The Sandman
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,645
- Reaction score
- 16
- Country
- Location
The one that can be easily mass produced during WAR time and has a lower failure rate.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
like stalin said " quantity itself is a quality"The one that can be easily mass produced during WAR time and has a lower failure rate.
Its very real:
Armata is based on old Soviet Object 195 prototype. Nothing super modern about it.
Armata is much larger and several times more expensive than current Russian tanks.
False. USSR made very primitive APS in 1983. Because of poor performance it was thrown to trash just 7 years later in 1990.
More bunch of crap. Israeli APS works on completely different concept and much more advanced in all regards.
They did not copy anything.
RD-180 is used on Atlas-5. US has two wonderful equivalents of this rocket: Falcon-9 and Delta-4 with US engines.
It says chassis. Which also was modified. No need to be an Einstein to see that hull is very different, both inside and outside:
From top Armata is not more resistant than any legacy tank. Actually compare to Merkava 4 its less.
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.
Yes, and Brits copied tank concept from Yan Jijka armored wagon concept. Shame on themWhat is false? The first APS came from the Soviet Union. Israel copied the concept. I know facts are something you aren't familiar with.
There is nothing common between them:It's an exact copy. The original Drozd used a radar and and fired fragmentation warhead. The Trophy uses the exact same method. Again it's interesting that you claim Russia is so far behind when they pioneered so much and other countries ended up copying.
No you are hurt thats why u invent rubbish stories.Truth hurts. Israel copied the Drozd. The Druzd has been around since the 1970s, the Trophy came out recently. Are you going to give credit to Israel for the first satellite or rocket too
Your F-35 also is based on work from Yak and their engineering.
Gosh what an idiot.The US has zero equivalent to the RD-180. The US is far behind in rocket engine and that's hard for you to swallow. US engine are much weaker, heavier and have lower burn time. The RD-180 is not cheap, if the US wanted cheap they would buy from China or someone else but chose the RD-180 because of its performance. Money is not an Issue for the US.
RD180: 930,000lbs thrust
RS-68: 705,000lbs thrust (Delta IV)
Merlin 1D: 205,000lbs thrust (Falcon)
The RD-180 is superior in every aspect.
U claimed that its just Abrams with different turret, which is pure nonsense,.Thanks you Einstein, for pointing out the obvious. The TTB was just an early and probably modified Abrams chassis with a mock up turret. The TTB was nothing more then a mockup itself. It had none of the features of Armata and there is zero proof that the US was able to even get the turret to function let alone fire.
Top resistance of Armata is not a secret. U can easily see it. Even legacy Merkava Mk4 has more thick top than Armata.How would you know how resistant the T-14 is? Do you have classified information regarding its armor protection levels? Do you know it's armor thickness? You know nothing about the T-14 and you are making dubious claims.
There is nothing common between them:
1) Drozd protects only front (which is least vulnerable part anyway), Trophy is lighter and protects 360 grad.
2) Drozd uses primitive pulse doppler radar, Trophy uses 4 advanced AESA radars which also provide 360 grad situational awareness.
3) Drozd uses huge static fragment shells to hit rounds, which are very bulky, heavy and produce huge collateral damage. While Trophy uses small rotating launcher which hits rounds with explosive charge projectiles with minimal collateral damage (less than ERA).
Trophy is combat proven and successful system while Drozd was thrown to trash 7 years after it was first introduced.
No you are hurt thats why u invent rubbish stories.
Gosh what an idiot.
RD-180 dry weight - 5,480 kg
Merlin-1D dry weight - 470 kg
I.e. 10 Merlin-1D weight much less than 1 RD-180 and provide 2.2 more thrust than RD-180.
And overall you must check final products. Falcon-9 and Delta-4 with all US engines have virtually same performance as Atlas-4.
U claimed that its just Abrams with different turret, which is pure nonsense,.
Top resistance of Armata is not a secret. U can easily see it. Even legacy Merkava Mk4 has more thick top than Armata.
like stalin said " quantity itself is a quality"
Using radar to destroy incoming projectiles is not a Russian invention.In other words Israel just copied the Drozd. Fact: Trophy uses radar and a projectile to destroy incoming rounds. If we are generous, Israel ripped off the idea from Drozd and Arena.
It was never used in any Afghanistan. It was thrown into trash just 7 years after in was introduced. Major fail.Nothing was thrown into the trash. It was used in Afghanistan and successor systems such as the Arena and now Afghanit arrived. The Soviets Union never fully implemented the Drozd due the cost of equipping 50+ tanks.
Show me a combat footage of MiG-29 taking off with heavy load or Su-24 with guided bombs and stop bitching once for all..Lockheed Martin Itself revealed it partnered with Yakalev in 1994. Lockheed had access to the Yak-141 and Yak had consultant work on the F-35 program. I know you have a history of denial such as Mig-29s can't take off with heavy loads, SU-24s can't drop precision weapons, etc.
You can't read what I wrote? I said 10 Merlins weight less than 1 RD-180 and yet have 2.2 more thrust.Yep, you're an idiot. The Merlin 1D does not have 2.2 time more thrust then the RD-180. You are counting all 10 Engines from first and second stage of the Falcon and comparing it to a single RD-180.
No my source said it used modified chassis. So what?No, it was your source that said that... Moron.
No Merkava has more thickness. Also Merkava hatch weights much more too.Sorry in engineering and development you can't "see"anything. You have to rigorously design and test something to see how well it works. The Hatches on the T-14 and Merkava IV are roughly the same in thickness. The thickness itself doesn't tell you anything about the performance of the armor.
Now u start idiotic butthurt rant, just because I noted that Merkava top is better protected than ur super duper Armata.Merkavas were easily penetrated in Lebonon while being hit in armored areas much thicker then a roof. Even some old T-90s servived being hit in Syria. Case in point, the Merkava was exposed as overrated. No wonder it has no customers.
Armata is far more better than Abrams
The T-14 Armata is light years ahead of the M1 Abrams and all other MBTs of the world. It will make the current technology obsolete as soon as it enters service.
One of the worst and most ill-informed arguments.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.
Thanks for your effort. I stand by my words.T-14 Armata = tech demonstrater
M1 Abrams = proven design
In-fact, the new M1A2 Abrams SEP (V3) incorporates truly state-of-the-art features on an established design. The most frightening aspect of it is that it will be armed with new types of ammo.
One of the worst and most ill-informed arguments.
A T-14 Armata MBT unit suffered a malfunction during a parade in 2015. It had to be towed out. Can it get more embarassing then this?
And you don't know the whole story. Pakistani military officials witnessed the trails of an M1A1 Abrams in the US mainland [first] and they were stunned by its performance. A request was made to dispatch one unit to Pakistan afterwards and this unit (reportedly) malfunctioned [not a single documented evidence by the way]. However, the deal was called off due to political tensions at the time; the top brass of Pakistan army had perished in an incident and Zia's successor was staunchly Anti-American. It was convenient for him to contruct the narrative that M1A1 Abrams was a bad tank. Same guy predicted horrendous defeat of the US in the Persian Gulf War (1991) and we all know how it turned out.
Kindly do your homework before commenting on these matters. The M1 Abrams represents one of the best MBT designs in existence and its latest variants are miles ahead of anything stationed in the subcontinent.
What do you mean by this? What is so special about T-14 Armata? Does it fly or something? Does it shoots laser beams?They are not the same generation. Abrams vs T-14 is like Me-109K vs P-51.