[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

D-20 is a 152mm piece
"Constellation thing" as you call it, is around for quite some time and it was not accepted in the service in first few iterations. Hence, latest version is marked 2M. As far as I read, they still did testing last year - 2021.
https://topwar.ru/189714-v-armii-rossii-pojavilis-soedinenija-sposobnye-vesti-masshtabnye-setecentricheskie-operacii.html
And Ukrainians didn't have 5000 artillery pieces. They had 10 thousand and Russians destroyed 20 thousand. There you go. Happy now?

Exactly. Modified since the first one didn't work as intended. It's all in the article posted on topwar in my previous post.

Again with deflections. At least read the article.

Article is from December 2021. I'll paste it down below specially for you. Damn, all that pollution in Częstochowa must have left permanent consequences.
https://topwar.ru/189714-v-armii-rossii-pojavilis-soedinenija-sposobnye-vesti-masshtabnye-setecentricheskie-operacii.html

caveat emptor wrote:"Constellation thing" as you call it, is around for quite some time and it was not accepted in the service in first few iterations. Hence, latest version is marked 2M. As far as I read, they still did testing last year - 2021.

Upon reading it appears that the Russians have kept refusing an inferior product until the manufacturer has delivered on all their requirements after which they have started buying it en masse.

NATO might not give a shit as long as the MIC turns a fat profit, but Russia clearly does.

I agree. First version must've been inferior to what they wanted.

Which is not to say it was useless or didn't work, just that it didn't work to a level they found acceptable...

Versions don't get official designations if they don't enter service.

Its the weekend so I finally had time to kill after work. Somebody tag RedEffect so he can make a reply vid and I can be famous too

RedEffect wrote:
T14 might have a hard kill active production system and protection against javelins but the most common killer of tanks in Ukraine right now seems to be artillery and no active protection system can stop under the shell falling on top of you from the sky

Not just any artillery, but guided artillery like Krasnopol or Excalibur. Ukraine can't mass enough artillery, be it gun or rocket, for saturation fires dense enough to reliably damage if not destroy dispersed armor, at least not without provoking excessive casualties from counter-battery fire. And if its guided like the Krasnopol shell its open to interference from the electronic protection half of the Afghanit. You can't kill what you can't see - well, technically you could, but chances are slim and almost nil with a moving, non-cooperative T-14 utilizing all its defensive assets, which is what matters.

RedEffect wrote:
Not to mention that T14 can also be detract and then abandoned by the crew where it would then fall into the hands of ukrainians just like the t90m tanks

This is just projecting into the future without taking into account the change in circumstances. The Russians lost or abandoned equipment because they don't have the men to spare for security and recovery. For its upcoming winter offensive the RAF will for the first time in the SMO, have a numerical superiority over the UAF in the field. The surfeit in manpower can be used to safe damaged equipment more reliably than before, amongst other new missions.

RedEffect wrote:
not to mention that the performance of T14 would add absolutely nothing to the war when looked from the greater scale sure it has far better combat survivability but since tanks are being mainly used as support vehicles in this conflict d14's Superior performance would have very little impact

Again, trending from premises that may or may not hold. Are we even sure the Russians are going to pull off more of the same artillery war but with newer, more effective equipment or are they going to switch-up their play style once more? Because if Russia wants to conduct the massive sweeping offensives to end large-scale resistance for good they need armored spearheads that can breakthrough the toughest enemy defenses and defeat the enemy's mobile reserves and remain intact for further thrusts - which is only possible if you possess massively superior armor. They don't even have to be numerous, as just a tiny crust for the spearhead's edge would do.

RedEffect wrote:
T14 is the only time they have left that has not seen any combat losses and thus has the best chances of being exported in the future

But the only way to guarantee zero combat losses is to not fight at all or fight ridiculously weaker opponents. More and more export customers are becoming perceptive when it comes to evaluating the combat performance from their prospective buys; curated trials and cherry picked examples simply won't do. As a matter of fact the very first T-90 is just a renamed T-72BU with all the baggage associated with the type from then recent conflicts. But that didn't stop it from becoming a smash commercial success with far more units sold abroad than its country of origin.

The countries buying russian equipment got experts that look into the real performance of stuff not what western MSM tells them to think.

The countries buying russian equipment got experts that look into the real performance of stuff not what western MSM tells them to think.

More importantly countries not buying Russian equipment for political reasons do tests and evaluations to prove they are bad to justify their political decision.

I think taking the T-14 to war makes sense... find its problems and test it out for real... if something does not work it is better to find it out here than to leave it and build thousands of them only to find they don't work against HATO countries when it is too late to fix.

How easy combat damage is to repair and how easily damaged in combat are important things the designers need to know about and real combat experience leads to the best revisions and upgrades that improve performance the most.

It was the turret bustle on the T-34 that led to later model Soviet tanks not having them... because enemy troops would put satchel charged under them to destroy a tank the HE charge could not otherwise damage... blowing the turret off is just as good as penetrating the armour... especially if the ammo is in the turret bustle.