[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

sepheronx wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

franco wrote:total demand of the Russian Armed Forces in the tanks T-14 is defined by 2.3 thousand units

That's a very small number, if it is to replace all MBTs in Russian service.
Unless there's a plan to keep T-72 clones active well into 2035. Which is ill-advised.

This is initial demand.  Demand that they hope to achieve relatively early than not.  Once that is said and done, they will definitely have more to replace the old tanks, but T-72B3 models and T-90A will live a lot longer than you would hope.  Sucks, but makes sense in order to make things cheap for time being.

It said ''total demand'' that's why.
2,300 MBTs can barely cover Europe, Central Asia and Caucasus. IIrc B3 and T-90 account for less than 2,000?

4,300 still sounds insufficient.

magnumcromagnon wrote:What is this WW3??? No general would be like "Gimme 50,000 tanks by tomorrow"...there's gonna be tranches, superior developments that supersede the lasted generation, etc.

No just very small numbers to keep up with any prospective events all around and within Russia.

KiloGolf wrote:It said ''total demand'' that's why.
2,300 MBTs can barely cover Europe, Central Asia and Caucasus. IIrc B3 and T-90 account for less than 2,000?

4,300 still sounds insufficient.

I think we can understand it as "total demand 1st time". That means there may be 2nd, 3rd, 4th,... "total demand", which add several more batches of T-14 and other modern armour vehicles into Russian inventory.

In the mean time, if Russia need numbers, she can upgrade her T-64/72/80 fleet to the T-90 standard, with Contact-5, Shtora, new ballistic computer, ARENA, new engines... etc etc.

higurashihougi wrote:I think we can understand it as "total demand 1st time". That means there may be 2nd, 3rd, 4th,... "total demand"

Don't know what you read, but this is the quote:

franco wrote:Earlier it was reported that the total demand of the Russian Armed Forces in the tanks T-14 is defined by 2.3 thousand units. The first batch of one hundred "Armata" should go to the troops in 2017-2018 years.

Russia needs no less than 30,000 armata tanks.  This is about the number Soviet Union used
to defeat nazis.  This is because Russia needs to be prepared to the unthinkable to happen.
Even if Russia considers it impossible to happen ,it needs to be prepared and full armed
to invade a major NATO country , like.. ie. Turkey or Germany again. In case something
really bad and unthinkable happens.  No armata tank produced will be wasted. any one
not used ,can be later sold back to the export market in time of peace. But a stockpile of many tanks Russia needs. Not only for defense but to be prepared to fight in many conflicts at the same time.

If Americans was to prepare plans for a full scale war against Russia through proxy. the first thing they will do is force Russia to invade many nations and be in many conflicts at the same time.

Russia is on 1) Donetsk conflict  2) Syria conflict. but dont think will end there. and other potential conflicts Russia will need to be deployed like. 3)Armenia -Azerbajan, 4)Georgia vs south ossetia,5)Moldova vs transnistria 6)a new conflict in Serbia 7) Kaliningrad vs baltic states kalingrad vs Poland front. 9)Chechenia part 3 and while it have all those conflicts Russia needs to have big enough reserve of next generation tanks to defend its main land. in the west ,central and far east of Russia . to protect from Norway border 10)tajikistan 11)kazakistan  etc.

all said ,there is not such a thing like "too many tanks". Is important that Russia be prepared
for the unthinkable. and reduce the casualties to very few, in a world war and be forced to invade one or more NATO countries. To remove from power a crazy man. and combat jets Russia needs about 2,000 next generation pak-fa planes and about 200 pak-da bombers.

Vann7 wrote:Russia needs no less than 30,000 armata tanks.  This is about the number Soviet Union used
to defeat nazis.  This is because Russia needs to be prepared to the unthinkable to happen.
Even if Russia considers it impossible to happen ,it needs to be prepared and full armed
to invade a major NATO country , like.. ie. Turkey or Germany again. In case something
really bad and unthinkable happens.  No armata tank produced will be wasted. any one
not used ,can be later sold back to the export market in time of peace. But a stockpile of many tanks Russia needs. Not only for defense but to be prepared to fight in many conflicts at the same time.

If Americans was to prepare plans for a full scale war against Russia through proxy. the first thing they will do is force Russia to invade many nations and be in many conflicts at the same time.

Russia is on 1) Donetsk conflict  2) Syria conflict. but dont think will end there. and other potential conflicts Russia will need to be deployed like. 3)Armenia -Azerbajan, 4)Georgia vs south ossetia,5)Moldova vs transnistria 6)a new conflict in Serbia 7) Kaliningrad vs baltic states kalingrad vs Poland front. 9)Chechenia part 3 and while it have all those conflicts Russia needs to have big enough reserve of next generation tanks to defend its main land. in the west ,central and far east of Russia . to protect from Norway border 10)tajikistan 11)kazakistan  etc.

all said ,there is not such a thing like too many tanks. Is important that Russia be prepared
for the unthinkable. of a world war and be forced to invade one or more NATO countries. To remove from power a crazy man.

I don't know about 30,000 but for better perspective, the Afghan intervention (equal landmass with Ukraine roughly) required over 1,500 MBTs. Russia has no serious surface vessels or naval projection capabilities and its Air Force is...meh and alone doesn't achieve much on the ground (see Syria). I don't want to hear about projecting with VDV because it doesn't work on its own. So it's left on a armor to drive their policies. A few thousand is not going to cut it. If they can't ramp up to 5,000 by 2035, then there's something seriously wrong with their industry.

If West Germany could produce 2,450 Leo 2s in 13 years (79-92), then I see no reason why Russia can't produce over 3,000 in 18 years. The declared numbers (2,300 in 18 years) show the problematic situation the Russian industry is facing. Concerning MBT strength comparisons between NATO, it's useless.

Afghanistan had no Armor in 1979 and yet many hundreds (1,800 or so initially) had to be deployed there to stabilize it. Russia doesn't need MBTs for a new Kursk or central front confrontation scenario.

KiloGolf wrote:

Vann7 wrote:Russia needs no less than 30,000 armata tanks.  This is about the number Soviet Union used
to defeat nazis.  This is because Russia needs to be prepared to the unthinkable to happen.
Even if Russia considers it impossible to happen ,it needs to be prepared and full armed
to invade a major NATO country , like.. ie. Turkey or Germany again. In case something
really bad and unthinkable happens.  No armata tank produced will be wasted. any one
not used ,can be later sold back to the export market in time of peace. But a stockpile of many tanks Russia needs. Not only for defense but to be prepared to fight in many conflicts at the same time.

If Americans was to prepare plans for a full scale war against Russia through proxy. the first thing they will do is force Russia to invade many nations and be in many conflicts at the same time.

Russia is on 1) Donetsk conflict  2) Syria conflict. but dont think will end there. and other potential conflicts Russia will need to be deployed like. 3)Armenia -Azerbajan, 4)Georgia vs south ossetia,5)Moldova vs transnistria 6)a new conflict in Serbia 7) Kaliningrad vs baltic states kalingrad vs Poland front. 9)Chechenia part 3 and while it have all those conflicts Russia needs to have big enough reserve of next generation tanks to defend its main land. in the west ,central and far east of Russia . to protect from Norway border 10)tajikistan 11)kazakistan  etc.

all said ,there is not such a thing like too many tanks. Is important that Russia be prepared
for the unthinkable. of a world war and be forced to invade one or more NATO countries. To remove from power a crazy man.

I don't know about 30,000 but for better perspective, the Afghan intervention (equal landmass with Ukraine roughly) required over 1,500 MBTs. Russia has no navy or naval projection capabilities and its Air Force is...meh and alone doesn't achieve much on the ground (see Syria). I don't want to hear about projecting with VDV because it doesn't work on its own. So it's left on a armor to drive their policies. A few thousand is not going to cut it.

Is about overwhelming the enemy to save as many soldiers as possible with the head start. To shock and create a real fast war and quickly plant a flag on the capital of enemy nation. So you could overwhelm a nation like the size of Poland Turkey from many sides at same time ,the confusion will be so big that will totally confuse the enemy and lose many hours trying to understand what is happening and how to fight such massive assault. Hitler tried to do that in
Russia but was stopped in Moscow.

with 30,000 armata tanks , Russia in case of many frontlines at same time. it could send 10,000 tanks to abroad and still have 20,000 to cover every part of Russia territory. Because is a huge continent is not practical that Russia depend on Far east reinforcements to deal with a war in the other side.

Afghanistan had no Armor in 1979 and yet many hundreds (1,800 or so initially) had to be deployed there to stabilize it. Russia doesn't need MBTs for a new Kursk or central front confrontation scenario

Indeed afganistan is nothing. But there is more enemies Russia could face. like N A T O.
So Russia needs to be prepared ,for the unthinkable . that is to be forced to invade a NATO
country if attacked first. you need to be prepared for the unthinkable. if you prepare for the predictable ,then you will not be prepared for for every scenario.

If they are making 2,300 armata MBTs then that will be fine... a tank division and a motor rifle division have a certain number of MBTs within their numbers but the vast majority of vehicles within such divisions are other types like IFV, command vehicles, air defence vehicles etc etc.

Currently there are about 6,000 MBTs in western Russia, of which about 4,000 are in storage at any one time.

Having 2,300 armata mbts means probably about four times that many Kurganets and Boomerang based MBTs, and probably 2,300 light typhoon type light recon gun platforms... that would be plenty.

GarryB wrote:Having 2,300 armata mbts means probably about four times that many Kurganets and Boomerang based MBTs, and probably 2,300 light typhoon type light recon gun platforms... that would be plenty.

What do you mean?

KiloGolf wrote:

GarryB wrote:Having 2,300 armata mbts means probably about four times that many Kurganets and Boomerang based MBTs, and probably 2,300 light typhoon type light recon gun platforms... that would be plenty.

What do you mean?

Garry once mentioned about Kurganets and Boomerang chassis which are used as MBT, but unfortunately I forget about the details.

I personally think armour K and B chassis are too thin to be MBT. First and foremost a MBT must has the ability to defeat other heavy armoured vehicle in an open battle, just like heavy cavalry must be able to defeat other cavalry in the battlefield.

KiloGolf wrote:If West Germany could produce 2,450 Leo 2s in 13 years (79-92), then I see no reason why Russia can't produce over 3,000 in 18 years.

18 years ? What is that ? This notion would provoke Oleg an heart attack

The unique "problem" at this time is only to understand if the 5 year "extention" of the first stage procurement plan...

Олег Сиенко wrote:Это открытые данные – 2300 единиц, программа будет корректироваться, потому что программа будет до 2025 года растянута

for platform Armata will envisage the same rate of production programmed for the initial up-to-2020 (as hoped for by Уралвагонзавод) or a lowering of the yearly unit production with only a comparably lower number of unit ordered above the 2300 for the the "stretched" procurement period.

Procurement after 2025 is ,at the moment, a question without answer and will mostly depend, outside of the obvious economical dimension, on the state of developement and maturation of new generation of meta materials ,full electric engine and relative storage and even more photonics; all those technologies would obviously open the space for the creation ,within the successive decade, of a new geneation of domestic land platforms with offensive and defensive capabilities simply on another league in comparison with today ones.

Anyway the more likely outcome will be, in mine opinion, a slightly slow down of the yearly production of Armata (but in an amount greater than the 2300 planned for the end of decade) with a contemporary program of modernization (as the forthcoming Прорыв-3 deal) and procurement of advanced T-90 variant up to 2025.
Those measures will reliably assure to the Federation the retaining, for the foreseeable future of a wide military lead in the armoured departement over all possible enemy in the internetional arena.

higurashihougi wrote:Garry once mentioned about Kurganets and Boomerang chassis which are used as MBT, but unfortunately I forget about the details.

Hah Russia adopting the tank-less ''battlegroup'' model? MGS doctrine, fun times ahead  

higurashihougi wrote:I personally think armour K and B chassis are too thin to be MBT. First and foremost a MBT must has the ability to defeat other heavy armoured vehicle in an open battle, just like heavy cavalry must be able to defeat other cavalry in the battlefield.

Agree. An IFV (tracked or wheeled) can't be an MBT, period.

Trying to over-complicate things and cut corners will lead to disaster. If Russia looses their power projection via Armor, they loose their status as a major world power. Ukraine is a good example, 2014 Armed Forces of Russia were unable to pull a Ukraine stabilization operation due to them lacking enough capable tank formations, deployed at the right locations.

Long story short their near abroad is or will be pretty much lost if their Armor levels drop to Turkey or Egypt levels.

Today Russia has around 2750 tanks in active service and this including some engineering variants.

The number of 2300 is logical. With 2300-2500 new tanks without include engineering variants Russia would replace all its current fleet in active service. I do not think how Russia can produce more in peace time because:

- If Russia produces more would need to increase the size of its Army.

or:

- If Russia produces more without increasing the size of its Army, Russia would be producing part of the new T-14s to go new to the reserve.

This said, I do not think Russia will scrape no-one tank more (including the oldest T-80s or T-72s) in many time. It means Russia can have around 17500 tanks in 20 years.

eehnie wrote:Today Russia has around 2750 tanks in active service and this including some engineering variants.

The number of 2300 is logical. With 2300-2500 new tanks without include engineering variants Russia would replace all its current fleet in active service. I do not think how Russia can produce more in peace time because:

- If Russia produces more would need to increase the size of its Army.

or:

- If Russia produces more without increasing the size of its Army, Russia would be producing part of the new T-14s to go new to the reserve.

This said, I do not think Russia will scrape no-one tank more (including the oldest T-80s or T-72s) in many time.

The current numbers are already illogical  

The problem with obsolete tanks 10 or 20 years down the line is that Javelins will cost fraction of what they do today and obsolete MBTs will not be survivable, one way or another. They will be simply destroyed as Assad's T-72 were blown out of the battlefield right now. Imo Russia's current low MBT numbers are key in them being uneasy to assert themselves against their "partners" in the Ukraine. If they keep this up, those reserves will hardly serve them well if they need to mobilize and deploy within a few days.

KiloGolf wrote:

eehnie wrote:Today Russia has around 2750 tanks in active service and this including some engineering variants.

The number of 2300 is logical. With 2300-2500 new tanks without include engineering variants Russia would replace all its current fleet in active service. I do not think how Russia can produce more in peace time because:

- If Russia produces more would need to increase the size of its Army.

or:

- If Russia produces more without increasing the size of its Army, Russia would be producing part of the new T-14s to go new to the reserve.

This said, I do not think Russia will scrape no-one tank more (including the oldest T-80s or T-72s) in many time.

The current numbers are already illogical  

The problem with obsolete tanks 10 or 20 years down the line is that Javelins will cost fraction of what they do today and obsolete MBTs will not be survivable, one way or another. They will be simply destroyed as Assad's T-72 were blown out of the battlefield right now. Imo Russia's current low MBT numbers are key in them being uneasy to assert themselves against their "partners" in the Ukraine. If they keep this up, those reserves will hardly serve them well if they need to mobilize and deploy within a few days.

Not a chance in hell, the Javelin in 2002 cost around ~$200.000, current FY2014 Army numbers states ~$180.000 although in 2014 USMC estimates say ~$300.000 per unit while in 2015 it dropped back to ~$200.000, but in that year the Amy got the ~$300.000 and it keeps fluctuating per year, here the links:
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2015/JAVELIN-ARMY-PROC-FY2015.pdf
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2015/JAVELIN-USMC-PROC-FY2015.pdf

Ooh please, the T-72s been around long before the Javelin existed and the T-72 it still standing, also you're comparing Russian T-72s to Syrian ones, seriously.

Why would ones waist bullets on fools (Ukraine) hell bent on drowning in there own feces.

By the time the need for reserves arise, the world would be a nuclear wasteland.

What do you mean?

Do you think Armata is just a MBT? Then what is the T-15?

Why are there Boomerang and Kurganets based IFVs/APC that have been shown?

Do you think a new Russian tank brigade will have Armata tanks and Kurganets BMPs and Boomerang BTRs?

An Armata division will have armata tanks and armata BMPs and armata BTRs and armata air defence vehicles (missile and gun/missile) and armata engineer vehicles and armata artillery vehicles and armata command vehicles, etc etc.

Every vehicle in an armata div will be armata based. And that includes armata tank divisions and armata motor rifle divisions... they will be heavy tank or heavy motor rifle divisions.

Medium tank divisions will have either kurganets or boomerang vehicles, as will medium motor rifle divisions.

Light divisions with the highest mobility will be typhoon based and will likely be recon units.

Armata forces will have heavy tanks and kurganets and boomerang forces will have medium tanks and typhoon forces will have light tanks... the latter might have 125mm guns, or they might have 57mm guns...

I personally think armour K and B chassis are too thin to be MBT. First and foremost a MBT must has the ability to defeat other heavy armoured vehicle in an open battle, just like heavy cavalry must be able to defeat other cavalry in the battlefield.

The leopard I tank never had the armour to stop enemy main tank guns, but is still considered a MBT.

Just because it does not have heavy frontal armour... though with new NERA plus an APS like Afghanistan that can stop APFSDS rounds who is to say it does not have good protection?

Hah Russia adopting the tank-less ''battlegroup'' model? MGS doctrine, fun times ahead

NERA + APS + 125mm full power gun is not a tankless battlegroup model.

The medium brigades wont be used where heavy protection is needed.

Agree. An IFV (tracked or wheeled) can't be an MBT, period.

A tank is a gun based platform that is well protected and provides direct fire support to the troops it supports. I see no reason why that must be a 70 ton block of metal... for the germans in WWII that was a Stuka more often than not...

GarryB wrote:

I personally think armour K and B chassis are too thin to be MBT. First and foremost a MBT must has the ability to defeat other heavy armoured vehicle in an open battle, just like heavy cavalry must be able to defeat other cavalry in the battlefield.

The leopard I tank never had the armour to stop enemy main tank guns, but is still considered a MBT.

Just because it does not have heavy frontal armour... though with new NERA plus an APS like Afghanistan that can stop APFSDS rounds who is to say it does not have good protection?

I still find it hard to fully understand and imagine it, Garry. Do you means the new gen APS like Afghanit posesses sufficent reliability to the level that they can supplement or even replace supertough armor, and Sprut-SD with the most advanced APS and reactive armor can be used as MBT ? BTW I count NERA and ERA into the armor, too.

I still think at the moment MBT demand supertough armour, even in the presence of APS like Shtora, Arena or Afghanit. Probably my mindset begins to be old and outdated, am not I ?

GarryB wrote:

What do you mean?

Do you think Armata is just a MBT? Then what is the T-15?

Nope. I asked what did you mean by Kurganets and Boomerang MBT.
But I see that you mispoke there or wanted to make a point of abolishing Armored divisions in case of motorised ones.

GarryB wrote:A tank is a gun based platform that is well protected and provides direct fire support to the troops it supports. I see no reason why that must be a 70 ton block of metal... for the germans in WWII that was a Stuka more often than not...

That 70 ton block of metal (tracks, armor and gun) tends to win wars or impose political will.
Especially for a country with no serious Naval projection (or need thereof).

GarryB wrote:In ten or twenty years time it will likely be shot down and the launch position peppered with 23mm cannon shells from remote land vehicles with 6 barrel gatling guns and a small radar/EO that detected the launch.

How is this related to those reserve tanks being reactivated in 2025/2035 (the discussion at hand) is beyond me.

@GarryB

My understanding is that the heavy, medium and light brigade experiment is over. And the traditional Tank and Motor Rifle units will stay with some modifications. The T15 BMP will be used in Tank brigades and regiments. The Motor Rifle units will receive kurganets or boomerang vehicles along with Armata tanks. Not confirmed but it appears by 2020 there will be as many as 11 Tank brigades and regiments.

well if they use traditional wedge formation 3 armatas front and 2 older tanks on rear flank , then 3k armatas ,and 2k t-90s will be enough - total 5.000 tanks.

KiloGolf wrote:You guys need to lighten up and stop get caught on cliches or counter-cliches for that matter. If any of you think that armor like T-72BA or B3 or T-90A kept in reserve (as is) for 20 years will face the same AT threats as today, you need to think again.

That was my point

In case mentioning the Javelin as an example caused some massive trigger effect

AlfaT8 wrote:Not a chance in hell, the Javelin in 2002 cost around ~$200.000, current FY2014 Army numbers states ~$180.000 although in 2014 USMC estimates say ~$300.000 per unit while in 2015 it dropped back to ~$200.000, but in that year the Amy got the ~$300.000 and it keeps fluctuating per year, here the links:
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2015/JAVELIN-ARMY-PROC-FY2015.pdf
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2015/JAVELIN-USMC-PROC-FY2015.pdf

Ooh please, the T-72s been around long before the Javelin existed and the T-72 it still standing, also you're comparing Russian T-72s to Syrian ones, seriously.

Why would ones waist bullets on fools (Ukraine) hell bent on drowning in there own feces.

By the time the need for reserves arise, the world would be a nuclear wasteland.

When the active force is only 2,300 tanks it won't come down to WW3. Just one expeditionary campaign and they will need to start re-activating tanks. And again, concerning dissecting the Javelin example like that, it was an example. It will be cheaper in-future, much cheaper. Any AT or other weapon will be and all will be more capable, across the board. I appreciate that you researched 2002, 2014 and 2015, but we're talking 2025 and 2035 here.

PS. 200,000 USD in 2016 is already over 1/3 "cheaper" than 2002. Imagine what 2025 or 2035 will be like.

Any war on that scale will go nuclear no2ways about that, also i doubt that price will come down much.

I still find it hard to fully understand and imagine it, Garry. Do you means the new gen APS like Afghanit posesses sufficent reliability to the level that they can supplement or even replace supertough armor, and Sprut-SD with the most advanced APS and reactive armor can be used as MBT ? Question Question Idea BTW I count NERA and ERA into the armor, too.

Errr... obviously not, otherwise why would they build the Armata MBT?

Any 70 ton western tank has weak points on its frontal armour so a lucky hit penetrating the main gun barrel or the gap between the turret and hull could easily defeat the vehicle with a frontal hit.

It is just a question of margins.

With NERA and APS and good optics and a battle management system to detect targets and threats early in terms of cost effective gun platform that needs to move rapidly with a highly mobile force then a Kurganets or Boomerang based tank makes perfect sense to me.

Against well dug in enemy troops well equipped with anti armour weapons it would not make sense but then that is what armata is for.

There are jobs that need an ansat and jobs that need a Havok. Using a Havok for everything is a waste of resources.

I still think at the moment MBT demand supertough armour, even in the presence of APS like Shtora, Arena or Afghanit. Probably my mindset begins to be old and outdated, am not I ?

Actually the change has been gradual but the MBT... which should be a medium weight vehicles like a T-34 has turned into a heavy tank like a Tiger II.

the west uses heavy tanks and what the Russians are doing is bringing back weight classes of vehicles.

A heavy brigade has all heavy vehicles so you wont be able to pick off the weak light vehicles like you could with a NATO force, leaving Tanks and IFVs on their own.

Nope. I asked what did you mean by Kurganets and Boomerang MBT.

No more MBTs. The Armata will have heavy tanks, Kurganets and boomerang will have medium tanks and typhoon will have light tanks (ie like Sprut).

That 70 ton block of metal (tracks, armor and gun) tends to win wars or impose political will.

Even a 70 ton block of metal can be taken out from the side or rear with old generation systems when the enemy knows what they are doing... the fact that most of those the US takes on don't know what they are doing or are not supplied properly is not something to base future developments upon.

How is this related to those reserve tanks being reactivated in 2025/2035 (the discussion at hand) is beyond me.

In twenty years time old vehicles taken from stocks wont be fighting with old equipment support... air power and artillery support will have developed... also even in storage you can upgrade material... nakidka will make Javelin useless except in line of sight SACLOS mode... and its 750mm penetration is pathetic.

My understanding is that the heavy, medium and light brigade experiment is over. And the traditional Tank and Motor Rifle units will stay with some modifications. The T15 BMP will be used in Tank brigades and regiments. The Motor Rifle units will receive kurganets or boomerang vehicles along with Armata tanks. Not confirmed but it appears by 2020 there will be as many as 11 Tank brigades and regiments.

Based on what?

well if they use traditional wedge formation 3 armatas front and 2 older tanks on rear flank , then 3k armatas ,and 2k t-90s will be enough - total 5.000 tanks.

The whole concept of families of vehicles is to reduce the logistics tail and simplify operation. If you mix the vehicles then there is no point and it was all a total waste of time. If they are going to mix all the formations up then half the models would get cancelled and back to Grozny where lighter vehicles are picked off and remaining vehicles defeated because they are no longer supported.

I remember someone here said that to counter active defences like Trophy or Afghanit, I think it was Garry, you can fire with a machine gun decoys which are deployed in front of the tank.

But the radars are deployed outside of the tank so you can fire on it with a machine gun and destroy them and then use a RPG. That's a reason why you can replace armor with active protection. During a long war it's hard to replace radars on all damaged tanks so most of them will be without active protection.

GarryB wrote:the west uses heavy tanks and what the Russians are doing is bringing back weight classes of vehicles.

I see, so basically the future "light tank" may look like this... https://i.servimg.com/u/f35/19/02/24/05/1024px10.jpg and the future medium tank may look like this... https://i.servimg.com/u/f35/19/02/24/05/sprut_10.jpg

Probably off topic but now I think I also need to get use to more novel terms such as MBD (Main Battle Drone). Who knows, Russia already has Uran-M and soon they will have heavy version of it.