Why the T-14 Armata tank is ridiculed in the world


Recently, modern models of Russian weapons, for example, a fifth-generation fighter Su-57 and a T-14 tank, have undergone a real information attack in the foreign press and blogosphere. Most of all came from the ill-wishers of "Armata", which either the terrorists in Syria had already hit, or not, and it is not clear to the end whether she was there at all in the battle.


What can be behind these attacks, and how well are they justified?

Objectively, the T-14 is an advanced tank that has no real analogues in the world. Thanks to the uninhabited tower, its crew has been reduced to 3 people, and they are all safer in the armored capsule. Widely applied Technology active and passive defense, the tank is armed with a powerful cannon and can be used for reconnaissance and fire control of other armored vehicles: T-90, self-propelled guns and air defense systems. On the basis of the Armata platform, other types of combat tracked vehicles can be built.

The main drawback of the T-14 is its high cost, but it can be attributed to its advantages that it has long passed from the perspective drawings to the “in iron” stage. The first batch has already been created, the tanks are being tested. Let them call them “ceremonial”, let certain flaws may be revealed in them, but they exist, but the competitors have nothing of the kind and are not expected in the near future.

Perhaps this is precisely the reason for the active criticism of the project abroad. For example, Defense Express countedthat the Russians simply “borrowed” Ukrainian developments:

“Armata” is only the implementation of the project of the sunset of the USSR. Namely - the project of the Kharkov Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering named after Morozova - Object 477 Hammer.

The statement is very ambiguous, given that Russian and Ukrainian tank building come from the same Soviet root, namely, the Russian Federation is the successor to the USSR, if someone suddenly forgot.

Also on Youtube out clearly an amateur video, which compares the stabilization of guns of different types of tanks after a shot. Despite the obvious fact that the T-14 weighs 15 tons less than its potential adversary M1A2 Abrams, the Russian tank was “dry-defeated” in this respect by the American, as well as the South Korean K-2 Black Panther and the Chinese Type 96 and Type 99.


Very interesting is the reaction to Armata in the PRC. Beijing’s most advanced Type 99 tank is an upgraded version of the Soviet T-72. The Chinese edition of Sina, like many, did not believe that the T-14 was baptized in Syria. At the same time hastened to declare about four wrecked "Armata" in the mountains of Latakia province. The same publication called on Russians to "publicity and transparency" to identify and address the real weaknesses of the tank. It is possible that the Chinese comrades will not mind after having a closer look at the design of the T-14 and "be inspired" by its ideas.

Not without interest in the West, they also accepted the opinion of the former US Marine Alex Hollings, published on the Sandboxx portal. That считаетthat due to the lack of mass production of the T-14 does not have real military potential. Of course, no substantial arguments in favor of such a statement were made.

To summarize what has been said, it turns out that the Armata is an advanced tank that really has no analogues in the world. About something like that now trying to agree between Germany and France, but the matter is very slow. The T-14 has potential that remains to be known. Despite the difficult start, you can’t put an end to it, the tank must be run in, eliminating the flaws. It is likely that the T-14, like the Su-57, will be an intermediate option on the way to an unmanned robotic heavy combat vehicle.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

36 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. King3214 Offline
    King3214 (Sergius) 2 May 2020 12: 09
    +3
    • 7
    • 4
    This is not a laugh, this is a nervous laugh from fear and horror.
    The horror that instinctively fills the petty souls of these hypocritical liars when they recall what they have been doing with Russia all these years.
    And they fill up correctly ...
    1. Bitter Offline
      Bitter (Gleb) 2 May 2020 14: 31
      +5
      • 8
      • 3
      what they have been doing with Russia all these years.

      And what did they do? Most likely, Russia itself was engaged in self-abasement under the strict guidance of its own leaders?
      As for the little souls, you’ll probably also go too far, people are different everywhere, including in Russia.

      Well, about the tank, there’s nothing to say so far, except that - it’s too early for show. What can I talk about if it is not in service, but there is a “new” T-90 with different letters after zero. Test prototypes made on the knee are, of course, good, but they don’t do the weather. The only good news is that not all engineers graduated from engineering institutes have left to work somewhere in the trading business and there is still someone to work on developing promising projects.
      1. Blondy Offline
        Blondy (Blondy) 6 May 2020 17: 14
        +3
        • 3
        • 0
        Don’t take it into your head, remember how up to Syria they roamed over the T-90, supposedly Abramsam and Leopards were not suitable for soles.
        1. Bitter Offline
          Bitter (Gleb) 6 May 2020 21: 40
          +3
          • 3
          • 0
          to Syria over the T-90 cast out

          What then stopped then? This is all so, boltology. laughing
          The T-90 is a serious device, it also has advantages and disadvantages over the Abrams and Leopards, and both have them. I don’t think that American or German tankers underestimate the Soviet school of tank building in any way. A lot depends on the skills, knowledge and skills of crews, but even more depends on the commander planning operations with tanks.
          1. Blondy Offline
            Blondy (Blondy) 9 May 2020 16: 43
            +2
            • 2
            • 0
            Of course, even now they are trying to cast out, but it all looks even in their own way, like bla-bla-bla.
            And in general, quasi-scientifically speaking, the general trend of exaltation after Syria has become much less pronounced.
    2. vik669 Offline
      vik669 (vik669) 4 May 2020 09: 38
      0
      • 1
      • 1
      Laughs the one who laughs without consequences!
  2. sgrabik Offline
    sgrabik (Sergei) 2 May 2020 12: 27
    +3
    • 9
    • 6
    No matter how spiteful our sworn western "partners" and homegrown liberoids of all stripes are sprinkling with saliva, but a really advanced tank has already been created and is being actively tested. Our potential opponents have nothing of the kind and are not yet in sight, and this is what causes them such a nervous reaction !!!
    1. Conn Offline
      Conn (Conn) 3 May 2020 00: 44
      +3
      • 5
      • 2
      The more squeals and snot from the Western "partners", the more true the objectives of the military-industrial complex!
    2. Barmaley_2 Offline
      Barmaley_2 (Barmaley) 4 May 2020 00: 19
      -2
      • 2
      • 4
      I’m embarrassed to ask: why would they do something fundamentally new if the modernization is quite enough to fulfill the assigned knowledge base and if the technical specifications meet the requirements of the military? The modernization of Western MBT is quite capable of effectively fighting targets like T-14.
  3. Orange big Offline
    Orange big (Max) 2 May 2020 12: 32
    +9
    • 11
    • 2
    Why the T-14 Armata tank is ridiculed in the world

    For American dollars in the framework of the information war, the goal of which is to ridicule any achievements, thus nullifying them.
  4. Serge Tixiy Offline
    Serge Tixiy (Serge Tixiy) 2 May 2020 12: 34
    +5
    • 7
    • 2
    What do they know about this tank? In order to discuss, and especially make fun of, you need to have some kind of concept. Nothing changes under the sun.
  5. beeper Offline
    beeper 2 May 2020 12: 53
    +4
    • 9
    • 5
    The newly emerging "close cooperation" with the mega-mercantile Chinese "comrades" should take into account our previous Soviet mistakes and not flow into the unconditional transfer of advanced Russian weapons technologies!
    Since the interests of Russia (as before - the USSR) and China, nevertheless, are a priori different and may even be "completely opposite"! winked
    Blinded by the Chinese (judging by the "voice acting"), the "armato" non-profile YouTube has a bias and obvious fraud in the "drawing of red lines" in the shooting frames of various tanks.
    Indeed (well-known to every gunner - artilleryman and tanker by the "projectile angle"!) Oscillations of the gun barrel in the vertical plane during a combat shot are inevitable by the very "physics of the process" and with a fairly close video any shooting tank from the appropriate angle they will be noticeable! yes
    But with the help of simple "manipulations (especially inconspicuous on small displays of compact" devices "- smartphones and compact tablets!)" With the distance and camera angles, and, in fact - not quite so "stable", "red lines" in the frame, you can "illustrate" any uncritically minded philistine any "opinion" that is beneficial to the "screenwriters"!
    And I didn’t notice the Chinese "comrades" in expressing sympathy for competing Russian technology - if not openly, then quietly - "in a quasi-productive context", but they try to "smear Guanese" in every possible way the ongoing "struggle for markets" of its products by the Chinese military industry (by the way, when shooting from Chinese tanks in the video, the true “emerging projectile angle” from the gun and the shudder are very clearly visible from the recoil when firing the entire armored vehicle, which cannot be “reset” in any way, but only minimized due to the huge mass of the tank itself!)!
    1. cmonman Offline
      cmonman (Garik Mokin) 3 May 2020 00: 00
      -3
      • 1
      • 4
      But with the help of simple "manipulations (especially inconspicuous on small displays of compact" devices "- smartphones and compact tablets!)" With the distance and camera angles, and, in fact - not quite so "stable", "red lines" in the frame, you can "illustrate" any uncritically minded philistine any "opinion" that is beneficial to the "screenwriters"!

      Yes, what kind of manipulation? Have you seen a movie? The trunk Abrams goes inside, extinguishes the recoil, and therefore does not move in the vertical plane. The barrel of Almaty does not extinguish the return, therefore, it receives all the return and moves in the vertical plane.
      These are two different designs, and each has its own + and “-”.
      But the movie is not delivered !!!
      1. beeper Offline
        beeper 3 May 2020 02: 02
        +7
        • 7
        • 0
        hi The mass of a fully equipped serial American tank at a training ground firing an army exercise, and the mass of an empty Russian tank when firing at an experimental testing station (maybe even reinforced, "warmed up" charges?) Of the mounted gun are different, my American friend.
        The power of the Armata tank gun is obviously higher than the power of the Abrams gun and other tanks with such guns! And the mass of even the fully equipped Russian “Almaty” is obviously less than the mass of the fully equipped American “Abrams”!
        In addition, to return the gun to the aiming line, it matters whether the gun stabilizer is turned on, since when it is turned on (it is by no means a fact that the gun stabilizer is turned on at the visible Armata in the experimental nook, otherwise its barrel would not behave like that and “handwriting "a gunner would have been seen!), before returning" to the line ", she rises to the loading angle (manual or automatic) ...

        But that’s not the point - when shooting near the barrel of a gun and the hull of the Abrams tank, it also oscillates up and down when fired! Even with a “torn video show” from afar, it’s clear that the bold “red line” on the smeared silhouette was not pulled to the beat!
        But Korean K 2 and Chinese Type 99, which are less massive than the Abrams, swing be healthy (this is very clear even when the "red lines" are drawn almost from above and indicate, for the most part, not the vertical, but the horizontal - the direction shooting), although they shoot when the gun stabilizers are on and even in motion, when the dynamic inertia of the tank mass extinguishes part of the recoil of the gun!

        Well, the "cherry on the cake" for ordinary inhabitants (not only American ones), non-tank non-gunners, this is the modern so-called "slow-brake recoil of the gun" (such a gun is also on Armata tanks!)!
        When the tank gun, during the movement of the projectile in the bore, moves along the guides in the opposite direction, along its axis, with minimal disturbing effects from recoil devices and the recuperator.
        And all the observed "buildup (due to which all this worthless fuss is" induced ")" of the gun barrel and the tank occur after the projectile leaves the barrel channel! At the moment when the tank so swayed under the influence of the recoil of the gun, its shell is already either вor almost at the goal ...

        The dirty methods of capitalist competition (especially in the arms business!) Have long been known and described many times, but the capabilities of computer technology, coupled with the media technologies of individual and mass brainwashing directly on the Web, added to them an audiovisual "illusion of magic"! yes

        "The movie is not delivered"Of course, Cmonman! It is roughly “slabbed” by biased subchiks, it is obvious that in the calculation of the bulk of the inhabitants, uncritically minded, and therefore easy-to-think-easy-to-manipulate (which, alas, is full, especially in "countries of 3 world-African and Asian developing countries, as well as nationalistic euro-lithotrophs, and 4 world countries - depressed East European amerocolonies, such as Tribaltica and our post-maid" failed state "Ukraine", in any government, and in the army, where decisions are made on the military budget and arms purchases, remember the Russian high-ranking "parquet" general, who blue-eyed suggested abandoning production two own tanks to buy German “Leopard-2” for the Russian army!), completely unfamiliar with the materiel and nuances of firing from tank guns.

        The real action (including the regulatory control of the "withdrawal" of the barrel) of the working tank gun stabilizer is not so tested and compared as in this amateurish video clip "for the public"!
      2. The comment was deleted.
  6. bear040 Offline
    bear040 2 May 2020 13: 02
    +9
    • 11
    • 2
    Well, some US Marine, this is a (major) specialist in new tanks of the Russian Federation ... By the way, what does this marine think about Abrams burned out in Fallujah, or the lack of mass production of B-2 bombers ?!
  7. zenion Offline
    zenion (zinovy) 2 May 2020 13: 22
    +1
    • 4
    • 3
    Once ridiculed - it means they are very afraid!
  8. rotkiv04 Offline
    rotkiv04 (Victor) 2 May 2020 13: 44
    -8
    • 3
    • 11
    With such a pace of running in, both Armata and SU-57 will become # not having analogues # in the world.
  9. Yuri Mikhailovsky (Yuri Mikhailovsky) 2 May 2020 13: 53
    +3
    • 5
    • 2
    Squealing? And this is good!
    1. Natan bruk Online
      Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 4 May 2020 09: 19
      -6
      • 0
      • 6
      Well, so far more "patriots" are screaming about "having no analogues."
  10. Murad Suleymanov (Murad Suleimanov) 2 May 2020 16: 41
    +6
    • 6
    • 0
    Envy is inherent in individuals as well as in communities, corporations, and states. Unable to reproduce similar or even equivalent types of weapons, they will try to infringe and belittle outstanding weapons, finding no other way to contrast their specimens ....
    1. Barmaley_2 Offline
      Barmaley_2 (Barmaley) 4 May 2020 00: 22
      -3
      • 0
      • 3
      I agree, and this is very correct, but I’m embarrassed to ask: why do they need to do something fundamentally new if the modernization is quite enough to fulfill the assigned knowledge base and if the technical specifications meet the requirements of the military? The modernization of Western MBTs is quite capable of effectively fighting targets like T-14. Have you considered the issue from this angle?
  11. aleksandrmakedo Offline
    aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 2 May 2020 22: 22
    +4
    • 5
    • 1
    As a designer with a quarter-century experience, I think colleagues HAD an interest in testing the product in the climate zone, which we cannot imitate. This is exactly what we do not have at landfills. You won’t ride in the heat chamber. Thousands of kilometers laid. Pledged in TTT. Yes, even with exposure to sand, dust, salt fog, and so on.
    Further. There is no technique that cannot be destroyed. As one movie hero said, "If one did something, the other can always break." Letting the product into combat conditions, just for the purpose of the experiment, is stupid. Such tests are easier, and it is better metrologically better to carry out at home, at landfills. There’s nothing difficult to get shells of a potential enemy, especially since for this purpose there are not many of them. Artillery, anti-tank missiles, and other mura. And at home, slowly, accurately determining both the distance and the angles of fire, to do what is needed.
    In the confusion of the battle, when the devil breaks there, nothing can be objectively revealed. Nothing to write in test reports.
  12. boriz Offline
    boriz (boriz) 2 May 2020 23: 22
    +3
    • 3
    • 0
    Thanks to the uninhabited tower, its crew has been reduced to 3 people, and they are all safer in the armored capsule.

    Compared to what is reduced, with the T-34-85? On the T-72 crew - 3 people, on the T-90 too. Uninhabited towers are not there.
    1. sgrabik Offline
      sgrabik (Sergei) 3 May 2020 15: 50
      +1
      • 2
      • 1
      Abrashka, Leopard, Leclerc and Merkava crews consist of 4 people, all of these tanks have a loading crew member. It is only in our tanks that the crews consist of 3 people. All our tanks are equipped with automatic loading guns.
      1. Natan bruk Online
        Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 4 May 2020 09: 24
        -3
        • 1
        • 4
        Learn the materiel. On the Merkava-4 automatic loader.
      2. silver169 Offline
        silver169 (Yury G.) 5 May 2020 06: 14
        +1
        • 1
        • 0
        The French Leclerc from the very beginning of the release was installed automatic loader. I am ashamed not to know this. Learn the materiel!
  13. boriz Offline
    boriz (boriz) 2 May 2020 23: 43
    +9
    • 9
    • 0
    Not without interest in the West, they also accepted the opinion of the former US Marine Alex Hollings, published on the Sandboxx portal. He believes that due to the lack of mass production, the T-14 does not have real military potential.

    Ship Coca would still be interesting to hear about this.
    T-26 before the war riveted almost 11 pieces. Then, unexpectedly, it turned out that his armor was not pierced only by small arms of ordinary caliber and not armor-piercing bullets. That's where the real military potential was!
    Just what happened to them after the outbreak of war? And for some reason they tried to stop releasing them as quickly as possible. How many resources were killed, instead of releasing a reasonable number of tanks (to assess their quality) and armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, repair vehicles, specialized high-speed tractors for artillery (to keep up with tanks), etc.
    And the Germans, before the war, let out their tanks before the war, with homeopathic parties. Moreover, the price is simply incomparable with the T-14, and the World War was knocking loudly on the door. Until a conflict is foreseen, it is possible to produce modifications of the old ones, which are still quite at the level. And with the T-14 - to refine the design according to the test results and to adapt to the conditions of mass production (which will reduce the price in the series).
  14. Astronaut Offline
    Astronaut (San Sanych) 3 May 2020 00: 45
    +2
    • 3
    • 1
    Take envy, that's all.
  15. Chet Offline
    Chet (Chet) 3 May 2020 08: 07
    +2
    • 2
    • 0
    You are very concerned about the fact that enemies criticize and ridicule something. I’m on the enemy’s opinion ...
  16. Dear sofa expert. 3 May 2020 23: 55
    +2
    • 3
    • 1
    Not without interest in the West, they also accepted the opinion of the former US Marine Alex Hollings, published on the Sandboxx portal. He believes that due to the lack of mass production, the T-14 does not have real military potential.

    The T-34 tank was developed in 1937.
    The series was given in 1940.
    Mass production began in 1942. This did not prevent the T-34 tank from acquiring the well-known "military potential" ..
    Although if you include intelligence, it becomes obvious that the potential is laid in the idea, and not in the product.
    1. Bitter Offline
      Bitter (Gleb) 4 May 2020 01: 24
      -2
      • 1
      • 3
      The T-34 tank was laid down in 1934.
      The series was given in 1940 and had a successful further history, to this day. From an idea to a series of only 7 years and more than 80 years of successful operation.
      The idea of ​​the T-14 tank was laid back in the Soviet Union, in Russia, it seems, they resumed development in 2010 and in 2015 rolled out a couple of cars to the parade. Nobody has even whispered about the series and in 2019. Factory and military tests of single copies continue.
      A lot of years have passed from the idea to the prototype; serial production has so far followed with seven seals.
      The best option is to equip all the block allies and partners in the economic community with such machines, the unit price will immediately become lower and the machine will become more accessible not only for the Moscow troops. Allies, ay!
      1. Dear sofa expert. 4 May 2020 01: 41
        +1
        • 2
        • 1
        What did you mean by that? What idea is not Russian, but Soviet? Is it so important? The main thing is who and where has brought this to mind.
        Or are you strained by the timing? But it happens in history. The Americans over there, as if already 50 years ago, visited the moon, but for some reason "but things are still there." It feels like not only did not advance, but even degraded. So much so that a rhetorical question arises: “was there a boy”?)
        Or are you excited that there is no mass production?
        Well, maybe it won’t be (at least for now). There are many interesting concepts in the world, but due to some circumstances, priority is currently given in favor of something else.
        The T-14 tank is undoubtedly expensive to manufacture, and the efficiency in today's realities is not higher than that of the same T-90. But the emphasis here is precisely on the words "in today's realities."
        Why discuss what we do not know? If there is a day, there will be food. Everything has its time, apparently.
        1. Bitter Offline
          Bitter (Gleb) 4 May 2020 09: 37
          -2
          • 2
          • 4
          Or are you strained by the timing?

          There is such a saying, "time is money" and "road spoon, for dinner." The longer the development of the project takes, the more expensive it is.
          Copecks, of course, are not counted in the military-industrial complex, they are counted only when calculating pensions.
          This does not bother me personally. In any case, this machine does not represent any potential military, this is a fact. Well, except that the White House in Moscow to shoot. The technical potential is visible and discussed.
          By the way, I wonder what is the share of imported components in such a machine and whether this is the main factor affecting the price.

          Why discuss what we do not know?

          Maybe in order to find out something?
  17. sarah lieberson Offline
    sarah lieberson (Sarah Liberzon) 4 May 2020 03: 20
    -2
    • 0
    • 2
    I watched the video. Well, amateur, so what? Shouldn't the gun remain stationary if the tank is swinging? And then, the T-14, of course, is lighter than Abrams, but it still weighs a pretty decent 55 tons and should not swing like a baby carriage after a shot. Or do we observe the shooting of a plywood layout? However, I am not an expert ...
  18. Observer2014 Offline
    Observer2014 4 May 2020 19: 17
    -1
    • 0
    • 1
    Why the T-14 Armata tank is ridiculed in the world

    Has anyone watched the video carefully? Appreciated? Or the T-14 is very light. Or a very "delicate" suspension. Which is unlikely for the declared 55 tons. And if you compare the T-90 from the T-14 in this perspective, for example, as presented in the article. I'm scrap. Lay out, discuss. drinks
  19. radiootdel4 Offline
    radiootdel4 (Vladimir) 7 May 2020 17: 22
    +4
    • 4
    • 0
    Armata is an advanced tank

    And that is a fact. Here are the "partners" and are furious; And then psychology: Denial (these are cartoons, 4 of them have already been knocked out ...), anger (unprofessionally built insidious tank from the Mordor ..), bargain (we will impose sanctions if we build / sell, and if not, then we will not impose ...), depression (yes so what, that they have it, we will also build it now ..) and adoption (yes, the tank is not bad ..)