Vladimir Putin's new T-14 Armata tank breaks down
 

http://images.f169bbs.com/content/20...down-16632.jpg

A new Russian tank announced with much fanfare as superior to Western machines stalled during a dress rehearsal for Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on Thursday.

The T-14 Armata, making only its second public appearance, ground to a halt on Red Square, opposite Vladimir Lenin's mausoleum.

Sergei Shoigu, Russia's defence minster, was reportedly forced to approach the tank to find out what had happened; servicemen then tried to hook it up to another military vehicle and tow it away.

Putin's new tank designed to 'outclass the West? breaks down - Telegraph

Is this the pinnacle of Russian military technology?

:1orglaugh

I guess it won't be able to shoot down the F35

go figure

:pimp:pimp:pimp

1) Never knew that Putin is a tank constructor. Thanks for sharing.
2) It took up to additional 9 years to improve the previous T-72 tank to its best condition. On the other hand, T-14 was created in 2 years only. So make your conclusions :pimp

My 2 cents: the tank is too raw and it was a very stupid idea to take it to parade. Need more time to make it perfect like AK assault riffle family, R-36 Satan, Kamov Ka-52, Topol-M, SA-21 Growler, Shkval 2 etc. All those weapons are still best in the world, but their improvement took some time, which is definitely more than 2 years.

P.S. Why America Should Really Fear Russia's Armata T-14 Tank | The National Interest

pathfinder's ghost messed with the cables :winkwink:

"ground to a halt on Red Square, opposite Vladimir Lenin's mausoleum." I guess "Father Lenin", wanted to check it out :Graucho

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Germany makes the best tanks. Russia does not The end.

The US has decided the tank is no longer needed in modern warfare. We are trying to stop production. Not sure I agree but it is interesting how both countries are doing it different.

Ah if the US decided so, it changes everything :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

P.S. As about the modern tanks. Yes Germany and Israel make the best ones today. So let's see if the situation will change soon or it won't ;)

There has not been a major tank battle in over 40 years.
Tanks are only good for mop-up operations in the theater of battle and for para-military police use to intimidate.

Tanks are a primary battle weapon against poorly equipped armies and irregular insurrectionists. Tanks suck on maneuverability in urban warfare; tearing up streets and knocking the sides off buildings.

Saddam had lots of tanks and they got cut to shreds from the air.

Tell this to Israeli army which successfully uses their Merkavas in Palestine. Also tell it to Georgians that were equipped and trained by the USA and lost the land war to Russia in 5 days.

Hint: he had no modern air defense systems. This is why Israel said their air forces will be useless against Iran if Russia will sell S-300 to Hassan Rouhani. Now think about SA-21 Growler which can intercept a flying target that moves with a speed of Mach 14 (about 17,000 km/h) and covers up to 400 km range with up to 56 km altitude. Stealth technology is not a problem for that system as well (it was initially designed to intercept aircrafts with a stealth system) :pimp

Against an irregular army using light weaponry ... Falls into "paramilitary" use ...



A few Neutron ballistic missiles. (Do the the Israelis have a few on hand?)

You do realize the USAF has hundreds of stealth aircraft and could send a lot of aircraft -- some would get through -- it only takes one with the right ''payload''. The Japanese used the same tactic in WW2 and a lot of Nip Zeros crashed into US warships.

Instead of spending Russia's remaining wealth on weapons systems until the Russian people stand in line to get rations of sawdust to eat -- remember what happened to the Soviet Union. The only reason that I can think of why Russia would need such substantial defense capabilities would be to resist NATO retaliation for invading some second rate Eastern European county ... If that is what the Putin government has in mind -- I would be digging a deep hole to hide in.

He is right. Tanks are shiny toys that are good for intimidating small countries, but useless if 2 superpowers ever have a direct war.

P.S.
Since you are in the know, have they fixed the T-72 auto-loader that likes to rip off the arm's of crewmen?? :1orglaugh

This is so wrong, that I don't know where to start.

First of all; why it does matter if tanks tear up streets and knock the sides off the buildings? Like rocket and artillery barrages and air strikes would be building friendly. LOL. Contrary, tanks drive inside buildings to conceal themselves. In war cities are just battlefield, nothing more.

Secondly, using tanks in heavily urban environment was avoided WWII and is still avoided (if possible). Instead you can use tanks (and other troops) to battle in more open ground, isolate cities, etc. For example Soviets didn't "attack" Germany's eastern "fortress cities" (occupied cities), they just drove by and left the siege for some mop up troops. Worked pretty well.

And tanks are just one part of the army. Armies are supposed to operate as a whole.

@aka123

There has not been a classic war like WW2 or for that matter a battlefield charge like in WW1 in my lifetime.

Mechanized forces are of limited effect now because of better IED technology -- 1 man with a cell phone triggered explosive device can destroy a very expensive armored vehicle.

Now get on your horse and ride into the sunset.

Considering the US has the most battlefield experience out of any country in the world.. Well then I suspect we maybe on to something.

If you look at recent wars in Afghan & Iraq it shows you the tank no longer plays the role it once did. It's just too easy for even cheap modern day explosives to take them out. It's not WW2 anymore, where the average infantrymen is carrying a single shot semi auto rifle. Now days even insurgents can build tank killing IED's or at the very least disable it.

Between drones & infantry not to mention even select Hummers are capable of launching anti tank rockers. It's really not a viable large scale weapon anymore. Even Russia in Ukraine is not depending on tanks very much, despite the fact they control the air power..

The battlefield is now dependent on air power, and moving small strike forces around quickly. That means light armored troop transports and trucks like the Hummer and so on. Large scale troop movements are sitting ducks today for any modern military and useless against small hit and run insurgent style attackers.

If you get to the point of moving large amounts of troops around on the battlefield, you are already in control of the areas and just squashing out resistance & controlling the area which a tank is useless for and APC's or Hummer type trucks are much better suited for.

So, what does it matter has there been some type of battle in your lifetime of not? There hasn't been nuke attack either and still USA seems a tad occupied to prepare for one; in either way. Tanks have been and still are major a player in the battlefield. Those role of course varies depending about the enemy. All armies including USA's still keep defence capability also for other threats than some jihadist folks. If your saying would be true, just leave the poor jihadists alone and you won't need army at all.

1 cheap land mine was capable of destroying armour already in WWII. The secret is to put another tank in the game. Though that kind of blitzkrieg than Germany enjoyed at the start of WWII, won't probably happen again against developed armies; didn't happen at the later part of WWII neither.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

BTW, what's the price of one Raptor and what's the price of one SA-21 Growler missile? The same applies to the difference in price of the US aircraft carrier group and the price SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" anti-ship cruise missile equipped with a single nuke warhead. Do your calculations guys :winkwink:

Air power was already important in WWII, Germany could basically move tanks and larger concentrations of troops only at night, in the later part of the war.

About those lightly armed and fast troops. How do you think you will get upper hand using just those? Even if you have air superiority, not to mention if you don't have or the superiority is mixed. Just regular minefield deployed either by hand or by artillery, planes, or other methods, will hault the troops. And lacking with heavier armament, are easy peasy even for smaller troops and prone for artillery, etc. If that Black Hawk down movie is any correct, the Hummers alone were useless even for very lightly armed and poor Somali troops.

hahahahahah!

ruskitard thinks that growler will be able to hit a hypersonic target!

if pie in the sky growlers and tanks that konk out are the ruskie future, well.

No, the new ABM missile batteries work -- the joint US and Israeli "Iron Dome" recently proved its effectiveness against a limited number of targets.

And that is the point I am trying to make: If you overwhelm a defense system with too many targets it will not get them all -- the shotgun effect ... All the better if 90% of the ''targets'' are decoys :)

What would be useful in battle situations would be a one man tank like an armored bobcat sized mini tank with a 50cal and a rocket launcher. Send in 200 of them at once and spread the risk.

the growlers that are supposed to be able to hit hypersonic ~mach 20 targets haven't even been built yet.

S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler) - Missile ThreatMissile Threat

the current growler = patriot missile

and yes, I hear your point, didn't mean otherwise.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :thumbsup

Tanks don't drive through mine fields either. The only thing tanks are good at is taking small arms fire, laying down contentious fire and burning shit tons of fuel. The problem is an APC can do the same thing but it can also deliver troops to the fight which carry more weapons and then be supported by heavy artery which can be moved into place pretty quick.

Any modern military using DU ammo can take out or disable any modern day tank. The only reason tanks were so useful in the start of the Iraq war for example, was because Iraq had outdated armor and no air power and it was wide open spaces. They didn't use tanks in the cities once the insurgents started fighting back heavily.

In WW2 air power was nothing like it is today. They had to depend on dive bombing to take out tanks then which was always very hit or miss. Today, it's all satellites, drones and pin point accuracy..

Don't get me wrong, I love WW2 tanks, but it's no longer the days of that kind of battles with today's weapons technology.

the pilots back here in the good ole US of fucking A sitting in a cushy lounge chair flying the drones that knock out those ruskie tanks are going to think the video game was set on easy mode.

The United States has the biggest/best Navy, the biggest/best Air Force, and is geographically isolated. Tanks are a waste of our money. Ruler of the air has been ruler of the war. Our Navy and Air Force give us that.

CyberSEO will come up with some drivel about how it failed somewhere, somehow, but we all know he's delusional anyway so it doesn't matter.

Well, tanks can drive through anti-personnel mines, if the risk for blown track is taken. But the point was that with tank or with more personnel (as you had small troop), the attacking party has better initiative, to either press on the attack or withdraw.

Every single ammo that can take tank, can take APCs too and IFVs, but IFVs are more like tanks in this example. But anyways, you have either destroyed tank of APC, and unless your only concern is cost, it ain't that different thing for the outcome of the battle. War is another thing, if this is about war of attrition. And modern tanks have developed too quite much from the WWII. Those are not that easy opponents as you seem to think.

The only possible advantage in tank vs APC, is speed, as you can have the troops in APCs anyways, using tanks doesn't exclude that.

Air power is even more important today than it was in WWII, but it was heavily important in WWII already. And at later part of the war, the tank buster planes used salvos of rockets.

US is not the only country in the world. And it puts great emphasis to battle elsewhere, so with current doctrine the isolation doesn't mean that much for USA.

Today is the anniversary of the end of WW2 in Europe, and if the tank breaks so what... Stop jerking off over a tank which could have saved America's ass from ISIS and the rest of the guys who will march to Washington in the next 2 decades. Their T 34 saved Europe from Hitler....

.... But you rather piss on a guy who could have saved your rotten empire :321GFY

:winkwink::winkwink::winkwink::winkwink:

you sure assume a bunch.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

speaking of BUK - i have seen no mention on GFY yet that a russian expert team concluded that MH17 was indeed shot down with a BUK

there are no Abrams that ever broke down? why does western media always need to put such a huge spot light on something so insignificant? it broke down, so what? it's a new concept and bugs need to be worked out... I guess they need to keep going with propaganda machine

link ?
for me it was obvious...but I still think that it could be 70 % provocation (like ukrainian jets flying nearby, allowing civil aircraft to fly in that zone) and 30 % of rebel's stupidity....
strangely, just suddenly after plane crash world was so disgusted that they saw no problem in imposing sanctions on Russia....

??? ??? «???-?1» - ????????????? - ????? ??????

now they claim it was the Ukraine that shot it down with a BUK - because their reason to do so was..... ?

Air superiority is king in today's battlefield.

If planes could have taken on tanks during WWII, it would have been a vastly different war.

America spent $1.5 trillion on a jet that can't turn, can't climb and can't run.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...px-Hk-tank.jpg

5000 of these will be ready by 2025
@lolz#terminators

"Coming to a battlefield in your hometown soon"

Seems to have worked out well in Vietnam. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about our navy and air force in case we encounter a war similar to what the British had in the Falklands.

LOL :) At least it was different than what you think it was.