Russia says it's T14 Armata tank can fight on Mars.

Russian technology, allow to start the diesel engine "Armata" at low temperatures. In this case, supercapacitors are used to store a large amount of electricity. You can compare this feature of the T-14 with the capabilities of hybrid cars. By the way, it is noted that the use of supercapacitors allows the use of smaller batteries, so that space for fuel and ammunition is freed.

 

At the moment, Russia does not use reusable missiles. This is economically not profitable. In the USSR, a reusable shuttle "Buran" was created. But disposable rockets are much more effective. Therefore, in the US, they refused the Shuttle.

Now a new shuttle canoe is being developed in Russia. Taking into account new technologies.

And why do you always talk about a reusable shuttle? This is the past stage. Russia abandoned it earlier, the US later. What is the problem? Do you have nothing more to be proud of in the space industry?

 

The reference to Mars was just to get attention

And it worked

This russian tank is a real threat to the M1 Abrams

 

I don't always talk about anything regarding space travel.

How are your Mars rovers plodding along?

 

They out tank everyone on both quality and quantity. And indeed the two are very much connected.
Practise makes perfect. World leaders in any market place, have got there for a reason.

They simply place a higher focus on armoured warfare than other countries. Tank divisions are the senior service in their military.
They replace their tanks constantly, the Yanks still operate old clunkers from 50 years ago. They are something like 3 generations ahead of you currently. And even a generation ahead of us.

 

Anti tank weapons are cheaper and quicker to build than tanks

But the russian iron is pretty good and must be respected on the battlefield

 

They need "quantity"...since they get destroyed quickly. The ones I saw here at Air Force days at Ellsworth, were from mid 2000s, they don't close to an Abrams.

 

In modern warfare there is a name for tanks. They are called "targets".

 

They don't have to come close to an Abrams, they have double it's range.
Less weight, less crew, low profile, better FCS, better manoeuvrability, better armour better guns and better ammo. Better defences and greater numbers.
Maybe you could make a case for American crew training and experience. But I doubt it.

The Abrams is anything but obsolete, but it is to a T90, what an Abrams is to a T55. Don't bother trying to race the Russians on tanks. You will lose that race just as you have with nukes and rockets.
Quantity counts. The number of design generations is the key factor here.
Each time they update it, they improve it.
Just as every Abrams mod did, only they did a lot more mods and a lot of complete redesigns too.
We are all proud of our own militaries. All confident in our ability to give battle and win.
But you aren't the tank guys. Sorry.
They will roll you. Do unto you as you did unto Saddam.

The only defence you have against them is nukes. All we've got that can stand against them.

Personally I think it's an anachronistic strategy. As the guy above posts, tank = target. Tank crew = most likely person to die in WW2.
I think their focus on tanks leaves them weak to man portable AT.
I'm not confident in their missile shoot down systems.

Something about 1% of the price of a Javelin, like Sagger.
A butt load of them rendered tanks obsolete on the battlefield.
Stopped Israels Merkava's dead in their tracks.
They more they sent in, the more they lost.

TOWs in Syria seem to be having a similar effect.

Javelin equipped scouts on the Kurdish front in the Iraq invasion, did the exact same job as the tank armies on the other fronts for a fraction of the resources.

4 squishy guys vs tank columns. That sort of thing.

 

Hahaha Mars is a luminous gas ball. Go'd dam'n idiots. We have telescopes now..maybe get one and have a look?. believe everything they tell you without question or investigation. That's called blind faith which has got us nowhere in the last 2000 years. Just like the moon passes infront of the sun causing eclipse..lol we know that a load of BS now too because if it comes from NASA its all BS.

Oh and forum dont sensor my post you monkeys that's an attack on my right to free speech which is an act of war -_-..

 

"They will roll us", right, well I'm guessing they have air support while doing so? If not, about 10 seconds after they supposedly "roll us", they will come up against A10s, Apaches, Supercobras, which will turn those T90s into scrap metal, like 20 seconds ago. T90 is just an upgraded T72.

Now I'm assuming you think the Abrams crew is totally incompetent to get"rolled" by the Ivan's....which they aren't...so if the Ivan's can get close to an Abrams without it shooting a sabot round through that T90 like a hot knife through warm butter.

Do unto us like we did Saddam? Really? Part 1 or the sequel Shock &awe? If part one, I recall those highly trained Iraqi soldiers, including majors, colonel's, generals trained by the Soviets/Russians back in the day, what was it, 3-4000 of them surrendering to about 20 US Marines...priceless. The Russians must've been gleeful seeing the results of their labor being humiliated.6 months later or so the SU collapsed, poetic!

All we have is nukes against them??? Uh huh...I think it's the other way around. Russkis like attacking someone who doesn't have"capabilities", like Ukraine, georgia, threaten Baltics. They really won't touch anyone with capabilities, which can result in huge losses of life. The assets, personnel, troops we have in East Europe could probably be in Moscow within 48 hrs, so the Russians should keep their nukes warm, it's their only saving grace.


.
Myth of mighty Russian tank.

 

Tanks are basically only good in specific environments. Drones are the future and the more drones we put up the more tanks become obselete.

 

Yes, such as Europe.


Consider drone tanks and drone submarines too.
Cocaine smuggling was attempted in a semi submersible drone.
Who knows how many made it through. We do know of the ones intercepted.

We can make manned crews obsolete.

 

I know about manned coke subs, never heard of a drone coke sub.

Have a link? I'm lazy tonight.

 

Okay maybe they were manned, never mind.



Meanwhile.
How about drone tanks and submarines?

 

Drone submarines definitely are going to happen. No need to place mines when you can have automated torpedoes just hang around and launch themselves at enemy ships. I suspect that in the future whenever a fleet is stopped or moving at a slow enough rate they will deploy an umbrella of underwater and air drones just circling around by the dozens ready to instantly react to any threat before the human operators even blink an eye.

Drone tanks I won't hold my breath for. Anything large and land bound is going to be at a disadvantage by definition unless its heavily armored and that is very expensive. Also, its much easier to refuel drones that fly than drones that are on the ground.

 

Is everyone joking or did yall really miss the point? The Armata (ostencibly) being able to operate on mars is merely a whimsicle method of ssying 'it can operate in the most extreme conditions imagineable.' Of course, its still in development, so anything could happen. But essentially, it is not dependent on a particular climate range and is deployable to all parts of the globe and in all conditions. This is a tactical advantage because it simplifies the logistics of deployment. Many a battle have been lost due to unforseen climatic or environmental conditions that caused a lack of equipment function. Eliminating this in a main battle tank is quite an acheivement.

Of course, the Armata is prohibitively expensive. Russia wont be feilding them in any effective number for quite a while.

Honestly I find their recent retrofit of the T-72 with a barrage of dumbfire hyperbarric missiles to be an impressive (and very high impact/low cost) innovation. They already have craploads of T-72s sitting around, and the dumbfire hyperbarric missiles are extremely effective (against everything thats *not* a tank) relative to cost.

I should also add that the Armata, being as automated and electronically interconnected as it is, paired with Russias recent increased intetest in AI is somewhat alarming. The Armata is already set up to be a 'remote control' tank operating on a computerized battlefeild, in automated communication with drones, satelites and other similarly connected battlefeild assets. And now, apparently, is preset to withstand a multitude of environmental conditions, reducing (or eliminating) the need for a crew to manually rig the vehicle for adverse conditions. The only thing missing is a centralized intelligence complicated enough to coordinate everything in real time and make tactical decisions in battle.

Can anyone say Skynet?

 

Sounds great. Seems flying / submerged drones would be better tactically, but let's rock.

 

No one wants to invest in drone tanks?
I mean for stuff we now send people inside a tank.
Trusting air power over a land presence is a repeated military error. Yup.
And each time they think because their air power is so much better than last time . . . . . correct?

 

Comparing military airpower of the past, & the current / future drone capabilities is apples to radishes.

Pilots don't die when drones are destroyed.

Drones can fly 24/7.

There's a long list, but I'm tired.

 

When air power wins the war without nucs,
it will be a first. That idea failed in WW2 and Vietnam too.
Support Drone Tanks because it's closer to boots on the ground.


g'nite save it for tomorrow tired one.

 

And we're eons away from WW2 when we're talking about air power.

Make no mistake, I never said we could win wars solely in the air.

Just as we cannot win them solely with tanks, or any other single weapon.

The age of the tank, IMO, is now like the age of Biplanes.

 

My you are tired. You forgot to diss the Vietnam comparison too.

Ground and Air !