Probably the most important element in all of this is the logistical implications of using the same base chassis and drive system for multiple weapons systems designed for supporting operation. The second point is how much they have emphasized reducing the training time needed for competent operation.
For all that they talk about how well defended this tank will be, they are very serious about making sure a deployed force can readily sustain 'mission kills' against the vehicles and crew casualties. Of course, this "become a tanker" video is part of that as well.
February 1, 2016 at 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...
Tell me if Armada can go up against my Ratheon BGM-71F.
February 1, 2016 at 9:33 PM
Anonymous said...
Impressive. Our Abrams can't do that (I know them inside and out and upside down), beyond that I WON'T say more about my experience. Im surprised the Russians allowed that much out into the public domain and as an old Abrams tanker (way more than DoD would ever allow out about our equipment, I love to get in it and operate it.
Signed.....
February 2, 2016 at 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...
Of course, when you make the choice to use extensive electronics in a tank (or any other fighting vehicle), what do you do when your enemy detonates an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) weapon and disables your electronics? Of course, they will have tried to "harden" their electronics, but if I were in one of those, I would want to be able to fall back upon manual controls, and using optics for target acquisition. I also wonder what the shock of a projectile hitting the vehicle and vibrating it would do for all of the electronics.
And didn't the US Army find that be using fewer men in crews made it harder to do field maintenance/repairs? After all, tanks have lots of heavy stuff that needs strong men to move st times.
"A long way since the T-34: A guide to Russia's T-14 Armata tank"
4 Comments -
Probably the most important element in all of this is the logistical implications of using the same base chassis and drive system for multiple weapons systems designed for supporting operation. The second point is how much they have emphasized reducing the training time needed for competent operation.
For all that they talk about how well defended this tank will be, they are very serious about making sure a deployed force can readily sustain 'mission kills' against the vehicles and crew casualties. Of course, this "become a tanker" video is part of that as well.
February 1, 2016 at 7:11 PM
Tell me if Armada can go up against my Ratheon BGM-71F.
February 1, 2016 at 9:33 PM
Impressive. Our Abrams can't do that (I know them inside and out and upside down), beyond that I WON'T say more about my experience. Im surprised the Russians allowed that much out into the public domain and as an old Abrams tanker (way more than DoD would ever allow out about our equipment, I love to get in it and operate it.
Signed.....
February 2, 2016 at 8:11 AM
Of course, when you make the choice to use extensive electronics in a tank (or any other fighting vehicle), what do you do when your enemy detonates an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) weapon and disables your electronics? Of course, they will have tried to "harden" their electronics, but if I were in one of those, I would want to be able to fall back upon manual controls, and using optics for target acquisition. I also wonder what the shock of a projectile hitting the vehicle and vibrating it would do for all of the electronics.
And didn't the US Army find that be using fewer men in crews made it harder to do field maintenance/repairs? After all, tanks have lots of heavy stuff that needs strong men to move st times.
Rusty
February 7, 2016 at 11:49 AM