Defense Technology & Military Forum

Defense Technology & Military Forum (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/)
-   Army & Security Forces (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/)
-   -   RussianLand Forces Thread (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/russianland-forces-thread-11742/)

Jack Johnson January 6th, 2012 02:57 PM

Russian Tank development - did I get it right?
 
I have some problems understanding the russian tank development...Thats how I think it goes:

(1) First T-54, T-55 and T-62 as mediocre, but reliable and mass produced tanks.

(2) After that, a policy of two tanks at the same time, a high quality one and a cheap mass produced one. The high quality tank is the T-64, the mass produced one the T-72

(3) The T-64 gets replaced by the T-80, the T-72 is still kept in service because he was introduced later.

(4) The T-72 is developed further into the T-90, the new replacement for the T-80 is still vague, many different concepts (T-95, Black Eagle etc. etc.)

(5) Because of monetary concerns, and a higher export demand, the two tank policy is dropped. Only the T-90 is kept in production, and is from now on russias MBT.

(6) T-72, T-80 and T-90 are continiung their service until ~2025, when they all are supposed to be replaced by one new MBT.


Is this about right...?

Feanor January 6th, 2012 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Johnson (Post 236231)
I have some problems understanding the russian tank development...Thats how I think it goes:

(1) First T-54, T-55 and T-62 as mediocre, but reliable and mass produced tanks.

They weren't mediocre, for their time. Remember the T-54 entered production in 1947, right after WWII. It was a very good tank.

Quote:

(2) After that, a policy of two tanks at the same time, a high quality one and a cheap mass produced one. The high quality tank is the T-64, the mass produced one the T-72
The T-64 was first by a notable margin. The T-72 was a replacement for the T-54/55 and T-62.

Quote:

(3) The T-64 gets replaced by the T-80, the T-72 is still kept in service because he was introduced later.
No. The T-64, T-80, and T-72 are in production at the same time for quite a while. The T-64 wasn't getting replaced at the time the T-80 came out.

Quote:

(4) The T-72 is developed further into the T-90, the new replacement for the T-80 is still vague, many different concepts (T-95, Black Eagle etc. etc.)
Currently there is no replacement for the T-80. All MBTs will get replaced by the Armata post 2015.

Quote:

(5) Because of monetary concerns, and a higher export demand, the two tank policy is dropped. Only the T-90 is kept in production, and is from now on russias MBT.

(6) T-72, T-80 and T-90 are continiung their service until ~2025, when they all are supposed to be replaced by one new MBT.
Not just MBTs, the Armata is supposed to be the new heavy tracked chassis for all vehicles, including a new heavy APC/IFV, a chassis for the TOS-1, a tank-evacuator vehicle, etc.

Jack Johnson January 6th, 2012 05:27 PM

Allright thank you. So some models were produced at the same time, some overlapped.

But concerning the "philosophy" and intended development of tanks the following diagram is "more or less" correct...?

http://s1.directupload.net/images/120106/d66a67wm.jpg

Feanor January 6th, 2012 05:32 PM

Basically, yes. Though it ignores the JS-3 and T-10 that were heavy tanks in production post WWII.

CheeZe January 6th, 2012 09:17 PM

This has gotten me curious. Where can one find some specs and dev info for the Armata? A google search is only turning up news articles.

Feanor January 6th, 2012 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeZe (Post 236249)
This has gotten me curious. Where can one find some specs and dev info for the Armata? A google search is only turning up news articles.

You can't.

It's supposed to be a cheaper to produce variant of the Object 195, with probably tie ins from the features added to the T-90MS. So imagine an unmanned turret config, 2-3 man crew in either individual armored capsules or a single armored capsule for all, possibly a bustle-stored ammo rack with blow-out panels, panoramic sights, extremely advanced FCS, possibly French thermals (since Russian MIC doesn't seem to have anything to offer, though it remains to be seen). Granted it's all speculation, so I'd wait and see until they release something concrete.

NICO January 6th, 2012 11:29 PM

I don't think I would call T54/T55 mediocre since weren't they derived from war time T34?, which was a very good tank. What's incredible is that some T55s were noticed during Libyan conflict in 2011, now that's longevity.

Feanor January 6th, 2012 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NICO (Post 236257)
I don't think I would call T54/T55 mediocre since weren't they derived from war time T34?, which was a very good tank. What's incredible is that some T55s were noticed during Libyan conflict in 2011, now that's longevity.

T-55s are still in front line service in quite a few countries. As recently as 2011 Uganda purchased iirc 90 T-55 from Russia second hand. They were actually in production until iirc 1977 in the USSR, mainly for export customers. The T-55 was a very good design for it's time, and for many countries with limited budgets, and only low-tech opponents the T-55 is still a viable MBT, especially given the near scrap-metal prices.

Waylander January 7th, 2012 05:10 AM

I don't expect the Armata to reduce the crew to 2. Much too much overload for the crew, commanding a tank is still a full time job. Engage in a heavy (mobile) firefight with multiple enemies and your situational awareness goes down the toilet when the TC has to do the tracking and engaging. Not to talk of the platoon and company commanders being able to lead their units...

IMHO the time for 2 men crews isn't there for some time without compromising critical combat power, not in the west and not in the east.

T.C.P da Devil January 7th, 2012 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor (Post 236235)



Not just MBTs, the Armata is supposed to be the new heavy tracked chassis for all vehicles, including a new heavy APC/IFV, a chassis for the TOS-1, a tank-evacuator vehicle, etc.

So how many different variants of Armata is proposed?

Also a bit off topic, but roughly how many Tos-1s are in service?

Feanor January 7th, 2012 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.C.P da Devil (Post 236288)
So how many different variants of Armata is proposed?

Supposedly there will be: MBT, Heavy IFV (a completely new project), Heavy APC (replacement for BMO-T in RKhBZ units most likely, and for Tank Bdes), SP Arty (replacing Msta-S, 2S5 and 2S3, but not 2S1), evacuator vehicle (BREM-1 and BTS replacement).

Also possible, although not terribly likely, a bridge-layer, an engineer vehicle chassis (to replace the IMR-2), a mine-clearing vehicle (to replace the BMR).

Just to be clear, Armata is the name of the OKR for the new heavy platform. It is not the name of the MBT. The MBT has an object number which we do not know.

Quote:

Also a bit off topic, but roughly how many Tos-1s are in service?
No idea, to be honest, but a decent number. They're in service with RKhBZ units. Iirc the ones in service now are TOS-1A variants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waylander (Post 236276)
I don't expect the Armata to reduce the crew to 2. Much too much overload for the crew, commanding a tank is still a full time job. Engage in a heavy (mobile) firefight with multiple enemies and your situational awareness goes down the toilet when the TC has to do the tracking and engaging. Not to talk of the platoon and company commanders being able to lead their units...

IMHO the time for 2 men crews isn't there for some time without compromising critical combat power, not in the west and not in the east.

I suppose it remains to be seen. I don't disagree with your assessment. To be honest I really wish they would show object 195 to the public. After all the project is no longer MoD funded, and UVZ is still supposedly completing the development in hopes of securing an export contract. It would certainly give us a very good idea of what to expect from the Armata.

CheeZe January 7th, 2012 10:28 PM

Do you know what the design philosophy for the MBT is? Tank v Tank combat? Infantry support? Will it be designed with urban combat as part of its mission parameters?

lucinator January 8th, 2012 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeZe (Post 236307)
Do you know what the design philosophy for the MBT is? Tank v Tank combat? Infantry support? Will it be designed with urban combat as part of its mission parameters?

MBT's in general or the new russian one?

CheeZe January 8th, 2012 03:57 PM

The new Russian one.

Feanor January 8th, 2012 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeZe (Post 236356)
The new Russian one.

It will be used just like current MBTs both as a tool of operational-level mobility, and as tactical direct-fire support for Motor-Rifles units. The Land Forces force org. reflects this, with 4 Tank Brigades, and several dozen Motor-Rifle Brigades with a tank btln in each.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2003-2011 DefenceTalk.com. All Rights Reserved.