Altay Comparison to Competitors

[ptldM3]

Altay vs. The Competition

​

Mod edit

That's why The countries develop active protection systems to be installed on special places of turret to provide 360 degree protection. If you ask me What makes a tank new generation, I tell you that It is the reaction time of active protection systems because All modern armours along with fire control systems provide more or less similar capabilities to each tank so If you consider the destiny of Armata to be same with Syrian T-72's seen on video, Then New appearance of Armata doesn't make any sense to me, as long as It have such capable protection systems against ATGM's.

There are very few tanks that have an true active protection system the merkava being one and the armata being the other, and by true active protection system i mean a hard kill system that destroys the missile before it makes impact. As for armata its most distinct feature is a turret that is not manned meaning that even if the turret is breached and there is an explosion the tank and crew will still be intact. The other advantage is a large weight savings not only from a smaller turret but from lighter armor.

 

[cabatli_53]

There are very few tanks that have an true active protection system the merkava being one and the armata being the other, and by true active protection system i mean a hard kill system that destroys the missile before it makes impact. As for armata its most distinct feature is a turret that is not manned meaning that even if the turret is breached and there is an explosion the tank and crew will still be intact. The other advantage is a large weight savings not only from a smaller turret but from lighter armor.

The unmanned turret on Armata means a turret that all processes like munition handling, loading/shelling are controlled by a software on a seperate compartment (turret) section? With this way, Crew locating on chassis protected by safer section, can't interfere any process of turret ?

 

[ptldM3]

The unmanned turret on Armata means a turret that all processes like munition handling, loading/shelling are controlled by a software on a seperate compartment (turret) section? With this way, Crew locating on chassis protected by safer section, can't interfere any process of turret ?

The turret is unmanned so yes it will have an auto loader. The crew are isolated away from turret and munitions, there is no need for a crew member to be inside the turret. As for interference as you put it, why would the crew need to interfere with the turret? Russia has over 60 years with autoloaders, if there was reliability issues they would have not continued the use of auto loaders nor would many other countries such as France and China adapt auto loaders.

 

[era_shield]

Right, Russia can produce nuclear engines, rocket engines, turbo fan engines, AESA radar, active defense systems, entire aircraft, submarines, ect, ect, yet there is only a handful of countries capable of producing these things and somehow Russia is not capable of producing "high end products", i guess everything is a cardboard mockup. I sense jealousy.

Yet apparently factual TV programs are too difficult.

 

[Seyfullah]

@ptldM3
Новейший танк Т-14 «Армата» дважды сорвал репетицию Парада Победы

 

[ptldM3]

@ptldM3
Новейший танк Т-14 «Армата» дважды сорвал репетицию Парада Победы

What is your point? Why are Turks so fascinated with the Armata? The Armata was reported to have some problems, guess what you think the Altay did not have problems? Every prototype tank or aircraft has issues that later gets fixed look at the F-35 and F-22 as examples.


I can see some people are getting jealous with their constant armata bashing.

 

[cabatli_53]

What is your point? Why are Turks so fascinated with the Armata? The Armata was reported to have some problems, guess what you think the Altay did not have problems? Every prototype tank or aircraft has issues that later gets fixed look at the F-35 and F-22 as examples.


I can see some people are getting jealous with their constant armata bashing.

Turkish and Russian markets (in near future) are colliding on many region and Turkey is planning to offer state of art heavy NATO standart tank to those markets which is going to be on par with Abrams and Leopard 2A6. It is thought that Current many T series Russian tanks are not in same league with Altay in terms of weight, protection and concept so Not have much chance against Altay but Armata is a different story. Armata is the first tank Russia designed, which is being considered as similar class/concept with NATO's many heavy tanks so Nothing wrong to follow developments/failure sides of a competitor tank.

 

[ptldM3]

Turkish and Russian markets (in near future) are colliding on many region and Turkey is planning to offer state of art heavy NATO standart tank to those markets which is going to be on par with Abrams and Leopard 2A6. It is thought that Current many T series Russian tanks are not in same league with Altay in terms of weight, protection and concept so Not have much chance against Altay but Armata is a different story. Armata is the first tank Russia designed, which is being considered as similar class/concept with NATO's many heavy tanks so Nothing wrong to follow developments/failure sides of a competitor tank.

It's not in the same class, it may be in a heavy class of tanks but it's in the same class. Many present day NATO tanks are 20-35 years old, have manned turrets, manual loaders (Leclerc is exception) and no real active protection systems. The Abrams was not built to match the T-72 but to surpass it, likewise the T-14 was not built to match NATO tanks but surpass them. Perhaps it will not outright dominate any tanks but no tanks will dominate the T-14 either. In terms of urban warfare the T-14 was made to be more survivable and effective then most NATO tanks this is evident by the unmanned turret, active protection system and hatches that are much thicker then any western tanks hatch.

 

[cabatli_53]

It's not in the same class, it may be in a heavy class of tanks but it's in the same class. Many present day NATO tanks are 20-35 years old, have manned turrets, manual loaders (Leclerc is exception) and no real active protection systems. The Abrams was not built to match the T-72 but to surpass it, likewise the T-14 was not built to match NATO tanks but surpass them. Perhaps it will not outright dominate any tanks but no tanks will dominate the T-14 either. In terms of urban warfare the T-14 was made to be more survivable and effective then most NATO tanks this is evident by the unmanned turret, active protection system and hatches that are much thicker then any western tanks hatch.

Auto-loader function of cannon is just a choice of countries in accordance with their concepts. Korea prefers auto-loader but Turkey not. French prefers autoloader but Germany not. Having an unmanned turret doesn't also make much differences in terms of class/generation and Those can never be an indication of surpassing any NATO tanks. In additions, They are not space science, since Turkish smaller calibre turrets have also unmanned and completely isolated from chassis. As I said It is the protection systems that put a tank one step ahead and If T-14 is revealed into market with hard-kill systems, It will be the advantages of your tank against others until Turkish Akkor hard-kill system to be integrated on Altays are completed. Apart from that, Both will have similar weight (7 wheels) , protection and similar concepts that is going to compete with eachothers...

 

[BordoEnes]

It's not in the same class, it may be in a heavy class of tanks but it's in the same class. Many present day NATO tanks are 20-35 years old, have manned turrets, manual loaders (Leclerc is exception) and no real active protection systems. The Abrams was not built to match the T-72 but to surpass it, likewise the T-14 was not built to match NATO tanks but surpass them. Perhaps it will not outright dominate any tanks but no tanks will dominate the T-14 either. In terms of urban warfare the T-14 was made to be more survivable and effective then most NATO tanks this is evident by the unmanned turret, active protection system and hatches that are much thicker then any western tanks hatch.

Honestly, from what i can tell and the information i received simply means that the Russians are catching up to Western equivelants, rather then "surpassing" them. Unmanned Turrets have been around for decades, APS are nothing new as Israel, US and S.Korea developed these many years ago and mere thicker hatches wont really give you the advantage over a another tank.

I am not saying the Armata is bad by any means, but for you to say that it already "surpassed" all other western tanks, is fuckking stupid and dillusional to say the least, first let it enter production.

 

[ptldM3]

Auto-loader function of cannon is just a choice of countries in accordance with their concepts. Korea prefers auto-loader but Turkey not. French prefers autoloader but Germany not.

Autoloaders allows for a smaller turret, smaller turret equals less weight, less weight better mobility and better mpg/kph.

Having an unmanned turret doesn't also make much differences in terms of class/generation and Those can never be an indication of surpassing any NATO tanks.

You are heavily underestimating the value of an unmanned turret. Russia has built secret prototype unmanned tanks before the Armata was even created. Take into account how many years and money was put into the unmanned tank program and how much more complex an unmanned turret is. Do you think Russia would go through all of that trouble for nothing? Especially when Russian tank designers like to use simplicity and cost effective solutions. The unmanned turret is neither, so for Russia to put so much time, effort and deviate from traditional design indicates that there is an obvious advantage and a big one.


The Armata can not be in the same class as any NATO tanks just as the F-22 can not be considered in the same class as legacy fighters. The unmanned turret gives the Armata large advantages that no tank with a manned turret can make up for. The first is survivability, if the Armata's turret is breached the crew will not be harmed and the tank may even continue fighting if no major gun components are damaged, the same applies to the Armata's hull because the crew is isolated even if the hull is breached the crew will likely be unharmed. If any western tanks turret is breached then the crew either is killed or so badly injured that the tank is out of commission. The same thing applies for IED attacks; there are plenty of photos from Iraq of Abrams getting their turrets blown off by IEDs which obviously kills the crew, if the Armata's turret is blown off the crew will not be harmed. And of course there is the weight savings, some NATO turrets weight over 20 tons, take into account how much weight the Armata's turret will save and the benefits of that. With all of the weight saved the designers can use extra armor to protect the hull and still remain lighter than many other tanks while have similar or even better protection.

In additions, They are not space science, since Turkish smaller calibre turrets have also unmanned and completely isolated from chassis.

I believe you are talking about an ammunition storage bustle. That is totally different from an unmanned turret and the Armata is said to have one to. Tanks like the Altay still have manned turrets. The crew is spread out throughout the tank, meaning if the tank's armor is penetrated someone is either getting hurt or killed. The other advantage that the Armata has is that the crew all sit together in an armored capsule, meaning they can even survive if the hull outside their capsule is breached. The only part of the hull of a western tank that is isolated is the engine compartment.

As I said It is the protection systems that put a tank one step ahead and If T-14 is revealed into market with hard-kill systems, It will be the advantages of your tank against others until Turkish Akkor hard-kill system to be integrated on Altays are completed. Apart from that, Both will have similar weight (7 wheels) and similar concepts that is going to compete with eachothers...

The armata is said to have the Afgahnis active protection system. The previous active protection system was the Arena as you can see in the video it is real and it does work.

Honestly, from what i can tell and the information i received simply means that the Russians are catching up to Western equivelants, rather then "surpassing" them. Unmanned Turrets have been around for decades, APS are nothing new as Israel, US and S.Korea developed these many years ago and mere thicker hatches wont really give you the advantage over a another tank.
I am not saying the Armata is bad by any means, but for you to say that it already "surpassed" all other western tanks, is fuckking stupid and dillusional to say the least, first let it enter production.

No operational tank has an unmanned turret. Read my full post explaining its advantages and how its completely different from a manned turret. And thicker hatches indicate thicker roof armor, thicker roof armor protects against top attacks from RPGs and anti tank rockets.

 

[BordoEnes]

No operational tank has an unmanned turret. Read my full post explaining its advantages. And thicker hatches indicate thicker roof armor, thicker roof armor protects against top attacks from RPGs and anti tank rockets.

Theoretically.

 

[Bismarck]

@ptldM3

We test in a battle an auto loader against manned loader. Last was faster. The reaction time is not irrelevant. You see, an auto loader is not always an advantage.

 

[ptldM3]

@ptldM3

We test in a battle an auto loader against manned loader. Last was faster. The reaction time is not irrelevant

Just because the Germans tested a German autoloader and found it to be slower to manual loaders does not mean that it will be faster when compared to a new generation Russian autoloader.

 

[Kamil_baku]

It's not in the same class, it may be in a heavy class of tanks but it's in the same class. Many present day NATO tanks are 20-35 years old, have manned turrets, manual loaders (Leclerc is exception) and no real active protection systems. The Abrams was not built to match the T-72 but to surpass it, likewise the T-14 was not built to match NATO tanks but surpass them. Perhaps it will not outright dominate any tanks but no tanks will dominate the T-14 either. In terms of urban warfare the T-14 was made to be more survivable and effective then most NATO tanks this is evident by the unmanned turret, active protection system and hatches that are much thicker then any western tanks hatch.

Unmanned turret doesnt really mean it will get high kill ratio. what makes tank superior is its engine, manouver,

Autoloaders allows for a smaller turret, smaller turret equals less weight, less weight better mobility and better mpg/kph.









You are heavily underestimating the value of an unmanned turret. Russia has built secret prototype unmanned tanks before the Armata was even created. Take into account how many years and money was put into the unmanned tank program and how much more complex an unmanned turret is. Do you think Russia would go through all of that trouble for nothing? Especially when Russian tank designers like to use simplicity and cost effective solutions. The unmanned turret is neither, so for Russia to put so much time, effort and deviate from traditional design indicates that there is an obvious advantage and a big one.


The Armata can not be in the same class as any NATO tanks just as the F-22 can not be considered in the same class as legacy fighters. The unmanned turret gives the Armata large advantages that no tank with a manned turret can make up for. The first is survivability, if the Armata's turret is breached the crew will not be harmed and the tank may even continue fighting if no major gun components are damaged, the same applies to the Armata's hull because the crew is isolated even if the hull is breached the crew will likely be unharmed. If any western tanks turret is breached then the crew either is killed or so badly injured that the tank is out of commission. The same thing applies for IED attacks; there are plenty of photos from Iraq of Abrams getting their turrets blown off by IEDs which obviously kills the crew, if the Armata's turret is blown off the crew will not be harmed. And of course there is the weight savings, some NATO turrets weight over 20 tons, take into account how much weight the Armata's turret will save and the benefits of that. With all of the weight saved the designers can use extra armor to protect the hull and still remain lighter than many other tanks while have similar or even better protection.









I believe you are talking about an ammunition storage bustle. That is totally different from an unmanned turret and the Armata is said to have one to. Tanks like the Altay still have manned turrets. The crew is spread out throughout the tank, meaning if the tank's armor is penetrated someone is either getting hurt or killed. The other advantage that the Armata has is that the crew all sit together in an armored capsule, meaning they can even survive if the hull outside their capsule is breached. The only part of the hull of a western tank that is isolated is the engine compartment.








The armata is said to have the Afgahnis active protection system. The previous active protection system was the Arena as you can see in the video it is real and it does work.

No operational tank has an unmanned turret. Read my full post explaining its advantages and how its completely different from a manned turret. And thicker hatches indicate thicker roof armor, thicker roof armor protects against top attacks from RPGs and anti tank rockets.

They say Russia secretly developed the tank, but the prototype that would go to Parade, breaks down twice(2) while testing around.
ALso, Russia’s Stealth Fighter Is in Serious Trouble
These are what i exactly meant high end products..
the active protection system you mentioned is nothing more than just a video.. In a war, no missiles come to you from the side (90 degree). Why dont Russians let others to try it as they do the same for t-50?
I think, Russia tries to show off, instead of doing its best to develop subsystems..
More you believe to these success, more you lose year by year!!!
DOnt take it offensive, but life will show you all..