[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

In the context of breaking the then delicate deadlock between weapon and armor, 10% of an increase in penetration is huge.

A 10% increase in pen is nothing, the variation in penetration on the front of a target from the weakest spot to the strongest spot might be 50%... if you do a good job and get an angle on the enemy then shooting from the side or rear 10% doesn't mean anything either.

You would probably get more than 10% variation in penetration depending on the quality of the ammo and materials and the variation in quality of target armour... especially if they made it from US steel that had been proof tested by that woman...

The cost of nuclear radiation all over the battlefield is too high a cost compared with just firing again.

NATO MBTs are basically stretching the limits of what is physically feasible for the existing transportation infrastructure.

Based on the experience of this conflict the chances of Russian forces fighting HATO forces are slim to very low, and experience with HATO vehicles in various places around the world after the initial shock was over and they started to look at the designs for weak spots they started finding them quickly and easily enough.

Konkurs to the rear turret bustle on an Abrams worked just fine... as an example.

Think of the last 10 years: NATO MBTs have to contend with merely 600 mm long shafts from the outdated T-72/90 style gun system, but even they are already bloated.

They were even confident they had significant margins to account for Russian anti-armor developments in the near future.

The same people who thought stinger would clear the skies of Russian aircraft and Javelin would blunt any Russian armour advance when used in a guerilla type conflict style the Russians could not counter with scorched earth rolling artillery solutions they would use in WWIII in hostile territory.

The Ukraine was the ideal situation because Russia didn't want to just flatten everything and HATO weapons still failed.

But then the Russians introduced the Armata, and then all of a sudden NATO tanks have to defend against 900 mm long APFSDS shafts fired at significantly higher muzzle velocities.

That's at least 50% increase in penetration performance almost overnight!

That is true, but western tank armour has not changed much since the cold war... are they waiting for it to enter service... and when it does are they just going to accept defeat and start looking at smaller more affordable two man tanks instead that can be easier to deploy and transport... go for mobility and fire power instead.

Then you're putting an extra 10% added bonus penetration with just a change in shaft material as the cherry on top.

For the west DU is waste, for Russia it is fuel for nuclear power stations... the west can put it in their ammo and armour or they can bury it... Russia has uses for that stuff... that does not include turning their shooting ranges into nuclear fall out sites.

Nobody can manage to improve the protection by more than 50% under super tight margins for weight and volume without resorting to drastic changes in internal arrangement or use of left-field technology like anti-APFSDS APS.

Which will force them to do something smarter than just adding 20 tons to the weight of their tanks.

It does. But not nearly enough to overpower the extreme efficacy of complex armors against shaped-charge jets.

But you have to ask yourself... are western armours amazingly effective against shaped charge warheads, or is it a case that the bullshit lies about the performance of western ATGMs in terms of HEAT penetration might be why they fail to penetrate their own tanks, because Konkurs seems to perform well on western tanks in actual combat.

There is an episode of Combat Approved showing the Khrisantema and a solid block of steel that is 1m by 1m by 1m which is penetrated cleanly by the Khrisantema...

And warhead diameter is just one factor. Compared to missiles, HEAT shells are let down by the lack of available space for additional standoff.

Designers can be quite clever in that regard too...

For a larger diameter shaped charge, you need a longer standoff distance to properly develop the jet.

That is correct, but look closely at that HEAT round... most of the front is empty space... plenty of room for an extendable probe like the ones used on the Ataka missiles...

In fact if you wanted to get clever you could use a laser proximity fuse as used on AAMs to get it to detonate at a suitable distance...

The form factor for a 125 mm HEAT shell is just too tight to allow for a proper standoff.

So you are saying 125mm HEAT are useless?

Spool shaped sabots are typically 50% of the shaft by weight. Double that and you have 1:1 parasitic mass to payload.

So what?

Do you think the APFSDS for the 152mm gun is less powerful than the 125mm round?

They are not using the 152mm round because they say the 125mm round can already do the job, but are you suggesting that the 152mm round has worse performance than the 125mm round?

Really?

You need more than double the energy for the projectile assembly to even begin to see marginal improvements.

And that is the point... they can't put double the energy down a 125mm tube, but they can down a 152mm tube... that is why they go to bigger calibres instead of keeping the same calibre and increasing the propellent size and pressure.

Keeping the same calibre and using more propellent means you wear out the barrel too quickly.

That's why the 152 mm smoothbore is double the weight with 1/3 the lifespan of the improved 125 mm gun.

It is also why it is much more powerful and why they bothered developing it in the first place.

But neither the purchase of the T-14 nor the purchase of the T-90M will make it possible to replace the T-72B3 of various modifications (not within that period), already delivered in the amount of about 2,000 vehicles, as the basis of the tank fleet of the Russian Armed Forces, he believes

But if the Russians can only upgrade 50 tanks per year how long have they been upgrading those T-72s... I guess they must have started upgrading them 40 years ago, but then they are also upgrading T-90s and T-80s and even T-62s... maybe the have the capacity to make and upgrade more tanks than some assume.

Looking at this conventionnal war, it is dumb to think tanks attack tanks.

Tanks will engage all sorts of targets on the battlefield but enemy tanks will likely be their top priority just for their own safety.

It is not true that the western tanks didn't change.
Those did, but the funny part is that the western tanks we talk about has been made in the far east.
And that is what lyle6 is addressing in a wider perspective I guess.
West finally figured out, that an era of 70ton behemoths is over.
I was explaining that to you a while ago.
NATO expansion eastwards faced huge infrastructural challenges, as the whole - physical the whole - transport infrastructure was made in 50t standard.
By purpose.
Rail lanes, bridges, tunnels. Everyfuckinthing.
The best what NATO could make, was Leclerc - still rooted in the 80s, yet they finally studied the Soviet doctrine and approach.
People were fed for decades with myths of how the NATO tanks are superior armored, and the weight was one of the arguments.
The argument as dumb as the authors, because the only real meaning of the weight was a size of a tank.
Soviet tanks were de facto stronger armored than their western counterparts because we should begin with the fact that since T-54, so the end of WW2 in real, all Soviet tanks were constructed with armor coverage to be equal for both hull and the turret.
The difference in weight was due to the volume that needed to be armored, not the armor itself. Erasing one crewmember reduced the internal volume by approx. 3m3. Earlier, the Soviets were picking the smaller guys for tank forces. It is not an accident, that Buryats, or Siberians in general, constituted a huge percentage of tank crews, much above the statistic spread in the population. Soviet tanks were considered crumpy, yet the space inside was enough to carry missions.
What they have gained, was a drastic reduction of the size, leading to a narrowing the margin of hits. Starting with T-62, the size difference could reach more than 1m in height, and that means reducing the targeting LOS by some 1000m. That is A LOT. Same applies to the width and length.
So what the newest western style of tanks represent?
It is an implementation of the Russian doctrine, in full.
Japan and Korean tanks do not have hydraulic suspension because it is fancy, but because it allows a further reduction in tank height as a target. As the Easterners are smaller in general, this solved the internal volume just by genetics. Ammo loader was a must for all of them.
So it took only a 50 years for the westerners to learn the lesson, but some of them - the real westerners from the west - seem to not get the point yet. The cause must be trivial - they can't design a tank so compact and small. They lack the agregats for that, subsystems etc. They don't have powerpacks compact enough to fit small hull sizes. And good luck to the brave Leclerc crewmembers using a fancy, barcode steered autoloader while loading it in the real war. Ooooh, a barcode is gone? To dirty for a fancy laser reader to work? How sad!

GarryB wrote:A 10% increase in pen is nothing, the variation in penetration on the front of a target from the weakest spot to the strongest spot might be 50%... if you do a good job and get an angle on the enemy then shooting from the side or rear 10% doesn't mean anything either.

You would probably get more than 10% variation in penetration depending on the quality of the ammo and materials and the variation in quality of target armour... especially if they made it from US steel that had been proof tested by that woman...

The cost of nuclear radiation all over the battlefield is too high a cost compared with just firing again.

The capability to shoot through enemy armor at even their most protected angles is a massive tactical advantage that can't be understated.

Look at the first Gulf War: The Americans even didn't bother with tactical maneuvers - they just drove straight at the enemy and let their main guns and missiles do the work for them.

It was a turkey shoot. The Iraqis were annihilated completely while barely even making a dent in the American armored spearheads.

The Russians would be very irresponsible if they let something as trivial as DU toxicity concerns rob them of this advantage.

GarryB wrote:Based on the experience of this conflict the chances of Russian forces fighting HATO forces are slim to very low, and experience with HATO vehicles in various places around the world after the initial shock was over and they started to look at the designs for weak spots they started finding them quickly and easily enough.

Konkurs to the rear turret bustle on an Abrams worked just fine... as an example.

Organizing a flank shot opportunity takes a lot of skill and luck, and if anything goes wrong the Konkurs team die very, very quickly.

GarryB wrote:That is true, but western tank armour has not changed much since the cold war... are they waiting for it to enter service... and when it does are they just going to accept defeat and start looking at smaller more affordable two man tanks instead that can be easier to deploy and transport... go for mobility and fire power instead.

That is the hope, actually. There is almost no chance NATO, with their bloated and misshapen MIC can churn out products of acceptable quality, in numbers, on time, and on budget. They would bleed billions for nothing at all like their FCS boondoggle.

GarryB wrote:But you have to ask yourself... are western armours amazingly effective against shaped charge warheads, or is it a case that the bullshit lies about the performance of western ATGMs in terms of HEAT penetration might be why they fail to penetrate their own tanks, because Konkurs seems to perform well on western tanks in actual combat.

There is an episode of Combat Approved showing the Khrisantema and a solid block of steel that is 1m by 1m by 1m which is penetrated cleanly by the Khrisantema...

And results on plinking steel are often misleading. Nobody uses pure steel armor so the results aren't representative at all.

Look at the first Gulf War: The Americans even didn't bother with tactical maneuvers - they just drove straight at the enemy and let their main guns and missiles do the work for them.

That conflict is held up as proof of western superiority in most things, but falls down in most areas... the Americans tended to fight at night where their thermals gave them the advantage that they could see their enemy while their enemy could not see them.

If the Iraqis had been using contemporary Soviet vehicles of the time their vision would not have been significantly better but the American guns would not have penetrated their armour at those ranges making it rather less one sided... added in to that mix that the Americans would not have had complete air dominance either, which as we see in Afghanistan is critical to their prowess on the ground... in Desert Storm the Americans probably killed more allied armour than the Iraqis managed...

It was a turkey shoot. The Iraqis were annihilated completely while barely even making a dent in the American armored spearheads.

The Russians would be very irresponsible if they let something as trivial as DU toxicity concerns rob them of this advantage.

Are you trying to say that US dominance was because of their DU rounds? Honestly?

Organizing a flank shot opportunity takes a lot of skill and luck, and if anything goes wrong the Konkurs team die very, very quickly.

Planning is a critical part of war... positioning mine fields and placing ATGM teams or making them vehicle or helicopter mobile is all part of the game.

Terrain, including the weight capacities of bridges and roads will dictate where Abrams can go or can't go creating choke points and bottlenecks where ambushes would be very successful.

And results on plinking steel are often misleading. Nobody uses pure steel armor so the results aren't representative at all.

They are an indicator, but obviously real armour will be designed to be more effective than RHA, which is why missiles are rated in RHA penetration performance and composite armour structures are also rated in their equivalent RHA protection levels...

Of course western claims make a mockery when they suggest that a tiny sheet of metal and then a gap and then more sheets of metal would equate to 2.5m of solid armour plate then it becomes a bit of a joke...

Spaced armour does not work like so many seem to think it does... in some cases where the HEAT warhead does not have enough standoff distance spaced armour can actually improve penetration by giving it better standoff distance for the plasma penetrator jet to form properly before hitting the armour.

The Soviets had a roadside mine called the TM-83 that has a diameter of 250mm and weighs about 20kgs of which about 9kgs is HE that can penetrate 400mm of armour up to 50m away from the explosion with an 80mm hole being cut by the HEAT charge...

GarryB wrote:That conflict is held up as proof of western superiority in most things, but falls down in most areas... the Americans tended to fight at night where their thermals gave them the advantage that they could see their enemy while their enemy could not see them.

But that's war isn't it? A race to the bottom. The side with the least ****-ups wins.

And in war you are also supposed to abuse every bit of asymmetry you can wring out.

If you can fight in the night, or during a sandstorm, or when your enemy is asleep you should absolutely do so.

You have zero obligation to compete on a level playing field, just the opposite, really.

GarryB wrote:Are you trying to say that US dominance was because of their DU rounds? Honestly?

A huge part of it, yes. Their MBTs were slipping DU shafts through Iraqi armor regardless of the range and angle. One word comes to mind.

They call it a gamechanger: Instead of a tank battle you get a one-sided target practice.

GarryB wrote:Planning is a critical part of war... positioning mine fields and placing ATGM teams or making them vehicle or helicopter mobile is all part of the game.

Terrain, including the weight capacities of bridges and roads will dictate where Abrams can go or can't go creating choke points and bottlenecks where ambushes would be very successful.

But what is easier to plan and execute?

Preparing a defense in depth with a diverse set of capabilities designed to mitigate the superior frontal protection of the armored spearheads.

Or ambushing and counter-attacking with your own armor and beating them with superior firepower?

GarryB wrote:Of course western claims make a mockery when they suggest that a tiny sheet of metal and then a gap and then more sheets of metal would equate to 2.5m of solid armour plate then it becomes a bit of a joke...

Spaced armour does not work like so many seem to think it does... in some cases where the HEAT warhead does not have enough standoff distance spaced armour can actually improve penetration by giving it better standoff distance for the plasma penetrator jet to form properly before hitting the armour.

Shaped charge jets are funny like that. They are unmatched when it comes to penetrating absurd thicknesses of steel but their performance suffers significantly if their target is not a monolithic block of metal.

But that's war isn't it? A race to the bottom. The side with the least ****-ups wins.

No.

According to some here Russia has had **** up after **** up in this conflict, but most of those supposed **** ups are just an initial attempt to minimise civilian casualties followed up by current and ongoing efforts to avoid losses of friendlies while keeping the enemy losses as high as possible.

Of course such so called fuckups pale in comparison to the fuckup of Poroshenko when he signed up to be Americas bitch, and Zelenskys follow up fuckup to continue to bait the bear thinking America and the EU and HATO will save them... essentially to put it in a western example this is Zelenskys people strapped down on the table with the laser burning up the table towards their testicles with Zelensky standing beside the table saying if the west just gives me enough weapons and money we can beat the Russians and the west throwing money at Zelensky... not even caring to look to see him stuffing it into his own pockets... the people of the Ukraines problem is that they are strapped to the table... not Zelensky... and Putin is not a Bond villain that just walks away and assumes everything goes to plan... he is standing watching making sure the straps don't come loose and the Ukrainians get divided up so to speak.

Most Ukrainians have been brainwashed and plenty of others are in denial, but there are going to be many who quickly realise there can only be one conclusion if the US is not going to let Ukraine join HATO and will not risk HATO troops on the ground... the longer the Ukrainians leave it the less intact they are going to be... they have already lost limbs... too much removed and the patient is no longer viable and will be further divided up for parts.

If you can fight in the night, or during a sandstorm, or when your enemy is asleep you should absolutely do so.

Of course you should but how do you equate that with using DU ammo in their tank rounds when their standard rounds were already penetrating the Iraqi tanks at any range they could actually hit them at?

You have zero obligation to compete on a level playing field, just the opposite, really.

I agree, but exposing your own troops and locals to toxic materials has to be for a good reason and the only good reason to justify using it would be if standard rounds were not working... but they were working just fine.

A huge part of it, yes. Their MBTs were slipping DU shafts through Iraqi armor regardless of the range and angle. One word comes to mind.

They call it a gamechanger: Instead of a tank battle you get a one-sided target practice.

The APFSDS shafts of other allied forces managed the same results without using DU rounds, so your gamechanger is actually more of a war crime... like using Agent Orange and Agent Purple and the other toxic chemicals they used in Vietnam.

But what is easier to plan and execute?

Preparing a defense in depth with a diverse set of capabilities designed to mitigate the superior frontal protection of the armored spearheads.

Or ambushing and counter-attacking with your own armor and beating them with superior firepower?

You have to plan for anything and everything... thinking your DU rounds will penetrate at 3km range so you attack front on and the enemy have Kornet-EM and start destroying your tanks at 8km range then you need a new plan... your super DU rounds wont cut it there.

Shaped charge jets are funny like that. They are unmatched when it comes to penetrating absurd thicknesses of steel but their performance suffers significantly if their target is not a monolithic block of metal.

As long as it penetrates what is on the vehicle it does not matter if a Khrisantema that will penetrate 1.2m of RHA will only penetrate 900mm of Abrams layered protection, because the armour on the Abrams isn't 900mm thick.

GarryB wrote:According to some here Russia has had **** up after **** up in this conflict, but most of those supposed **** ups are just an initial attempt to minimise civilian casualties followed up by current and ongoing efforts to avoid losses of friendlies while keeping the enemy losses as high as possible.

They severely and impressively overextended themselves on the opening of the conflict, and on several occasions since.

Had they just mobilized more men and resources before committing these ****-ups wouldn't have happened.

These unforced errors can be recognized as mistakes at least.

GarryB wrote:Of course you should but how do you equate that with using DU ammo in their tank rounds when their standard rounds were already penetrating the Iraqi tanks at any range they could actually hit them at?

But GarryB, The American standard is DU!

GarryB wrote:I agree, but exposing your own troops and locals to toxic materials has to be for a good reason and the only good reason to justify using it would be if standard rounds were not working... but they were working just fine.

DU is a danger, but there's hundreds of toxic crap on the battlefield that would cause just as much problems for humans later on.

Gunsmoke is a mild carcinogen. Do soldiers just stop using their guns because it would cause cancer?

GarryB wrote:The APFSDS shafts of other allied forces managed the same results without using DU rounds, so your gamechanger is actually more of a war crime... like using Agent Orange and Agent Purple and the other toxic chemicals they used in Vietnam.

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

There's also no kill like overkill.

GarryB wrote:You have to plan for anything and everything... thinking your DU rounds will penetrate at 3km range so you attack front on and the enemy have Kornet-EM and start destroying your tanks at 8km range then you need a new plan... your super DU rounds wont cut it there.

That plan should involve getting out of featureless desert with 8 km clear line of sights.

I'm not even sure why there is even a requirement for 8 km range Kornets. 5 km is already aplenty, why not just make a heavier warhead?

They severely and impressively overextended themselves on the opening of the conflict, and on several occasions since.

Those advances had the purpose of tying down Orc forces when they had an enormous numbers advantage and still had the vehicles and fuel and ammo to move and do something... after their vehicles and fuel and ammo dumps had been hammered for a bit they withdrew to positions that were easier to defend... several times... all the while hammering the enemy forces and making them pay in blood.

Had they just mobilized more men and resources before committing these ****-ups wouldn't have happened.

These unforced errors can be recognized as mistakes at least.

More forces would be less mobile, not more mobile, and would have more soft supporting units to keep them operating which means more targets for taking prisoners and guerilla tactics which the enemy thought would win them the war...

But GarryB, The American standard is DU!

So you think the Russians should do what the Americans do... 20 billion dollar 150K ton aircraft carriers anyone?

DU is a danger, but there's hundreds of toxic crap on the battlefield that would cause just as much problems for humans later on.

Nothing that mutates human genes... even land mines and unexploded ordinance is easier to deal with than DU powder in the water supply.

Gunsmoke is a mild carcinogen. Do soldiers just stop using their guns because it would cause cancer?

Why not use nuclear hand grenades then... vastly more powerful than mere HE... one hand grenade per village and this conflict would be over real quick.

Some radiation issues... like with DU... but not Russias problem if they kill everyone and just declare the region off limits to everyone.

Build high security prisons and nuclear power stations and nothing else.

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Better to not have it, it is not necessary. If conventional metals are not good enough they have a larger calibre option ready to go in the 152mm calibre gun... they could make some tank destroyers with the 152mm gun to take out any enemy vehicles that need the extra penetration or range or both and keep using 125mm ammo for everything else.

There's also no kill like overkill.

There are costs to overkill, and the cost of geno toxic ammo is too high for training grounds in Russia, exercise grounds in Russia, or combat on friendly territory that Russian allies might want to live in like Syria or Ukraine.

That plan should involve getting out of featureless desert with 8 km clear line of sights.

Actually deserts can have undulating terrain with lots of dead ground all over the place behind sand dunes etc. Flat open Steppe like a lot of terrain in Ukraine is probably worse in terms of visibility.

I'm not even sure why there is even a requirement for 8 km range Kornets. 5 km is already aplenty, why not just make a heavier warhead?

The 8.5km range of the EM model HEAT equipped Kornets makes hitting the vehicle launching them quite hard... because they can continue to move while the missile is in flight so any conventional HEAT or APFSDS round fired back will almost certainly miss... for ground or air targets.

The 10km range HE frag equipped model does have a lighter warhead and can be used against visible targets with zero radar and IR signature, like electric drones, or helicopters equipped with DIRCMS... their supersonic speed makes them rather useful, but the new Pine is rather faster making engagements quicker and easier.

In lots of situations a dominating hillside or mountain might provide excellent visibility of a large area of the battlefield that can be exploited by long range guided weapons, and of course in addition to being used by their new armoured vehicles they can also be carried by drones and helicopters and aircraft.

For targets that don't need 1.2m of armour penetration they are introducing Bulat, which seems to be the same thing but about 70-75mm calibre...

Russia produces DU apfsds rounds. Svinets and Vaccum have a DU variant so all the new tanks or upgraded tanks can use such rounds.

But like we see in Ukraine main shell is HE because it can take out any vehicle on the battlefield.

Apfsds and Heat produce a small impact, that can penetrate a lot, but stay very small. Against non armored target it goes just through.

Nato tanks will be dealt with Krasnopol, atgm and drones for 90% of them.

GarryB wrote:Those advances had the purpose of tying down Orc forces when they had an enormous numbers advantage and still had the vehicles and fuel and ammo to move and do something... after their vehicles and fuel and ammo dumps had been hammered for a bit they withdrew to positions that were easier to defend... several times... all the while hammering the enemy forces and making them pay in blood.

But that's the thing. Ukraine should never had enjoyed a numbers advantage in the first place.

Russia's got 4 times the population, and at least 10 times the economy.

If anyone would be drowning in armies its the hohols.

GarryB wrote:More forces would be less mobile, not more mobile, and would have more soft supporting units to keep them operating which means more targets for taking prisoners and guerilla tactics which the enemy thought would win them the war...

More forces and you can encircle and annihilate entire formations in short violent battles where Russian advantages in command & control and firepower can be leveraged to the fullest.

As it is, the hohols just get badly mauled but there are enough survivors that they can use them as a nucleus of a new conscript army. They've done this for at least half a dozen times already.

GarryB wrote:Nothing that mutates human genes... even land mines and unexploded ordinance is easier to deal with than DU powder in the water supply.

That's why you use exclusively use them in foreign soil or during WW3.

GarryB wrote:Better to not have it, it is not necessary. If conventional metals are not good enough they have a larger calibre option ready to go in the 152mm calibre gun... they could make some tank destroyers with the 152mm gun to take out any enemy vehicles that need the extra penetration or range or both and keep using 125mm ammo for everything else.

That would be the expensive option and Russia doesn't really do expensive. They cancelled the Object 195 armed with the 152 mm gun in favor of the T-14 with the 125 mm gun after all.

Isos wrote:But like we see in Ukraine main shell is HE because it can take out any vehicle on the battlefield.

But not nearly as reliably as dedicated anti-armor ammo would. If a large caliber HE shell is all it took to destroy tanks everyone would be rocking 152/155 mm rifled guns instead, unify the tanks with the howitzers, save lots of money.

Isos wrote:Nato tanks will be dealt with Krasnopol, atgm and drones for 90% of them.

If NATO had something like the Shtora-1 for top cover the Krasnopol might no be as viable.

Drones too, would be handily countered with NATO's equivalent of Pantsir and Tor.

Thank ****, they don't.

If NATO had something like the Shtora-1 for top cover the Krasnopol might no be as viable.

Drones too, would be handily countered with NATO's equivalent of Pantsir and Tor.

Thank ****, they don't.

You can't make a tank protected against atgm, drones, mines, artillery or any other threat. Its price would be 15 million $.

All the nato tank are right now easy to destroy by of those mentioned weapons.

Isos wrote:
You can't make a tank protected against atgm, drones, mines, artillery or any other threat. Its price would be 15 million $.

All the nato tank are right now easy to destroy by of those mentioned weapons.

You absolutely can. Its the subject of the the thread.

Russia produces DU apfsds rounds. Svinets and Vaccum have a DU variant so all the new tanks or upgraded tanks can use such rounds.

They do but AFAIK they don't produce 20mm and 23mm and 30mm and other calibre cannon ammo with DU rounds.

They actually used to use DU fragments in R-60M warheads to maximise their mass and damage on target for a small warhead, but not sure they do that with any other missiles.

These days DU is more useful as fuel for them.

Apfsds and Heat produce a small impact, that can penetrate a lot, but stay very small. Against non armored target it goes just through.

APFSDS and HEAT make very small penetrations and are most effective it the target is confined inside a container beyond the armour it just penetrated... whether that is the inside of a tank or a bunker or pillbox...

Against almost all other targets a HE shell is more effective.

Nato tanks will be dealt with Krasnopol, atgm and drones for 90% of them.

The chances of HATO tanks fighting Russian tanks is pretty low, and if they do in Ukraine then it is likely to be old generation HATO tanks, which would not require better weapons and ammo than what they are already deploying.

The increased use of drones and the potential to use Krasnopol and other guided rounds is a useful experience for Russian forces in this conflict which might lead to them developing a better capability to deal with rather more targets at once in combat...

But that's the thing. Ukraine should never had enjoyed a numbers advantage in the first place.

Russia's got 4 times the population, and at least 10 times the economy.

If anyone would be drowning in armies its the hohols.

The purpose of this conflict from an American perspective was to damage the Russian economy to the point where they might get some momentum to overthrow Putin... it was a stupid goal because their ideal replacement... navalny has zero change of taking over, the replacement will be like Putin but not so west friendly as Putin has been... probably more likely to actively work against the west rather than looking for areas of common ground.

Or the communists could have won...

More forces and you can encircle and annihilate entire formations in short violent battles where Russian advantages in command & control and firepower can be leveraged to the fullest.

As it is, the hohols just get badly mauled but there are enough survivors that they can use them as a nucleus of a new conscript army. They've done this for at least half a dozen times already.

Which would end this conflict too quickly... if Kiev had said on day one they give up nothing would change... the Donbass and Lugansk regions would likely have voted to join the Russian federation and Kievs forces would have withdrawn to the boundaries, but the Americans would still be there siphoning money and resources out and pumping in skinheads and arming them for the next conflict... after 5 years when their army has been rebuilt they can start shelling the Donbass and claimng it is Russian forces that are doing it as a provocation and then it all starts over again.

The goal is to kill the bad Ukrainians and the ones you can't kill... because they remain in the rear areas and run away first, well just make them run away to Europe and then put in place a regime and systems to prevent them from coming back... like warrants for their arrest and trial for war crimes... they have been collecting evidence since 2014.

It is going to take quite a bit more time, but rest assured that it will be done right.

UN IAEA claims that Russia will withdraw their heavy weapons from the Zap reactor are just IAEA claims... or maybe they will agree knowing the Orcs will then use that as an opportunity to try to take the reactor and the area around it... and the Russians can then hammer them hard and start a new offensive with this outrage as the justification. They have already used Orc attacks on the Crimean bridge and power stations inside Russia as justification for taking out the Orc electricity grid... this would just be further use of the same tactic.

That's why you use exclusively use them in foreign soil or during WW3.

Which makes them useless...

That would be the expensive option and Russia doesn't really do expensive. They cancelled the Object 195 armed with the 152 mm gun in favor of the T-14 with the 125 mm gun after all.

Not at all, the T-14 is an evolution of the Object 195 and was designed originally for a 152mm gun... they adapted it to the 125mm gun because that was all they needed for the moment. AFAIK the 152mm gun works and is ready for production and deployment if they want it... they don't think they need it yet.

But not nearly as reliably as dedicated anti-armor ammo would. If a large caliber HE shell is all it took to destroy tanks everyone would be rocking 152/155 mm rifled guns instead, unify the tanks with the howitzers, save lots of money.

The Orcs only have token amounts of MBTs left... most recent pushes have been one or two MBTs, 5-6 BMPs and the rest of the men in civilian SUV vehicles... generally resulting in the loss of most of the vehicles...

If NATO had something like the Shtora-1 for top cover the Krasnopol might no be as viable.

They don't, but laser homing rounds just need smoke to stop... but any enemy could then exploit that by repeatedly lasing your armour from drones... making them easy to spot on the battlefield... they would essentially be marking their own position... and when they stop firing smoke... that is when you start hitting them.

The new SOKOL-1 uses an optical sensor that can see laser target markers but also see moving targets too and hit them without a laser mark on them.

Drones too, would be handily countered with NATO's equivalent of Pantsir and Tor.

Thank ****, they don't.

Which really shows what deep shit HATO is actually in... having powerful air power is countered by powerful air defence, but having powerful air power means nothing against a powerful drone and cruise missile attack potential, and even poor countries can have decent drone capacity and a bare bones air defence... TOR and Pantsir together with say Pine and Kornet, and tens of thousands of attack drones and HATO would be in serious trouble.

All the nato tank are right now easy to destroy by of those mentioned weapons.

They are a headache for every military force...

You absolutely can. Its the subject of the the thread.

Of course on its own it would struggle, but as part of a capable and well led armed force with air defence and well trained soldiers, it is the best solution so far... IMHO.

GarryB wrote:The purpose of this conflict from an American perspective was to damage the Russian economy to the point where they might get some momentum to overthrow Putin... it was a stupid goal because their ideal replacement... navalny has zero change of taking over, the replacement will be like Putin but not so west friendly as Putin has been... probably more likely to actively work against the west rather than looking for areas of common ground.

With hindsight we can see that the Russian economy is stronger and more resilient than its been given credit for.
Russia after the financial equivalent of a nuclear first strike can afford to mobilize and maintain peace time living standards for its citizens. There's no reason the Russia couldn't do everything earlier - they just got lazy and underestimated the job.

GarryB wrote:Which would end this conflict too quickly... if Kiev had said on day one they give up nothing would change... the Donbass and Lugansk regions would likely have voted to join the Russian federation and Kievs forces would have withdrawn to the boundaries, but the Americans would still be there siphoning money and resources out and pumping in skinheads and arming them for the next conflict... after 5 years when their army has been rebuilt they can start shelling the Donbass and claimng it is Russian forces that are doing it as a provocation and then it all starts over again.

The goal is to kill the bad Ukrainians and the ones you can't kill... because they remain in the rear areas and run away first, well just make them run away to Europe and then put in place a regime and systems to prevent them from coming back... like warrants for their arrest and trial for war crimes... they have been collecting evidence since 2014.

Or you can just kill them on the battlefield, and murder the rest in their bedrooms in the occupation.
Ostensibly the Russians intervened to protect the citizens of Donbass. Its going to be a full year and the cities are still getting shelled.

Draining NATO's warstocks in the place of their choosing makes sense, but do they really have to do it in Russian lands? Can't they just start a bush war in some place the West care more for once, and have the West do the firefighting this time?

GarryB wrote:Which makes them useless...

You can always use them on foreign soil. Leave a gift that the locals and their children would enjoy for hundreds of years.

GarryB wrote:Not at all, the T-14 is an evolution of the Object 195 and was designed originally for a 152mm gun... they adapted it to the 125mm gun because that was all they needed for the moment. AFAIK the 152mm gun works and is ready for production and deployment if they want it... they don't think they need it yet.

UVZ has stated that the T-14 could not take up the 152 mm gun without extensive modifications.
The Russian MoD were the ones to cancel the Object 195 program. If they wanted the 152 mm gun they would have insisted on the design of the T-14 to include the capability to host the 152 mm gun when they couldn't arm the tank with the gun in the first place.

GarryB wrote:The Orcs only have token amounts of MBTs left... most recent pushes have been one or two MBTs, 5-6 BMPs and the rest of the men in civilian SUV vehicles... generally resulting in the loss of most of the vehicles...

Its for NATO. Always has been. Hohols are just the pre-fight entertainment.

GarryB wrote:They don't, but laser homing rounds just need smoke to stop... but any enemy could then exploit that by repeatedly lasing your armour from drones... making them easy to spot on the battlefield... they would essentially be marking their own position... and when they stop firing smoke... that is when you start hitting them.

The new SOKOL-1 uses an optical sensor that can see laser target markers but also see moving targets too and hit them without a laser mark on them.

The T-14 doesn't just have the laser receivers. They have other sensors including radar and optical / UV detectors that can cross-reference real attacks from spoofs.

GarryB wrote:Which really shows what deep shit HATO is actually in... having powerful air power is countered by powerful air defence, but having powerful air power means nothing against a powerful drone and cruise missile attack potential, and even poor countries can have decent drone capacity and a bare bones air defence... TOR and Pantsir together with say Pine and Kornet, and tens of thousands of attack drones and HATO would be in serious trouble.

NATO has awesome offensive potential but they would struggle against an opponent that knows how to fight back.
An actual glass cannon.

GarryB wrote:Of course on its own it would struggle, but as part of a capable and well led armed force with air defence and well trained soldiers, it is the best solution so far... IMHO.

The T-14 doesn't really do solo. Its purpose is that it fights as part of a combined arms team, sharing all battlefield information seamlessly through the tactical network, and acting as a hardened sensor node to spot for the more fragile shooters in the team. Its going to be the hottest target around it so has to have the best in class ballistic and electronic protection and a powerful, but well-balanced armament for self-defense.

A T-14 crumb:

T-14 heading to what looks like the Russian silent hill.

Even more crumbs:



stolen fromhttps://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/status/1606750531317559298

There's no reason the Russia couldn't do everything earlier - they just got lazy and underestimated the job.

I disagree... the Ukraine was never Russias problem, Kiev had made their feelings clear regarding relations with Russia and Russia had no reason to try to change their mind... if Kiev wants to be Americas bitch then let them be Americas bitch... America will asset strip you like an elephant in a river filled with piranha... you don't need to join HATO or EU or anything for them to do that to you.

The problem was that Kiev and the west kept pushing... shelling their own people and ignoring agreements signed... we now know why... bio weapons labs... nazis... talk of wanting nuclear weapons to "defend their territory"... Putin really had to be pushed hard to make him intervene... to complain that he did nothing earlier... what exactly was he supposed to do... he is not a western leader that invades and destroys a country because he feels like it or to make some rich people slightly richer.

Despite all the shit that is happening Russia is still very different from the west... and I say that in a good way... Russia has enormous potential to be total to the entire western world... they could screw around with gas and oil production and food and fertiliser... if Russia did to the west what the west is currently doing with Russian food and fertiliser shipments sitting in EU ports locked down and not going anywhere the west would freak out... but they remain nice and reasonable and sensible, but they also clearly recognise the danger and the threat that the west represents to their future goals and they are separating themselves from the west and who can blame them... the west has been nasty.

Draining NATO's warstocks in the place of their choosing makes sense, but do they really have to do it in Russian lands? Can't they just start a bush war in some place the West care more for once, and have the West do the firefighting this time?

Would the Russians use people like that? Would Russia happily sacrifice Syrians or Iraqis or Iranians just to damage Americans?

In the war in Vietnam they helped the Vietnamese as best they could with the weapons and support they could provide... they didn't tell them to march slowly towards the machine guns in the American positions and die for communism.

You can always use them on foreign soil. Leave a gift that the locals and their children would enjoy for hundreds of years.

You have to be a very angry person to think like that with your enemies, which is why I understand the US using the stuff all over the place...

UVZ has stated that the T-14 could not take up the 152 mm gun without extensive modifications.

Didn't the 152mm gun have a variable charge system like the Coalition 152mm artillery system?

The modifications would be the ammo storage and handling system as well as the autoloader I suspect.

The Russian MoD were the ones to cancel the Object 195 program. If they wanted the 152 mm gun they would have insisted on the design of the T-14 to include the capability to host the 152 mm gun when they couldn't arm the tank with the gun in the first place.

My understanding was that they looked at the potential future threats and the upgrade paths for the 125mm gun and thought it would continue to be effective for quite some time to come so the cost of changing to the new calibre could be postponed.

Certainly if the west came up with some super tanks that required 152mm guns to deal with Russia would not need to completely replace all their 125mm guns with 152mm guns... they could probably add a few 152mm gun armed vehicles with each armoured division to deal with these few HATO super tanks while the rest of the tanks could take out everything else as normal... sort of like a heavy tank destroyer that operates together with normal tanks.

NATO has awesome offensive potential but they would struggle against an opponent that knows how to fight back.
An actual glass cannon.

We saw how HATO folded in Afghanistan when the air support left three months early...

The T-14 doesn't really do solo. Its purpose is that it fights as part of a combined arms team, sharing all battlefield information seamlessly through the tactical network, and acting as a hardened sensor node to spot for the more fragile shooters in the team. Its going to be the hottest target around it so has to have the best in class ballistic and electronic protection and a powerful, but well-balanced armament for self-defense.

Would be interesting to see what drone and attack helicopter information could be shared with the T-14s in real combat along with platforms like the Su-57 with its radar and optical sensors detecting targets and offering real time live views of the ground in front of them...