Armata vs Abrams Which one is better?

[500]

Can you please confirm the name of this project? I have never heard of it. Could be an internet spoof.

Its very real:

Firstly the technology of decades earlier is much weaker than what is available today, and so we don't know if the Armata has overcome the issues of this American prototype.

Armata is based on old Soviet Object 195 prototype. Nothing super modern about it.

Secondly, if the Russians have to build a new vehicle, why shouldn't they go for an unmanned turret as opposed to a manned turret? Why is it so hard to digest that one would go for an unmanned turret even if it offers only marginal improvements? Designing, testing and manufacturing is a gargantuan exercise, so why wouldn't they incorporate this unmanned turret which reduces the tank size, improves its mobility and reduces its cost simultaneously?

Armata is much larger and several times more expensive than current Russian tanks.

 

[cloud4000]

1 thing about Armata I don't like is the unmanned turret, to do that, you need quite a lot of automation, which mean there are going to put more maintenance/calibration time on the tank, and you have to do with 1 less crew member, which mean the downtime is longer.

Another issue I can think of is the misfire situation, how are Armata going to clear out the misfire situation when the turret is unmanned? I don't think you can do it without stopping the tank, and misfire happened quite often in war. Unless they have a way to clear the misfire round without stopping, this would be one of the major draw down on the tank itself.

Unmanned turret means auto-loading system. Russian tanks have a reputation for cranky auto-loading systems. Hopefully, they have sorted it out with the Armata.

 

[war&peace]

T-14 Armata hands down is the best tank in the world. USA tried to sell Abraham but can't find customers for it. It was offered to PA in 80's and was rejected. Even T-90 is better than Abraham. Russia has produced some of the best tanks in the world since WWII.

 

[usmankhan9]

T-14 Armata hands down is the best tank in the world. USA tried to sell Abraham but can't find customers for it. It was offered to PA in 80's and was rejected. Even T-90 is better than Abraham. Russia has produced some of the best tanks in the world since WWII.

I think everybody agrees with that but that Israeli guy lives in another world where American weapons are "light years ahead". Not even the American mainstream media or politician or even the military use those phrases.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Anyone downgrading the american weapon---just for the sake of it---or in spite of---do it at your peril---.

And yes---the american weaponry is the most superior weaponry produced at this time---regardless of what you young ones can think of---.

 

[ptldM3]

Armata which has not entered the service yet can be easily destroyed with Javelin or Spike ATGMs which entered the service 20 years ago.

The Armata is not the Merkava

Once again you have a habit of making BS claims with zero proof, looks like you enjoy helf humiliation. The Armata has an active self protection system, a systems that they had since the 1970s and systems that Israel copied.

US technologies are light years ahead of Russian. There is nothing to compare here.

Is that why the US buys expensive Russian rocket engines? The US hired Yak consultants to build the F-35 and used the Yak-144s technologies to aid in the F-35 development. Russia had HMS 20 years before the US. Russia had technology which it took the US decades later to make equivalency to.

The concept of Armata was tested in US decades ago:

View attachment 430937

The reason why it was ditched is because vs. modern top attack munition there is no any difference. Ditto mines, ditto side and rear attacks.

The reason it was ditched was because of cost and immature technology at the time. At the end it was just Abrams with different turret. Considering it was a concept it couldn't even do anything other then look good for cameras, nor did it incorporate active protection, auto tracking, ERA, ability to fire ATGMs, or have compatibility with other vehicles to reduce cost like the T-14.


The Armata has superior protection compared to a traditional tank. It's turret can be blown off and the crew will survive while in a traditional tank the crew dies. The entire crew sits in capsule in front of the tank which is the safest part of any tank, basically the crew will survive any penatration, turret, hull, and the crew will be safe.

Its very real:

View attachment 430971

View attachment 430972


Armata is based on old Soviet Object 195 prototype. Nothing super modern about it.

The 195 is not a Soviet project and has nothing to do with the T-14. By your token the Merkava IV is based on 1970s technology...nothing modern about it. In fact why not just say it's based on ww1 tanks like the mark 1?

 

[usmankhan9]

Hi,

Anyone downgrading the american weapon---just for the sake of it---or in spite of---do it at your peril---.

And yes---the american weaponry is the most superior weaponry produced at this time---regardless of what you young ones can think of---.

I dont know who told you this but there are many weapon systems around the world that are superior to the American analogues. Btw the Americans admit that openly just start reading military history since the first world war and you'll know.

 

[500]

The Armata is not the Merkava

Once again you have a habit of making BS claims with zero proof, looks like you enjoy helf humiliation. The Armata has an active self protection system, a systems that they had since the 1970s and systems that Israel copied.

All ur claims are total rubbish. Beside you can install APS on any tank, no need to make new super expensive tank for that.

Is that why the US buys expensive Russian rocket engines? The US hired Yak consultants to build the F-35 and used the Yak-144s technologies to aid in the F-35 development. Russia had HMS 20 years before the US. Russia had technology which it took the US decades later to make equivalency to.

Russian rocket engines are simply cheaper.

The reason it was ditched was because of cost and immature technology at the time. At the end it was just Abrams with different turret. Considering it was a concept it couldn't even do anything other then look good for cameras, nor did it incorporate active protection, auto tracking, ERA, ability to fire ATGMs, or have compatibility with other vehicles to reduce cost like the T-14.

No its not Abrams with different turret. Hull is very different.

The Armata has superior protection compared to a traditional tank. It's turret can be blown off and the crew will survive while in a traditional tank the crew dies. The entire crew sits in capsule in front of the tank which is the safest part of any tank, basically the crew will survive any penatration, turret, hull, and the crew will be safe.

Armata which is still in development can easily be destroyed by Spike and Javelin which entered service 20 years ago.

The 195 is not a Soviet project and has nothing to do with the T-14. By your token the Merkava IV is based on 1970s technology...nothing modern about it. In fact why not just say it's based on ww1 tanks like the mark 1?

T-14 is downgraded 195 with 125-mm canon instead of 152-mm.

 

[MastanKhan]

I dont know who told you this but there are many weapon systems around the world that are superior to the American analogues. Btw the Americans admit that openly just start reading military history since the first world war and you'll know.

Hi,

First of all welcome to the board---.

Second---at your age---someone has to "tell you that"----.

At my age---I have "seen most of it FIRST HAND or experienced it".

We are talking about current weapons---. 1st WW started over a 100 years ago---it set a foundation for the future weapons to come---and no more.

Enjoy the forum young man---there is a lot here for you to learn and understand---if you want to---.

Learn from what the Israeli members are telling you on this board---most of them would be straight and upfront.

 

[ptldM3]

All ur claims are total rubbish. Beside you can install APS on any tank, no need to make new super expensive tank for that.

Russia created the first active protection system in the 1970s. Israel copied the concept or most likely stole it since the entire Israeli defense industry is based on theft. That is a fact. It's actually laughable that you claim "the US is lightyears" ahead of Russia considering they copied so much from Russia and in some cases decades later.

Russian rocket engines are simply cheaper.

You are simply making things up. They are technologically more advanced. In old interview from years ago a NASA employee flatout stated the US and Japan could not make an equivalent to the RD-180, their rocket engines were dangerously unreliable and weak.

No its not Abrams with different turret. Hull is very different.

Idiot. The source you posted says it uses a Abrams hull. It doesn't also need to look exactly like the modern Abrams hull to be an Abrams hull. Just like the prototype SU-27 doesn't look like the production SU-27. Early Abrams had a number of odd hull and turret combinations.

Armata which is still in development can easily be destroyed by Spike and Javelin which entered service 20 years ago.

And you literally can't prove any of that. Just more jealousy and BS on your part. While the world knows even old Russian ATGMs can knock out Merkavas which is pretty pathetic considering the Merkava weighs as much as 43 killed whales.

T-14 is downgraded 195 with 125-mm canon instead of 152-mm.

Here is the 195.

The 195 was a test bed. It was built to see if a concept of a remote turret and isolated 3 man crew was possible. It has nothing to do with the T-14.


Let's use some consistency, the TTB you claim does not use a Abrams chassis (your own source said it does) but you claimed just by the looks it's not an Abrams chassis. The 195 doesn't look anything like the T-14 but you claim it is.


The fact is. You are a fool. You constantly contradict yourself.

 

[500]

Russia created the first active protection system in the 1970s.

False. USSR made very primitive APS in 1983. Because of poor performance it was thrown to trash just 7 years later in 1990.

Israel copied the concept or most likely stole it since the entire Israeli defense industry is based on theft. That is a fact.

More bunch of crap. Israeli APS works on completely different concept and much more advanced in all regards.

It's actually laughable that you claim "the US is lightyears" ahead of Russia considering they copied so much from Russia and in some cases decades later.

They did not copy anything.

You are simply making things up. They are technologically more advanced. In old interview from years ago a NASA employee flatout stated the US and Japan could not make an equivalent to the RD-180, their rocket engines were dangerously unreliable and weak.

RD-180 is used on Atlas-5. US has two wonderful equivalents of this rocket: Falcon-9 and Delta-4 with US engines.

Idiot. The source you posted says it uses a Abrams hull. It doesn't also need to look exactly like the modern Abrams hull to be an Abrams hull. Just like the prototype SU-27 doesn't look like the production SU-27. Early Abrams had a number of odd hull and turret combinations.

It says chassis. Which also was modified. No need to be an Einstein to see that hull is very different, both inside and outside:

And you literally can't prove any of that. Just more jealousy and BS on your part. While the world knows even old Russian ATGMs can knock out Merkavas which is pretty pathetic considering the Merkava weighs as much as 43 killed whales.

From top Armata is not more resistant than any legacy tank. Actually compare to Merkava 4 its less.

The 195 was a test bed. It was built to see if a concept of a remote turret and isolated 3 man crew was possible. It has nothing to do with the T-14.

Its everything to do with it. Anyway it does not change the fact that from top sides rear and bellow its not more resistant than any legacy tank. And nowadays vast majority of threats come from these directions.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

False. USSR made very primitive APS in 1983. Because of poor performance it was thrown to trash just 7 years later in 1990.

To be fair it was made in 1977-1978, it was called Drozd

RD-180 is used on Atlas-5. US has two wonderful equivalents of this rocket: Falcon-9 and Delta-4 with US engines.

According to Jerry Gray, a rocket expert, the Usa would struggle: "the development, integration and reliability demonstration of a new large U.S. liquid-propellant rocket engine cannot be accomplished for years to come"

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/why-does-u-s-use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526

From top Armata is not more resistant than any legacy tank. Actually compare to Merkava 4 its less.

How are you so sure about that? I wouldn't underestimate the Russians like that.
And the Armata isn't even in production yet.

Its everything to do with it. Anyway it does not change the fact that from top sides rear and bellow its not more resistant than any legacy tank. And nowadays vast majority of threats come from these directions.

What are you even arguing about? The T-14 Armata likely inherited some of the 195 tech (unmanned turret), like the TTB did (the Chassis).
I really don't see the issue of taking something you tested previously into a new design and (attempt) to improve it, but I digress.

 

[500]

To be fair it was made in 1977-1978, it was called Drozd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozd
Drozd was made in 1983 and thrown to trash in 1990.

According to Jerry Gray, a rocket expert, the Usa would struggle: "the development, integration and reliability demonstration of a new large U.S. liquid-propellant rocket engine cannot be accomplished for years to come"

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/why-does-u-s-use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526

I repeat. US has two excellent alternatives to Atlas-5 RIGHT NOW: Delta-4 and Falcon-9.

How are you so sure about that? I wouldn't underestimate the Russians like that.
And the Armata isn't even in production yet.

Because u can see Armata's hatches. They are less thick than Merkava-4's.

 

[usmankhan9]

Hi,

First of all welcome to the board---.

Second---at your age---someone has to "tell you that"----.

At my age---I have "seen most of it FIRST HAND or experienced it".

We are talking about current weapons---. 1st WW started over a 100 years ago---it set a foundation for the future weapons to come---and no more.

Enjoy the forum young man---there is a lot here for you to learn and understand---if you want to---.

Learn from what the Israeli members are telling you on this board---most of them would be straight and upfront.

Thank you! Well sir age is just a number and what I meant for the Israeli member to understand that since the early 20th century many other other weapon systems have been outperforming American counterparts in wars up till now. But unfortunately the Israeli member has a very one sided and biased approach towards this subject so there is nothing to learn or understand for anyone from such members with all dew respect

UK military threatened & amazed by Russia’s ‘revolutionary’ Armata tank – leak
Published time: 6 Nov, 2016 16:59 Edited time: 6 Nov, 2016 20:39
Get short URL

Demonstration of a T-14 Armata tank © Ministry of defence of the Russian Federation / Sputnik
715
Russia’s Armata tank is hailed as revolutionary in a leaked internal paper from British military intelligence, in which doubts are expressed about whether the UK has what it takes to counter the Kremlin’s newest armor.
The paper, which was put together after an Armata prototype was revealed to the world at the Victory Parade in Moscow on May 9, 2015, was obtained by the Sunday Telegraph.

“Without hyperbole, Armata represents the most revolutionary step change in tank design in the last half century,” a senior British Army intelligence officer wrote in the five-page intelligence report, according to the newspaper.

Armata is faster, lighter, and has a lower profile than modern Western tanks, while boasting a breakthrough turret design that gives its crew much better protection while under fire, the document stressed.

“For the first time, a fully automated, digitized, unmanned turret has been incorporated into a main battle tank. And for the first time, a tank crew is embedded within an armored capsule in the hull front,” it said.

UK intelligence suggested that the tank will be equipped with the same state-of-the-art radar system currently employed on Russian fighter jets, as well as new composite armor.Armada also has a “reported higher muzzle velocity” gun, with the possibility of an upgraded missile system, the paper added.

“As a complete package, Armata certainly deserves its billing as the most revolutionary tank in a generation,” the author of the internal report wrote, adding that, “unsurprisingly, the tank has caused a sensation.”

 

[MastanKhan]

Thank you! Well sir age is just a number and what I meant for the Israeli member to understand that since the early 20th century many other other weapon systems have been outperforming American counterparts in wars up till now. But unfortunately the Israeli member has a very one sided and biased approach towards this subject so there is nothing to learn or understand for anyone from such members with all dew respect

UK military threatened & amazed by Russia’s ‘revolutionary’ Armata tank – leak
Published time: 6 Nov, 2016 16:59 Edited time: 6 Nov, 2016 20:39
Get short URL

Demonstration of a T-14 Armata tank © Ministry of defence of the Russian Federation / Sputnik
715
Russia’s Armata tank is hailed as revolutionary in a leaked internal paper from British military intelligence, in which doubts are expressed about whether the UK has what it takes to counter the Kremlin’s newest armor.
The paper, which was put together after an Armata prototype was revealed to the world at the Victory Parade in Moscow on May 9, 2015, was obtained by the Sunday Telegraph.

“Without hyperbole, Armata represents the most revolutionary step change in tank design in the last half century,” a senior British Army intelligence officer wrote in the five-page intelligence report, according to the newspaper.

Armata is faster, lighter, and has a lower profile than modern Western tanks, while boasting a breakthrough turret design that gives its crew much better protection while under fire, the document stressed.

“For the first time, a fully automated, digitized, unmanned turret has been incorporated into a main battle tank. And for the first time, a tank crew is embedded within an armored capsule in the hull front,” it said.

UK intelligence suggested that the tank will be equipped with the same state-of-the-art radar system currently employed on Russian fighter jets, as well as new composite armor.Armada also has a “reported higher muzzle velocity” gun, with the possibility of an upgraded missile system, the paper added.

“As a complete package, Armata certainly deserves its billing as the most revolutionary tank in a generation,” the author of the internal report wrote, adding that, “unsurprisingly, the tank has caused a sensation.”

Hi,

Indeed age is just a number---. When you reach that number in your life---you will understand what it brings with it---.