Armata is years, if not a good decade from operational.
Russia already has plenty of vehicles and having more right now is not a good way to spend money.
Armata doesn't exist right now, other as a set of few prototype MBTs and alleged limited production batch (confirmed by no solid evidence).
Of course it exists. Denial not a good way to live your life, but if you must....
Gloriously breaking down in the middle of Red Square during parade.
Nothing ever fails in the west though does it...
The US talked and talked about vehicle family approach to new armoured vehicles and what happened... I mean really... what happened?
They spend almost a trillion dollars a year on weapons, they have armour manufacturers who export all round the world, where is their new tank concept... M1A6? M1A8? talk about not existing.... on this thread we are ridiculing the idea of a 80-100 ton tank as being stupid and wasteful and pointless... ignoring the elephant in the room.... the 70+ ton Abrams in service with the US.
The T-90 manages to be at least as good in every department yet is 30 tons lighter and you whine the Russians don't have anything to replace it with yet....
Kinda sad really.
Why does eaveryone intantly assume that a nuclear war will be the result of an escalation?
Because that is the only direction both sides can escalate to.
I hear alot of people talking about polititains not caring about the their poeple but ultimatley they need intact countries to sustan their lifestyle they would more likely flee to south america than start a nuclear war in the event of a complete Russian victory.
There would not be complete victory for either side. There will just be lots of deaths for both sides.
The T-14 Armata is by far the best tank on this planet but more power is alway better than less 1 80 ton heavy tank could be as effective as 3 T-14s so to fight 100 M1a2s you would need 30 T-14s but only 10 80 ton heavy tanks therefore justifying the increased cost and difficulty of opperation and
That is just stupid... using that logic if you detect 500 Abrams tanks driving on a front and you send 50 T-100s to intercept what happens if 10 of them hit mines, and 4 of them break down and another 10 get stuck.
Even if every shot does not penetrate the fire from 10 enemy tanks against your one tank will eventually find a weak point... even if it is just destroying your optics or tracks or communications.
Have any of you read about just how effective a good heavy tank was in WW2 5 KV-1s once destroyed a whole wermacht armored column and sustaind 0 casualtys.
The KV-1 and the T-34 and the various JS tanks surprised the Germans several times, but pretty soon tactics were developed to deal with them.
50mm cap guns were replaced with very powerful 88mm and larger calibre high velocity guns... do you think today would be any different?
80-100 tons is only 10-30 tons heavier than a late model Abrams and that much extra armour does not make any tank invulnerable to todays weapons from 360 degrees.
The only tank design I have ever seen designed with 360 degree protection was the German Maus with 250mm armour front, sides, and rear and it was 180 tons.
Its top speed was about 6 miles an hour and it shattered windows as it rolled through villages.
It had a main gun of 128mm calibre and the tiny coaxial gun was the huge 88mm gun of the Tiger II (as opposed to the smaller much less powerful 88mm of the Tiger I).
Now that they have APS systems that can intercept APFSDS rounds they don't need 100 ton tanks because existing armour will stop anything that the APS has intercepted and destabilised.