Armata tank: Abrams Hunter
- Thread starter EmoBorg
- Start date
I still don't understand Russian thinking in regard with the West. Why must they continue to consider the U.S as an enemy, when both practise Capitalism, Democracy and share similar religious and culturial values. Russia even had abolished the Death Penalty. I am ex military myself but i have always felt that military parades are a waste of a soldier' time.
Tanks are basically obsolete. Drone swarms both air and land just around the corner.
Tanks still look impressive though.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIzU4bU9DcA[/yt]
http://singularityhub.com/2010/01/22/us-military-drowning-in-drone-data/
RAMA
Tanks still look impressive though.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIzU4bU9DcA[/yt]
http://singularityhub.com/2010/01/22/us-military-drowning-in-drone-data/
RAMA
Drones are basically useless once they run out of fuel. Drones can't occupy underground defensive positions nor topside positions either. A drone is basically the same thing as a manned bomber plane without a pilot. You wouldn't be able to keep a manned fighter on station 24 hours either. If the tank brwak s down in the field and cannot be repaired the turret can be used to defend a local are.
Read about the Russian T-34 and how it was used to defend using only its turret.
Not all Russians hate America. Its the Cold War and Post WWII mentality of Russia that hates America doe getting invlved with Russian internal affairs.
Last edited:
^ Or you could just blow one of it's wheels off.
Well, the "agility" part is designed to make that very difficult to do.
That's cute. Strip the armor from an armored vehicle and protect the crew with redundant layers of jargon.
You have to remember that command and control elements of the military are designed to counter other military command and control elements. Your heavy bombers are heavy and slow moving making them easy targets for anti-bomber drones that would then require AWACS to deploy squadrons of anti-drone fighters as long range missiles would take to long to reach the target. What do you have next? One hell of fight between multiple combat systems to hinder the bombers while the tanks move in and attack the fuel depots fueling those same bombers. Your bombers might return but what are they returning to? Burning fields of fuel tanks which could have been protected if your army had tanks.
Bombers aren't used for taking out tanks. Air vehicles like the A-10 and Apache, which are designed for ground-attacks, are used for this purpose. As for attacking an airfield, the enemy tanks would have to pass through friendly territory. They would be targeted by destruction by soldiers carrying anti-tank weapons and other military assets, like self-propelled artillery vehicles.
Another thing, bombers are fueled by tankers. An attacking enemy tank would be lucky to kill a tanker, as the only chance it would have to destroy the tanker is if the plane is at its airfield. Most tankers are sent from airfields far from the battlefield.
For the record, the Armata is a universal combat platform: it's a jack-of-all trades. It is a modular design vehicle. It can be configured as a main battle tank, infantry fighting vehicle, combat engineering vehicle, armored recovery vehicle, armored personnel carrier, tank support combat vehicle, and self-propelled artillery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform
It's not a tank hunter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer
Another thing, bombers are fueled by tankers. An attacking enemy tank would be lucky to kill a tanker, as the only chance it would have to destroy the tanker is if the plane is at its airfield. Most tankers are sent from airfields far from the battlefield.
For the record, the Armata is a universal combat platform: it's a jack-of-all trades. It is a modular design vehicle. It can be configured as a main battle tank, infantry fighting vehicle, combat engineering vehicle, armored recovery vehicle, armored personnel carrier, tank support combat vehicle, and self-propelled artillery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform
It's not a tank hunter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer
...The problem with universal platforms is that they tend to be way too expensive for anything but the "topmost" application - and this is especially damning for armored vehicles, which (unlike many other military systems) need to be both mass-produceable and optimal for their mission.
A MBT chassis has few of the qualities needed by a self-propelled gun or an IFV/APC, and lots and lots of unnecessary extra. Whether the armor be integral or modular, it needs to be heavy for the MBT, necessitating a powerful engine - but not for any of the other applications. OTOH, what use does the MBT chassis make of the space that an APC or a SPG desperately needs for its payload?
Most universal platform programs so far have collapsed under their own weight; basically only Israel can keep a joint MBT/APC program going, and largely because its APCs fight in an environment where hunkering under lots of armor is survivable. Most armies either need to pit their APCs against enemies capable of knocking out a lightly armed, barely mobile turtle, or can let their APCs operate under the protection of other assets; raid-type urban fighting against a ragtag enemy is an exception as far as tactical situations go.
Then again, Russia might be able to afford to experiment with this stuff for a decade or so, finding out the hard way if it's doable in the cost-reducing sense or not. Drones won't make an impact in the battlefield for a long time yet, and attrition fighting isn't on the horizon at this particular moment.
Timo Saloniemi
A MBT chassis has few of the qualities needed by a self-propelled gun or an IFV/APC, and lots and lots of unnecessary extra. Whether the armor be integral or modular, it needs to be heavy for the MBT, necessitating a powerful engine - but not for any of the other applications. OTOH, what use does the MBT chassis make of the space that an APC or a SPG desperately needs for its payload?
Most universal platform programs so far have collapsed under their own weight; basically only Israel can keep a joint MBT/APC program going, and largely because its APCs fight in an environment where hunkering under lots of armor is survivable. Most armies either need to pit their APCs against enemies capable of knocking out a lightly armed, barely mobile turtle, or can let their APCs operate under the protection of other assets; raid-type urban fighting against a ragtag enemy is an exception as far as tactical situations go.
Then again, Russia might be able to afford to experiment with this stuff for a decade or so, finding out the hard way if it's doable in the cost-reducing sense or not. Drones won't make an impact in the battlefield for a long time yet, and attrition fighting isn't on the horizon at this particular moment.
Timo Saloniemi
The B-52 is anti-tank capable. It was used in anti-armor formation missions in the first Gulf War. It was also used more recently in Afghanistan in missions that traditionally were considered close air support missions, but it did so by loitering at high altitude.
More accurately, bombers aren't generally used for destroying tanks. They can be modified for this task, with a specific weapons payload. The USAF is attempting very hard to put the A-10s to pasture, and Congress is determined to keep the planes in operation. The USAF thinks that other aircraft will be better suited to this task. The B-52 has proved it can be a tank killer - the F-35 not so much, as it hasn't been in combat yet.
As pointed out, most armor is basically useless against modern weapons, so why spend all the money on a huge, heavy and vulnerable vehicle when you can spend less money on a lethal, light, fast, and vulnerable vehicle?? Crew? What crew?
Most armor has ALWAYS been useless against modern weapons. This has been true of tanks since tanks were invented. Tanks aren't supposed to be invincible, just REALLY fucking hard to kill.
This thing isn't hard to kill. It's just hard to HIT. That is an entirely different problem for potential attackers, and considerably easier to solve.
Because light fast and vulnerable vehicles only make sense in guerilla warfare when your side has terrain and numbers on their side. The United States hasn't fought a war on its own turf in a century and a half and is EXTREMELY unlikely to do so in the near future.
For the record, we already have lethal, light, fast and vulnerable vehicles. Soldiers found out pretty quickly that if they didn't have at least a minimal amount of armor protection, they were basically rolling deathtraps. Modifications had to be made. New defense systems were invented. Some of those new defense systems are the inspiration of DARPA's latest powerpoint weapon system, except that the engineers seem to have forgotten what caused those systems to be developed in the first place.
[quote[Crew? What crew?[/QUOTE]
The people who have to be physically present on the battlefield in order for the VEHICLE's physical presence to be in any way productive or, for that matter, even possible.