Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

IMG_0616.JPG

IMG_0615.JPG

IMG_0614.JPG

IMG_0613.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





RussianLand Forces Thread

This is a discussion on RussianLand Forces Thread within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I have some problems understanding the russian tank development...Thats how I think it goes: (1) First T-54, T-55 and T-62 ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 4.20 average.
Old January 6th, 2012   #1
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 35
Threads:
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...?
Jack Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Eurofighter Typhoon Discussion Thread Musashi_kenshin Air Force & Aviation 284 August 25th, 2010 04:09 PM
"Best of SPAM" thread? Locarnus Suggestions/Feedback 0 August 22nd, 2010 05:43 PM
Music Thread mysterious Intros & Off Topic 56 June 24th, 2005 12:51 AM

Old January 6th, 2012   #2
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 12,466
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Johnson View Post
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.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2012   #3
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 35
Threads:
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
Jack Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2012   #4
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 12,466
Threads:
Basically, yes. Though it ignores the JS-3 and T-10 that were heavy tanks in production post WWII.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2012   #5
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: US
Posts: 90
Threads:
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.
CheeZe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2012   #6
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 12,466
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeZe View Post
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.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2012   #7
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
NICO's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AZ, USA
Posts: 207
Threads:
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.
NICO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2012   #8
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 12,466
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NICO View Post
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.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2012   #9
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,570
Threads:
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.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2012   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
T.C.P da Devil's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dhaka,Bangladesh
Posts: 615
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post



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?
________________
Be loyal to Bangladesh no matter what. We have given blood to earn our freedom and will give more to protect it!
T.C.P da Devil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2012   #11
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 12,466
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.C.P da Devil View Post
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 View Post
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.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2012   #12
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: US
Posts: 90
Threads:
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?
CheeZe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2012   #13
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
lucinator's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 165
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeZe View Post
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?
lucinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2012   #14
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: US
Posts: 90
Threads:
The new Russian one.
CheeZe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2012   #15
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 12,466
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeZe View Post
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.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:08 PM.