What to read next

17 Comments

  1. 1

    Anonymous

    Your assertion that the T-34 was the best tank during WW2 is completely erroneous. That accolade, ironically enuff, belongs to the Panzer Mark V aka the Panther. The Panther was fielded (1942) precisely to defeat the T34 (an older design) which proved to be far superior to existing German tanks (upto Panzer Mark IV). In terms of Mobility, Firepower, Armour Protection and general sophistication, the Panther is regarded as the best all-round tank of WW2 (a simple Wiki search will suffice to verify this).

    Where the T34 scored over the German tanks was in its simple yet effective design which made it a decent all round tank but more importantly one that was highly conducive to mass production. Its extremely rugged nature gave it the ability to remain highly mobile even on the muddy unpaved roads of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. The simplistic design also enabled the Red Army to carry out repairs and maintenance (such as changing out the engine) rapidly, ensuring that damaged tanks were back in action quicktime.

    The exact opposite is true in case of the Panthers. Turnaround times for damaged Panthers were far longer simply because of their level of sophistication and German engineers (used to paved roads accross Europe) did not account for the heavier Panthers and Tigers getting bogged down in the mud!! This led to the ridiculous situation in which Germans ended up using captured Soviet tanks instead of their own in order to advance.

    1 v 1 the Panther would defeat a T34 everytime. Of course the Soviets prevailed ultimately because they had way more tanks and planes, but thats another discussion altogether!!

    – Rahul

    Reply
  2. 2

    Anonymous

    Who cares about the Armata? Hopefully this tank will be of no consequence to India.

    Reply
  3. 3

    Anonymous

    Too little, too late. India would be better off collaborating with the Israelis in designing and developing next-gen platforms.

    Reply
  4. 4

    Dhimas Afihandarin

    Regarding to length of penetrator. I think Armata would be able to use much longer penetrator than what being designed for earlier T-72 or T-90.

    Since the turret is unmanned there are now vertical space to store longer munition, similar as US M1 TTB. It may however still use two piece arrangement BUT longer penetrator is now possible plus with increased capability of the new 2A82 gun.

    Russians already developed new Grifel penetrator, which is longer than current Svinetz. (Though i see bit confusion whether its developed for 2A82 or 152mm 2A83 gun)

    Reply
  5. 5

    Anonymous

    "but experienced tankers tend to recoil in horror at such a suggestion, asserting that there is no real substitute for first-hand observation. Veteran tanker and Business Standard columnist Ajai Shukla observes, “Given that a commander MUST remain "opened up" for as long as possible, i.e. in eye contact with the battlefield until there is serious artillery shelling . . . this design simply does not hack it for me.”

    Mr Ajai Shukla is Obsolete…He has no experience of urban warfare..and for that matter actual tank warfare either…He makes similar remarks on Fighter Planes and Naval Ship EVEN WHEN HE HAS NO CLUE OF THOSE MACHINES… This is a wonderful tank..Wish we get this tech thriugh the offset or tech transfer route..IF the ruski tech is actually as good as the article implies..and thats a Big IF

    Reply
  6. 6

    Anonymous

    The T-14 potentially marks a major doctrinal shift in Russian thinking from firepower and mobility to protection and lends itself to some great analysis.

    Unfortunately, the author's superficial knowledge of both armor and its employment shows up rather glaringly.

    1. All tanks are evaluated on the holy trinity of firepower, mobility, and protection. What makes it more interesting from an analytical perspective is that there are usually tradeoffs between these three. Inventing one's own framework of armour, crew protection, and firepower is lazy and sloppy analysis.

    You can't just ignore the mobility parameter – and that's more than the engine. Please research some more before rushing to write a "preliminary" assessment.

    2. The author also reveals his ignorance about infantry operating with armor in FIBUA type scenarios when he completely ignores what the Israelis have done with the Merkava 4 which was designed specifically to carry troops inside it. Of course this imposes tradeoffs of the type that the analysis spends no time discussing and instead goes off on a ramble about APS which is completely inaccurate.

    3. The well known deficiency of the autoloader and the oft quoted examples of T-72s cooking up which can be found on any internet forum is nothing new.

    Can the author enlighten us as to whether the Russians have also found out solutions in the T-14 to the major tactical constraint imposed by the autoloader? Which is a slower rate of fire than a manual loader. Needs more research, eh?

    4. Finally presenting the remotely operated heavy machine gun as some kind of major breakthrough is absolute guff. First, the Russians already validated this in the T-90, Second, the Americans have fielded similar systems like CROWS I and II for a while now (which can be used with a variety of crew served weapons and platforms). Third, even if one assumes the Russians came up with the best system possible in the T-14, in today's FIBUA environment where "remotely operated" and standalone IEDs are your #1 threat rather than dismounts with RPGs, such systems have limited use.

    The author needs a radical rethink in peddling the party line unthinkingly.

    There are a host of other errors big and small but I hope the point has been made. More analytical articles are welcome, and military enthusiasts are welcome to try their hand at it, but they need to understand military history, warfare and tactical employment further before commenting just on a list of features off a product brochure and the internet.

    Target!

    Reply
  7. 7

    Dalip Bhati

    Arjun will be the best east or west time will prove

    Reply
  8. 8

    Abhiman

    Jo bhi hai, let's hope India does NOT purchase this, and instead inducts the Arjun Mark 2 instead. The army must work with DRDO to make the Arjun Mark 2 a success.

    Reply
  9. 9

    Anonymous

    a bad copy of the Arjun Tank

    Reply
  10. 10

    Anonymous

    Good article. Hello from Russia.

    Reply
  11. 11

    Dalip Bhati

    Just see how Russians have leap frogged from T34 to Armata (USA from Sherman to Abrams, British from Churchill to Challenger and the like we in India have used from some of the tanks of those countries and they were not up to the mark) and we can't accept ARJUN TANK no tank in the WORLD is ideal or without drawbacks THEY ARE ALL COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS we must continue with regained vigour for our KAVERI Engine and ARJUN tank KARAT KARAT ABHYAS KE JAD MATI HOT SUJAN — BY PRACTICING AGAIN AGAIN EVEN DUMB PERSON CAN BECOME INTELLIGENT WHAT ARE A FEW HUNDRED CRORES HERE AND THERE FOR THE SAKE OF THE NATION we will be blackmailed again in due course of time by they charging exorbitant prices and we will cut a sorry figure time and again — a solution would be to get scientists/technicians on contract

    Reply
  12. 12

    RAT

    Good Post Shiv, However this tank making its way in Indian Army is not a possibility maybe some of its components will make their way on the T-90s. The next Indian Tank will be smaller, easy to maintian and less expensive and ofcourse in small numbers 500-700 max. Remember we already have 1000+ T-90, 400 odd Arjun and 700+ T-72s so what will T-14 replace? That's a big question.

    Reply
  13. 13

    guvi

    Soviets lost their tech edge to Western tech after the T-64. Their tank guns have much lesser firepower, their armor is lighter and therefore weaker, and their engines are troublesome in desert conditions. On the other hand, western tanks made much progress in auto-loaders, night fighting, composite armor, crew protection, and network centricity which the Russian tanks lack sorely till date.

    If India decides to evaluate T-14 it would be basically Geo-politics and budget constraints rather than pure merit. On merit I am sure T-14 would not be better off than the M1A1 Abrams… Equal maybe.

    Reply
  14. 14

    Parthasarathi

    Sir,
    Though it is not appropriate to raise this question here but nevertheless contemporary.
    Why the accident rate of our military aircrafts are so high ?? What is the reason ? In last two months two Dornier aircrafts were lost ? Both without giving any SOS. ( Mayday ) signal !! It's really strange !! Is there any malware ( like Stuxnet ) in their mission commuter ?? or something else. Otherwise slow speed twin propeller planes are quite reliable ! They can make home even if one engine is out of order !
    Fighter aircraft's seats are getting ejected without any reason ! Twin propeller planes are getting lost without giving a SOS. ! Its really strange.
    regards.

    Reply
  15. 15

    Anonymous

    Good target practice for A-10's. Russians, including that midget Putin, are pussies.

    Reply
  16. 16

    Anonymous

    Just more Russian junk – sitting ducks for attach helos. As for being technologically advanced the less said the better. apparently one of these had a transmission failure in the middle of the Victory Day Parade and had to be hauled out ! What more do you expect from the Ruskies.

    Reply
  17. 17

    arjuna rabindranath

    To echo what some others have said. Your assertion that the Russians have had superior tanks is dubious.

    A tanks ability to see first, shoot first and hit first is critical to all three of firepower, mobility and protection. The Russians have never been ahead in this respect. They have always had worse optics, fire control systems, ergonomics, auto-loaders and other contributing factors leading to their destruction in combat.

    Dominant tanks like the Leopard and Abrams have taken collaboration and more importantly plenty of investment to develop. The current situation in Russia means the Armata will not receive this.

    Apart from that, I strongly believe that India should develop its own tanks. That's the only way the weapon will be fully integrated with the end user. Including logistics, maintenance, and all the 'soft' stuff which will make all the difference to combat performance.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.