The Student Room Group

Armata brand new russian tank and other new tech.

Puts Americas armored forces a peg behind with this brand new tech
http://rt.com/news/255445-armata-russian-tank-unveiled/

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I'd take combat tested over claimed specs any day. Still comparing equipment that has not been tested nor used against what your comparing it to is pointless. You can say this is beyond American tech but it is unlikely we'll ever know.
Original post by Lionheart96
Puts Americas armored forces a peg behind with this brand new tech
http://rt.com/news/255445-armata-russian-tank-unveiled/


Not really. It's a rehash of what was launched ten years ago.

Maybe they've sorted their auto loader problems out now?

can they move more than 5 miles without breaking down?
Reply 3
Original post by MatureStudent36
Not really. It's a rehash of what was launched ten years ago.

Maybe they've sorted their auto loader problems out now?

can they move more than 5 miles without breaking down?


I die laughing when people say the Russians could take the US currently. The navy is 4x as big alone lol
Original post by whorace
I die laughing when people say the Russians could take the US currently. The navy is 4x as big alone lol


The Russians have been rearming for some time. They started with their ICBM fleet.
Reply 5
America is squeezing the Russian economy right now by dumping fracked oil and gas on the market depressing prices.

Russia tried to outspend the US back in the 70s and 80s on the military and went bankrupt and fell apart, they seem to be doing it again.
Original post by Maker
America is squeezing the Russian economy right now by dumping fracked oil and gas on the market depressing prices.

Russia tried to outspend the US back in the 70s and 80s on the military and went bankrupt and fell apart, they seem to be doing it again.


Fracking has been well known about for a decade
Original post by MatureStudent36
The Russians have been rearming for some time. They started with their ICBM fleet.


Pathetic peasant. You can't even match 2% gdp spending
We are losing our edge. We could not (NATO) deploy an armoured division in Europe for half a year

Read mark Urban 'The Edge'. Came out the other week and its utterly compelling and frightening about western military decline.
Original post by Maker
America is squeezing the Russian economy right now by dumping fracked oil and gas on the market depressing prices.

Russia tried to outspend the US back in the 70s and 80s on the military and went bankrupt and fell apart, they seem to be doing it again.

This time they have an actual prospect of succeeding.
Original post by whorace
I die laughing when people say the Russians could take the US currently. The navy is 4x as big alone lol

Then you are not a military tactician and are vastly exaggerating the USA's military strength. For example, the USA only has 6 planes that could fly under Russia's radar. Not types of planes, I literally mean 6 aircraft in total. The F22 is already obsolete, has to be based in European airfields in order to get to Russia and their weapons payload is minimal. They could take out at most 4 planes (assuming it is a one on one dogfight, which is never the case) before they run out of missiles, whereas these planes can be easily replaced at a cheap price by Russia and they can shoot down the F22 with the S400 and the Sukhoi Su-35, Sukhpi Su-30, Sukhoi Su-27 of which they have in superior numbers. That's even before we get to the price of the F22 which is more than its weight in Gold. As for the F-35? They are next to useless, as pretty much every single computer simulated dogfight has shown. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/09/11/1220857689496.html As the source suggests, that's just against a computer. Imagine if that was in an actual dogfight against a lot more aggressive human opponent!

Russia has a very good chance winning in the European theatre. I direct you to Mark Urbans latest book 'The Edge'.

If we were to go to war with Russian, European armies could perhaps delay the Russians from reaching Paris, maybe even Berlin for 6 about months (which is the current time (NATO standard time) in which an armoured division can be put together and brought across the Atlantic Ocean) and that is assuming they don't use tactical nuclear devices. Yes the USA currently has a superior navy, but that a bit unhelpful when it would be mostly a land war. Plus the Russians are rearming at a fast pace, whilst the USA is largely disarming and has cut its fleets ship numbers by 50% within the last 30 years.

You also need to remember that "on paper" is not the same as actual "operating". For example, the British has 200 challenger tanks, but last summer only 36 were fit to go on instant war fighting roles, with the others in maintenance or mothballed with repairs required.

I used to think like you until I actually started to study the subject of war in depth at university. Never, ever under estimate your potential foes.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bohemond I
Then you are not a military tactician and are vastly exaggerating the USA's military strength. For example, the USA only has 6 planes that could fly under Russia's radar. The F22 are already obsolete and their weapons payload I minimal. They could take out 4 planes before they run out if missiles, whereas these planes can be easily replaced by Russia and the F22 shot down by s400 and other aircraft.

Russia has a very good chance winning in the European theatre. I direct you to Mark Urbans latest book.

Good man
Original post by Lionheart96
Good man


That's not to say Russia would win, but they are probably about to become on par with the USA's Armed Forces within the next 10 - 20 years if the current rate of rearmament and NATO disarmament continues.
Original post by Bohemond I
Then you are not a military tactician and are vastly exaggerating the USA's military strength. For example, the USA only has 6 planes that could fly under Russia's radar. Not types of planes, I literally mean 6 aircraft in total. The F22 is already obsolete, has to be based in European airfields in order to get to Russia and their weapons payload is minimal. They could take out at most 4 planes (assuming it is a one on one dogfight, which is never the case) before they run out of missiles, whereas these planes can be easily replaced at a cheap price by Russia and they can shoot down the F22 with the S400 and the Sukhoi Su-35, Sukhpi Su-30, Sukhoi Su-27 of which they have in superior numbers. That's even before we get to the price of the F22 which is more than its weight in Gold. As for the F-35? They are next to useless, as pretty much every single computer simulated dogfight has shown. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/09/11/1220857689496.html As the source suggests, that's just against a computer. Imagine if that was in an actual dogfight against a lot more aggressive human opponent!

Russia has a very good chance winning in the European theatre. I direct you to Mark Urbans latest book 'The Edge'.

If we were to go to war with Russian, European armies could perhaps delay the Russians from reaching Paris, maybe even Berlin for 6 about months (which is the current time (NATO standard time) in which an armoured division can be put together and brought across the Atlantic Ocean) and that is assuming they don't use tactical nuclear devices. Yes the USA currently has a superior navy, but that a bit unhelpful when it would be mostly a land war. Plus the Russians are rearming at a fast pace, whilst the USA is largely disarming and has cut its fleets ship numbers by 50% within the last 30 years.

You also need to remember that "on paper" is not the same as actual "operating". For example, the British has 200 challenger tanks, but last summer only 36 were fit to go on instant war fighting roles, with the others in maintenance or mothballed with repairs required.

I used to think like you until I actually started to study the subject of war in depth at university. Never, ever under estimate your potential foes.


Trident?
Original post by MatureStudent36
Trident?


I'm of the view that it would be used only in a tactical strike, not all out exchange. I don't think any nation leader would use nukes in anything other than a tactical sense, including Putin.

I'm also of the view that if Russia was to go to war in Europe, it would be over the Baltic states or other eastern European countries, and that war would be quick and decisive and over before NATO could mobilise effectively. It would be a hybrid conflict.
Original post by Bohemond I
I'm also of the view that if Russia was to go to war in Europe, it would be over the Baltic states or other eastern European countries, and that war would be quick and decisive and over before NATO could mobilise effectively. It would be a hybrid conflict.


For any mobilisation to be that fast it would heavily rely on airpower.

Your focus on the relative strengths of the front line aircraft has neglected the real areas of strength that make a difference; the force multipliers and the people.

Yes, Russia might have a few decent frontline aircraft, but their pilots lack the training to utilise them effectively and desperately lack the backup of well trained AAR and AEW assets. This is where NATO has long held the trump card and why there went be any conflict.

For all the faults with modern air forces - and I know full well what there are having been in them - we still have teeth. And they're sharp.
Original post by Drewski
For any mobilisation to be that fast it would heavily rely on airpower.

Your focus on the relative strengths of the front line aircraft has neglected the real areas of strength that make a difference; the force multipliers and the people.

Yes, Russia might have a few decent frontline aircraft, but their pilots lack the training to utilise them effectively and desperately lack the backup of well trained AAR and AEW assets. This is where NATO has long held the trump card and why there went be any conflict.

For all the faults with modern air forces - and I know full well what there are having been in them - we still have teeth. And they're sharp.

Yes we have 'sharp teeth' as you say, but its no good having 3 teeth when taking on a bear who has more teeth plus claws plus thick furr.

I have a very big problem with 'force multipliers' too. They are expensive and is often justified as a reason as to why we should buy fewer ships is a good idea. What happens though when they are destroyed? Procurement is dreadfully slow, and now not only (talking about F22 as an example) have we lost one aircraft designed to take on 4 others in a dog fight, but we have also lost the aircraft that it is designed to 'replace' several aircraft. A huge drop in capability.

Force multipliers are probably one of the biggest mistakes the west is pursuing. It doesn't matter if a jet is super fast, super agile and can do backflips if it costs so much that you can only have a couple of squadrons (the RAF is going down to 7, and in a conventional war, the majority of them would be needed for home defence so we could perhaps sacrifice 2 to the European theatre)

I mean according to the RAF lybia was a stretch for them - if I remember we contributed 6 airframes to the airstrikes? If attacking third rate air defense is a 'stretch' imagine Russia.

Rand recently in 2008 did a simulation that showed that if every f22 the Americans had engaged, it would run out if missiles, leaving the skies open to Chinese fighters.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bohemond I
Yes we have 'sharp teeth' as you say, but its no good having 3 teeth when taking on a bear who has more teeth plus claws plus thick furr.

I have a very big problem with 'force multipliers' too. They are expensive and is often justified as a reason as to why we should buy fewer ships is a good idea. What happens though when they are destroyed? Procurement is dreadfully slow, and now not only (talking about F22 as an example) have we lost one aircraft designed to take on 4 others in a dog fight, but we have also lost the aircraft that it is designed to 'multiply'.

Force multipliers are probably one of the biggest mistakes the west is pursuing. It doesn't matter if a jet is super fast, super agile and can do backflips if it costs so much that you can only have a couple of squadrons (the RAF is going down to 7, and in a conventional war, the majority of them would be needed for home defence so we could perhaps sacrifice 2 to the European theatre)

Rand recently in 2008 did a simulation that showed that if every f22 the Americans had engaged, it would run out if missiles, leaving the skies open to Chinese fighters.


Er, that makes it sound like you don't know what force multipliers are.
Original post by Drewski
Er, that makes it sound like you don't know what force multipliers are.

I meant 'replace' not 'multiply'. I've edited it.
Original post by Bohemond I
I'm of the view that it would be used only in a tactical strike, not all out exchange. I don't think any nation leader would use nukes in anything other than a tactical sense, including Putin.

I'm also of the view that if Russia was to go to war in Europe, it would be over the Baltic states or other eastern European countries, and that war would be quick and decisive and over before NATO could mobilise effectively. It would be a hybrid conflict.


Pitons not going to do anything over the Baltic States.

Russia's been unable to do anything since a divisional operation.

It's navy is a shadow of its former self as is its airforce and army.

What benefits does Putin have going to war over the baltics?

You forget that size isn't everything. The last time the soviet military went into Action against a capable adversary was 45. It's doctrine has been found lacking whenever it's been fought against.
Russia can't afford a new arms race. Monetarily and manpower wise.

Quick Reply

Latest