation on the trajectory and the 3UBK21 "Sprinter" missile. To do this, the chamber part of the bore is made with an additional lead-in cone section shifted forward to pinch the leading belt of the projectile being loaded. When developing, the possibility of placing serial tanks in the combat compartments was taken into account.

The length of the barrel is one meter longer.
The rate of fire is higher, etc.

[Waterways 672]

In addition to the main caliber (cannon), there are 2 more machine guns on Armata, one of them is large-caliber.

[fiberboard]

The tank must fight, this is a great opportunity. Just do not give them to the "elite" Kantemirovskaya and Tamanskaya divisions, they need to be handed the T-62.

[Alf]

Quote: fiberboard

they need to hand over the T-62.

And better than the T-54, it is almost impossible to break it.

[fiberboard]

The main thing here is not to break, but to leave when they run. I read that in WWI there was a division (50000) where doormen, floor cleaners, janitors, footmen, etc. were gathered from St. Petersburg and Moscow. contingent. In the army, this division (more like a corps) had the unspoken name, St. Petersburg Society of Runners,,. They fled from any enemy on any sector of the front. Apparently all the same the capital corrupts.

[Seryoga Nemuslim]

To test the Armata for resistance to ammunition, it is enough to fire at it with trophy toys, the question is whether the Javelins were recruited.

[Konnick]

To test the Armata for resistance to ammunition, it is enough to fire at it with trophy toys, the question is whether the Javelins were recruited.

Armata does not even hold 30 mm Terminator shells, unlike the T-62, watch the video with the Terminator constructor. It immediately goes blind and stalls ... Too large optoelectronic devices that are not covered by armor

[Armen Sologyan]

Well, if the West supplies Ukraine with all sorts of Abrams, Cheetahs and Leopards, it would be interesting to test the T-14 in field conditions, and if anything, so that the tank is not taken intact, then destroy it by detonation, like Katyushas during WWII. And detonation, when the tank is already in captivity, so that it will blow up so much that it will seem like a little. After all, at one time the Japanese protected microcircuits in audio and video equipment in this way, when the microcircuits were destroyed during disassembly. We need to arrange surprises for NATO and pro-NATO warriors!

[Nexcom]

After all, at one time the Japanese protected microcircuits in audio and video technology in such a way, when the microcircuits were destroyed during disassembly.

There was no such thing - these are stories. I knew a man who, in Soviet and post-Soviet times, earned money by repairing Japanese equipment. I also told him this bike - like how you repair it then. He told me authoritatively - no matter how much he opened and repaired Japanese tape recorders and televisions, nothing was destroyed there. Spare parts for him were brought by his familiar sailor from the same Japaniya.

[Glory1974]

It is unlikely that such a thing was used in civilian equipment. But in Soviet classified communications equipment it was. In case of a threat of capture, you press a button and the secret boards are filled with acid, becoming unusable.

[Armen Sologyan]

maybe he didn't get one? Sharp had two models, they just wanted to take the chip, without studying it, and it went bad. The legs of the microcircuits had to be soldered at a certain temperature, and not every soldering iron has such an exact temperature. And what they said under the X-ray burns out, so this is really a bluff. Even if viewed under an X-ray, technology is still needed, and technology is a very complex thing. Even the one described in the patent during reproduction turns out to be defective. An example of another "Novice". The British reproduced the novice, but they did not know the technology, only the formula. Result: they never showed a person who fell victim to a newcomer because they failed to do so.

[Nikolay310]

We hope that the crews will be recruited from professional tankers, and not from mobilized ones, albeit with combat experience.
____________________________________________________

Is it not from the first "Guards" that the author proposes to recruit sprinters as a crew?

[Sasha1979]

"Is the T-14 Armata needed in Ukraine"? 1) Was the IS-2 needed in Ukraine in 1944? Absolutely. And it acted there. What other answer is possible to this question? I can also ask a stupid question, for example: "Is the Ka-2 helicopter needed for Ukraine?". Need it, damn it.

[Konnick]

If "Armata" appears in Ukraine, then it will be the first Russian tank with active protection in the NVO. And not just any, but from the most modern KAZ "Afghanit".

Another fantasy of the author.
The anti-splinter casing made of 5mm armor cannot protect the Armata devices from anti-projectile fragments.

[Lepsik]

--- for a month and a half
during this time it is necessary to train the monkey

[Postcode]

Any type of weapons and equipment, until it is tested in combat conditions, cannot be finalized, weak points must be identified, and those points that can be further improved. Tests in Syria, this is a kind of small stage, where our tanks did not take part in a large-scale combined arms battle, using all types of weapons, all types of aircraft. There is no need to be afraid of losing, even capturing it (I'm not saying that you need to throw them), it will take a lot of time for specialists to study it thoroughly. One way or another, when selling a tank abroad, we understand that if not in the first batch, then the second will contain a "prototype" for a potential enemy)))) this is one of the principles of the modern arms market.

[Aviator_]

In addition, the T-90M has already fallen into the hands of the nationalists, in which, with a high degree of probability, there were elements of the Constellation-M controls.

For this, the Sumerians should write out gratitude to the Taman court division.

[AdAstra]

Excuse me please, so Kantemirovskaya or Tamanskaya, otherwise I'm already confused?

[Aviator_]

so Kantemirovskaya or Tamanskaya

In the Kharkiv region, there was Tamanskaya, in 1993 the Supreme Council was suppressed by both - both Tamanskaya and Kantemirovskaya.

[AdAstra]

Thank you "" "" "

[Vladimir Michailovich]

The author sucks the news out of his fingers 10 times.
Particularly pleased were the fantasies about the x-shaped engines, which are not and will not be. The whole theme of Almaty is a grandiose cut.

[rocket757]

The main advantage, for which the story with the Armata was started at all, was the possibility of participating in a network-centric war. The T-14 is one of the most important players in the Constellation-M Unified Tactical Control System, which makes it possible to exchange information about the progress of the battle in real time.

. On the one hand, "news from the fields" suggests that not everything is fine, with the very same interaction, automation of the combat process and other network-centric ones. Something is missing, something is under-educated, something is not thought out, not worked out as it should ... i.e. tank, may be in a situation ... just a tank.
On the other hand, everything is learned in a real battle and learns, it is necessary to work out the system, it is necessary to refine it !!! Otherwise, it will remain so, somewhere out there, outside the battlefield.
However, the personnel must be prepared, inside and out !!!

[BAI]

Why in Ukraine T-14? To get x.ohlam as a trophy? Little shame with the T-90?

[Million]

The main version of the tank. Dust for the eyes. It is expensive, but it is easily disabled. And why is it still needed?

[Codett]

The author has no logic, firstly, you need to check the tank in battle, the polygons are good, but weaknesses can come out in battles, well, some sores in general may find something that needs to be improved, secondly, Armata is protected better than our other tanks, which means that it will help reduce losses among the crews, thirdly, why then they created such expensive equipment to ride in parades, fourthly, perhaps after participating in the NWO, it will be of interest to foreign customers, which will help increase its production and therefore reduce the cost, fifthly, the use of such a modern and expensive equipment will have a positive impact on the morale of our ground forces, as they will see that the country does not save on them and does everything to win, and does not return to service the decommissioned T-62 armor whose armor does not meet modern requirements.

[Konnick]

thirdly, why did they create such dear equipment to ride on parades

To sell more expensive to the state. But it turned out that not fools work in the Moscow Region and refuse to buy for that kind of money, don’t understand what.

[Mitrich73]

Of course, it is necessary to use Armata in NWO, but how? 1-2 tanks or a battalion? Use offensively or defensively? From my point of view, use during the offensive and no less than a battalion (31 tanks), unless of course there are so many. Why on the offensive? Even if the tank is hit or fails for technical reasons, it can be evacuated, since the battlefield will remain with us. When using a tank battalion in the offensive sector, the enemy will not have the opportunity to fend off the blow of such a mass of tanks. If you use small groups, 1-2-3 tanks, then the enemy will have the opportunity to concentrate on the destruction of small groups, attracting a large number of artillery and anti-tank weapons.

[bovi]

The level of publication is disappointing. The thesis of the article and the argument are aimed at the public because it is not criticism (because it is unsubstantiated and does not correspond to competence). It would seem that this stage of generating soulful solidarity content for the sake of content itself has already passed, it seems that the awareness of the seriousness of the moment and the need to speak the truth, and not think out loud, has already come. In short: the author, stop doing so, rethink your role and think to whom and what you write.
Well, in terms of the content of fear, which leitmotif passes from "analysis" to the thesis ... On the nose are large-scale battles, of which there may be a couple: on the defensive and on the offensive. It is not so much the technique that needs to be tested, but the model of the application of this technique, including personnel and command line. And it is not KAZ and armor that need to be checked, which have been checked just at the training ground (and for a long time already).
What can new technology give us and how can we use it? - that's the question that is worth the risk and organization of the operation for these 20 machines.

[Normal ok]

Quote: bovi

The level of publication is disappointing. The thesis of the article and the argument are aimed at the public because it is not criticism (because it is unsubstantiated and does not correspond to competence). It would seem that this stage of generating soulful solidarity content for the sake of content itself has already passed, it seems that the awareness of the seriousness of the moment and the need to speak the truth, and not think out loud, has already come. In short: the author, stop doing so, rethink your role and think to whom and what you write.
Well, in terms of the content of fear, which leitmotif passes from "analysis" to the thesis ... On the nose are large-scale battles, of which there may be a couple: on the defensive and on the offensive. It is not so much the technique that needs to be tested, but the model of the application of this technique, including personnel and command line. And it is not KAZ and armor that need to be checked, which have been checked just at the training ground (and for a long time already).
What can new technology give us and how can we use it? - that's the question that is worth the risk and organization of the operation for these 20 machines.

This author, in fact, has been scribbling similar articles (with no arguments) for 5-7 years already.

[place]

Quote: ramzay21

This is because the capitalists put money more expensive than lives, therefore it is necessary to pay for each killed tanker as for an Armata tank, and officials who are responsible for rearmament should also pay, then they will not talk nonsense about the fact that the T-62M is more needed on the battlefield and cheaper than the Armata tank.
The most precious thing is life, and if it is possible to save as many lives as possible, this should be used, otherwise why would our country take money from the same people mobilized today and pay for the creation of Almaty?

Eh... my friend... Capitalist capitalist - strife! American capitalists invest so much money in training, equipment and arming a soldier that his life really becomes "the most precious thing". The traditions of the peoples of the West are such! The problem is not with the capitalists or the communists, but with the fact that we, under any government, have lingered in past centuries. And we risk remaining in humanity's memories of our dense past - forever.

[YURI KOLPACHEV]

Why it needs to be decided not by us, but by the military, apparently there is a strategic reason ...

[Knell wardenheart]

"Armata" should be introduced with a limited composition in the event of a massive offensive, which excludes the theft of samples by the enemy on the one hand, and makes it possible to test the tank in combat conditions on the other. On the one hand, the machine must be tested if it is actually being finalized and, in the future, put into service en masse, on the other hand, it is absolutely impossible for the enemy to get the latest type of weapons. should", identify its blind spots and vulnerabilities, form tactical recommendations for the Armed Forces of Ukraine as a result.

[AVESSALOM]

A sort of white elephant.))) We need him in the Kantemirov court, all the same, there is no sense either from the division (they retreated ineptly, leaving the equipment), or from this supposedly (and who will prove that this is not a mock-up?) Of the tank.))) Let the parades rides this analog shit.

[Yorgven]

The crew of this tank must be strictly officer-like, like helicopter crews.

[the same doctor]

Each tank has its own tactics. With proper use, Armata will fit.
.
But, in general, megalomania in tanks is a dead end. The tank should be small, as robotic as possible, with a crew of a couple of people, or without a crew.

[Yorgven]

This is not possible at the current tech level. But you can dream. So, for now, only an increase in the size, thickness of armor, caliber of guns and means of active protection.

[the same doctor]

It was possible back in 2001, and even more so now.

[the same doctor]

I wonder why under the nickname a shoulder strap with one asterisk? I must have three...

[Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev]

Trillions have already been spent on this T-14. In any case, this tank must be put into action in order to test its qualities in practice in combat conditions and identify shortcomings! Otherwise, the state budget will continue to spend billions of rubles for no one knows what.

[Altmann]

In Ukraine, our troops will win without Artata, I think this is a tank for a "big war", but at the same time, why not test it in battle and try simple mobilizers to see if the tank can rule. We'll leave it to the tankers

[AG-76]

No matter how "fancy" tanks are, if they are used incorrectly, then there will be little sense from them. Like the T-72, like the Armata, send them to the urban area, saturated with artillery, grenade launchers, the result can be the same ... Or minefields work equally effectively, either against old tanks or against "Armat".
Tanks don't fight on their own. This is an important component of the ground forces. A tank formation is not only tanks, it is also motorized rifles following with them, and reconnaissance, and self-propelled guns, and air defense systems, engineering units

[Viktor Sergeev]

Yes, there is nothing T14 to do there, this is a tank for a real mass war with a strong enemy.

[Mint Gingerbread]

The tank is redundant and expensive for this conflict. Stocks of other models are sufficient to fulfill their tasks. What is the article for?

[Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev]

I understand that some people are very worried about the safety of the T-14 tanks. This is a respected tank, not a VIP SUV. No one forces you to throw the T-14 into battle immediately and without appropriate support. You need to gradually start testing the T-14. Suppose you can easily test the practical use of a tank gun, in particular, test over-the-horizon firing of the T-14 at combat targets using direct operational communication with a drone. Then you can test the T-14 in a group with robotic tanks, etc.

[Normal ok]

Bet on the underwaffe. Somewhere I have already seen this.

[Roman Efremov]

If Armata is used, then only massively, when there will be a noticeable effect from it (as well as from any other tank). To drive 10-20 pieces is about nothing on the scale there.
And there will definitely be losses - and this is a blow to the reputation of the tank. If perishing bear losses - the with plainly. And if they also surrender safe and sound during some next "regrouping" with the further transfer of the trophy to the Americans, I don’t even want to think about this.

[NightmareIvanych]

But won't some "parquet" division leave him, as they threw the T-90M? So think. The state must be put in order comprehensively. (Science, healthcare, army, economy, etc. - each of these items has dozens of sub-items, etc.)

[ASM]

A wrap is always needed. First under close supervision, then under supervision, then as part of the compounds. And, of course, improvements. How else to make the car of today?

[Timur_kz]

Like a command tank, if only. Although they themselves admitted that not everyone has a constellation, i.e. it will transmit target designations in the old fashioned way through the commander, in a voice) Against the javelins, he has mortars with a curtain. Well, that's in theory. In general, initially an unsuccessful tank. It will be blinded and stunned by any fragmentation projectile and even small-caliber guns, the electronics are covered with a very thin casing. I don’t understand what prevents double-barreled mortars from kaz from being carried out on the sides, which can ensure the defeat of incoming projectiles by 360 degrees, it is possible with a drum for six, vertically arranged charges ...

[Sedoy]

What are they to do there...
No attack is expected...
more breakthroughs...
and, God forbid, the Zhidobanders go on the attack, then they will be abandoned, like parquet divisions in the Kharkiv region ...

[Demon_is_ada]

As for the crew ... It is more likely that they need not tankers, but an engineer. His tactics of use are completely different because of KAZ. Most likely, the T14 is ahead, a couple of terminators are slightly behind, for a more accurate statement, you need to know the KAZ protection zone and the safe distance. Those who exploit it, they know for sure.
Tanks in NWO are used to suppress fortifications from a fairly long distance, and T14 can do this with impunity .
By the way, I have never seen the use of trawls on the rollers, although they are hung and there are rollers with trawls and explosions. I have never seen the use of smoke grenades either. It's not entirely clear...

[buv59]

The number of 132 T-14 "Armata" tanks is named incorrectly. 132 platforms ordered, incl. 82 T-14s, 41 T-15 IFVs, 9 T-16 BREMs

[Seraphimamur]

As the experience of the Great Patriotic War shows, weapons must be mass-produced and easy to produce: Germany produced 1337 Tigers and the USSR 33500 T-34s, the result is known. Although technologically, the Tiger is like a Mercedes and a Zhiguli compared to the T-34. The T-72 with a modern upgrade solves the tasks set quite well. The T-14 is certainly cool, but very expensive today.

[certero]

The only thing that is correct in the article is that not a single tank with an active protection complex appeared in Ukraine. Then the question arises, why the hell did they develop them? Because it is for the fighting in Ukraine that they are more important than ever.
In the same way, the latest tanks must be tested in battles. Otherwise, why are they needed? ride in parades?
right now there is a war where they are needed because Russia still will not be able to fight NATO with conventional weapons

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Armata now needs to be sent to the front, but not to everyone in a row, but only to those crews who have already shown themselves in battle as competent and courageous fighters.

Armata will strengthen our tank units, its shortcomings will be revealed at the front and eliminated in the future, but if it really happens that the enemy gets it as a trophy, then there is nothing very terrible.

Everything will be much worse if we lose this war.

And when will KAZ appear on our tanks?!

Mine sweeps + KAZ + DZ - this is how a breakthrough tank should look like so that the soldiers are not afraid that they will be hit with the very first mine or the very first bird.

[Two]

It wouldn’t hurt to run in there ... The landfill is voluminous, and diverse.

[Altmann]

Other comments tell us that yes, it should be tested in combat. Well, why not with a trained crew and reliable protection and protection, yes

[wladimirjankov]

The T-14 doesn’t have much to make electronic components out of. We do not produce our own modern chips, microprocessors, controllers, sensors, etc., and purchasing them abroad is now a problem. The same story with the SU-57 and UAVs. Therefore, in the near future we will only see the latest tanks and aircraft at parades. And we will fight with old equipment.

[Igor Zhorov]

A tank is an element of a network system; if the network does not work, there is no point in using it. It simply turns into a more protected T-72, only very expensive.

[Zaurbek]

1. System (no way without this)
2. Modern sensors, communications and armor.

[Mister who]

We need to try out the new product! Look at the Woodner waffle. There will be no other moment.

[Crisp]

Quote: wladimirjankov

The T-14 doesn’t have much to make electronic components out of. We do not produce our own modern chips, microprocessors, controllers, sensors, etc., and purchasing them abroad is now a problem. The same story with the SU-57 and UAVs. Therefore, in the near future we will only see the latest tanks and aircraft at parades. And we will fight with old equipment.

What, do you have the Armata Purchased Products List in your hands? You are speaking with profound thought about something you have no idea about.

[Emergency]

Why not assume that the school uses its headmistress to train the cadets? Do we need to train officers for these vehicles? Necessary. During the Soviet Union, if memory serves, guys in the Kazan Tank were trained on T-80s (then the newest tanks). There are no fools to put mobilized people on the Armata. Moreover, drive them in the general formation to Ukraine (I allow single copies for testers) Although...the troops always had a large supply of “especially gifted” ones. As they said when I was young, “the more oak trees in the army, the stronger our defense.”

[Crisp]

Quote: Demon_is_ada

As for the crew ... It is more likely that they need not tankers, but an engineer. His tactics of use are completely different because of KAZ. Most likely, the T14 is ahead, a couple of terminators are slightly behind, for a more accurate statement, you need to know the KAZ protection zone and the safe distance. Those who exploit it, they know for sure.
Tanks in NWO are used to suppress fortifications from a fairly long distance, and T14 can do this with impunity .
By the way, I have never seen the use of trawls on the rollers, although they are hung and there are rollers with trawls and explosions. I have never seen the use of smoke grenades either. It's not entirely clear...

What you propose is being done. But, at the training grounds.

[Sergey Faraonov]

With the latest events, I don’t watch state channels and don’t listen to state radio, I have no faith in officials

[tolmachiev51]

with T90 it’s not that simple!!! The armature needs to be tested in combat conditions, how many “shoals” will come out, the training ground is “greenhouse” conditions, I agree, it’s expensive, but the money has already been spent

[Mustached Kok]

The T-14 is not needed specifically for the SVO. But he’s just so needed in the army. Moreover, it is necessary to completely replace all T-72s and, if possible, T-80s. Due to their greater youth, we will leave the T-90 for now and replace it only when we replace the 72 and 80

[who are you]

All Soviet and subsequent Russian tanks based on Soviet tanks have been tested in combat conditions, which is why there are plenty of them in various countries where real equipment was obtained for less money. It was not for nothing that they wrote about the export version of the T-14 in the report, so if this model shits itself in Ukraine, then no one will take it from potential buyers. And so I want to have my cake and eat it and sit on ...

[PXL]

Damn! When will the revolution happen? When will all the smart guys here ride in Armatas or whatever, first to the Kremlin, then to Kyiv, Lvov and everywhere else? They remembered the 34/34M/44 and the KV with ISs. Why didn't they remember the T-35? It was also a parade tank, but when the war happened, almost all of them broke down and ended up with the Germans. Or the same KV-2? And how did the then newest T-62 end up with the Chinese? Everything had already happened before under the communists with the KGB and special departments. Why should something change now? Why has everyone gotten so smart after 30 years? And what did they do in 91, in 93? Why didn't they defend the USSR and the Soviet power, but military experts? It's funny to read you. Both the article itself and your comments!

[Seriouslybear]

There is a feeling that in the realities of the hostilities that are taking place at the moment, the question “where is the 2S35 coalition SV” is more relevant?

[savage3000]

T-34s were mass produced, not individually, like the Armatas. And there was a world war going on then.

[Zaurbek]

There you need a T90M... and a KAZ... there won't be much point in Armata, it will be a pain in the ass with repairs

[ratcatcher]

“In this situation, the cost of the T-90M Proryv looks interesting at 200 million rubles.” - but this is the question. If the Armata is superior to the Breakthrough, including in safety for the crew and provides protection for the upper hemisphere, then it is better to make the Armata for 350
“The T-14 has a lot of things that NATO specialists would be happy to profit from. These are the above-mentioned “Afganit” with “Malachite”, and an active phased array radar antenna, and an A-85-3A x-shaped engine. " - if fight T55 and T62, then, of course, the adversary will not profit. Combat effectiveness, however, is low. But "women give birth." We don’t make weapons to use them. And to spend money on its development.

[savage3000]

There are doubts about the effectiveness of the Afghanit against roof-breaking Javelins.
______________

Are there any doubts? Do you think why there are a bunch of vertical mortars on the armature for special smokes and decoys??? Just for javelins and other spikes

[Mazunga]

the Armat company is unlikely to change anything, and it’s unlikely that it will be possible to rivet new ones quickly