Posted on 05/05/2015 4:29:29 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
MOSCOW — Russia's new Armata tank appeared in public for the first time Monday, rumbling down a broad Moscow avenue on its way to Red Square for the final rehearsal of the Victory Day parade.
The Russian Defense Ministry last month released photographs of the tank, but its turret was covered with fabric and only the platform was visible. Monday was the first time that the tank was shown uncovered.
The Armata will be a highlight of the military parade on Saturday, the 70th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. About 200 pieces of military hardware and 16,500 troops will take part in the parade on Red Square.
Russian and some Western military experts say the Armata will surpass all Western versions. The tank is the first to have an internal armored capsule housing its three-man crew and a remotely controlled turret with an automatic weapons loading system, features that allow for increasing both the level of crew protection and the efficiency of the tank's weapons.
The Armata designers also envisage the use of the same platform for several other machines, including a heavy armored infantry vehicle, a self-propelled heavy howitzer and combat support vehicle. This would cut production costs and streamline technical support and maintenance. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at realcleardefense.com ...
Army Times story with more specs:
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/05/05/armata-soviet-parade-t14/26915519/
We’re busy getting rid of the A-10 which is the one aerial weapons’ system that is designed to take out Soviet tanks.
In Obama’s treasonous world, this makes sense.
In mine, it is treason.
Same way they intro duced the JSIII
One thing about the Russians is that they are practical.
IMHO, tanks are as obsolete on the modern battlefield as are horse cavalry.
Given a choice of being on foot, on a horse, or in a tank, which would you choose ?
I already made my choice and it was thirty years as an 11B.
The A-10 may not be able to keep the loss rate down in a really modern air defense environment, unless preceded with a number of SAM/advanced AA suppression missions. And if flak is suppressed, then arguably some other faster platform would be able to more safely drop ASM’s from long range/high altitude to avoid whatever sophisticated AA were missed. Against the most modern Russian equipment it may suffer high losses.
The only advantages of the A-10 are the gun and loiter time.
The gun is pretty old by now and modern tanks may be less vulnerable. Other sorts of vehicles would be. Guided missiles and “smartbombs”) are more certain against high value point targets. The gun may be best used against infantry and light fortifications.
Its got a slow cruise speed which means it will take longer to react to an enemy maneuver. A fast jet should be able to get where its needed in nearly half the time.
Its got poor range, which requires closer bases (also needed due to slow speed), more bases, more aerial refueling, etc. Its also therefore less flexible. Assume one has a squadron of F-3 and one of A10 in an area. If, while normally allocated to CAS, its suddenly required to attack an enemy 600km away, only one squadron is available. The whole available force cant be applied to most missions.
All in all the conventional wisdom that the A-10 would be effective only against unsophisticated and lightly equipped enemies seems reasonable. Granted, that describes most potential enemies of the US, but not the most dangerous ones. Its a “Counter-insurgency” type using the old concept.
There is always the choice of being somewhere else.
Maybe so, but with the A10 Warthog being retired without a superior replacement is it possible that the modern battlefield is becoming less "modern"?
LOL, 6100 grains AP @ 3500 ft/sec? If modern tanks have Star Trek shields perhaps.
If you are in the military, I don't think that is true.
ummmm.... you mean like Baltimore ?
How do you cross open terrain under enemy fire with armor? HOW?
That’s not the same tank from the story this morning.
The armor/anti-armor debate is an old one.
In peacetime, everyone wants to wear caps and ride in dune buggies.
After the first mortar round hits, they start asking for tanks.
Are tanks vulnerable? Yep. Anyone who breathes and pumps blood is vulnerable. It’s just a matter of using the right weapon at the right time.
Still looks pretty much like the same crap they’ve always turned out. They’re still using reactive armor.
Yes, against composite armor even on upper surfaces designed to defend against top attack ATGM.
Its a nice cannon but its just 30mm.
And the aircraft needs to come down to under 1000meters IIRC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.