19 Kilos how good is the T-14 Armata compared to our newest M-1s?

2015-07-15T07:47:22-04:00

I am curious as to what our tankers think of the new Russian T-14 Armata. How do the capabilities of our newest M-1s match up to it.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 15 at 2015 2:55 PM

2015-07-15T14:55:58-04:00

There is a good discussion about the T-14 Armata on Quora.com. The T-14 is not in production yet and not much is known about it, but based on the observations made, it is at least as good as a T-90, but as to whether or not it is better than the M-1 Abrams... my opinion is "doubtful."

Nothing presently is known about the armor on the T-14 Armata but we can assume that it is at least on par with the T-90.

The main barrel of the Armata is 125mm and this is larger than the 120mm smoothbore of the M-1 Abrams. This tells us that it was designed to go toe-to-toe with the Abrams. I read that it can shoot anti-tank missiles out the main gun, but am unable to confirm that with another source. We can surmise that it "MAY" be able to engage the M-1 before the M-1 can engage it.

The M-1 Abrams and Leopard II were the first Western tanks to have 'shoot on the run' capability, as well as thermal sights and a laser rangefinder, but these improvements have become pretty much standard on modern MBT's. If it lacks any of these features, it's doubtful it would be a match for the Abrams, so we'll have to assume that it does have these capabilities. As to whether it can match the M-1 in accuracy... ???

Another interesting feature on the T-14 tank is that the turret is remotely controlled. The turret on the T-14 is smaller and uses an autoloader. This is something you see more on Russian tanks. On most Western tanks, the turret is heavily armored and can make up 1/3 the weight of the tank. The Russian tanks have less weight in the turret and so are lighter and lower profile, and this would seem to be an advantage BUT! the NATO philosophy on that is that we trust a human to load a shell more than we do a machine, which is subject to failure. Additionally, the low profile design of the turret prevents the barrel from being depressed as much, and so it can be a disadvantage if you are trying to 'hull down' in a fighting position. Given that the weight of the T-14 is estimated to be about the same as a modern MBT, we can assume that the Russians may have opted to increase its armor/survivability.

The T-14 is also the first Russian tank to be designed with a modular chassis and Western standards of crew survivability taken into account: the 3 crew members sit in an armored compartment in the front of the tank and thus they are separated from the ammunition, which is stored in its own secure compartment. As to whether this gives the T-14 an advantage over the M-1, where a crew member sits in the turret, remains to be seen. The modularity of the T-14 suggest that its chassis will be used as the base for a variety of future weapons systems.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 15 at 2015 4:09 PM

2015-07-15T16:09:19-04:00

We haven't seen it in action yet, but right now I'm going with "not very good." I don't really trust any of the stats released and have serious operational concerns with a hull-based crew and remote controlled turret. Does theoretically increased crew survivability make up for the technological vulnerabiliites and decreased situational awareness? Doubtful. Besides, I'd like to see just how survivable that crew is to a turret popping impact.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 15 at 2015 4:29 PM

2015-07-15T16:29:54-04:00

I would like to know what ballistic solutions it uses and whether it can shoot at moving targets when moving.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 15 at 2015 4:56 PM

2015-07-15T16:56:04-04:00

I aKm not convinced that it's a better tank than our M1A2 tanks. This robotic turret that the tank contains is reminiscent of the earlier auto loaders which reputedly ripped the arms off crew members .

The Armata is lighter 48 tons as opposed to 72 for the M1A2 which depending on its power train could make it faster....but you can't outrun a 120MM round.

I think that a hit on the robotic turret , if it doesn't pop it off, will disable its electronics.

The Armata had an inauspicious beginning, breaking down in the Victory Parade.All in all its too early to tell.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/05/05/armata-soviet-parade-t14/26915519/

Response by SPC Derek Box made Jul 15 at 2015 5:12 PM

2015-07-15T17:12:57-04:00

A tank is only as good as the crew operating it. Given that Russian tanks crews are poorly trained compared to American crews no amount of technology can make a bad crew into a well oil killing machine. Russian tank crews average 10 rounds per year of main gun ammo fired vs. over 100 for American crews.

Response by SFC Miguel Lopez made Jul 15 at 2015 10:56 PM

2015-07-15T22:56:54-04:00

From the outside looks modern however what firing system, crew members, electronics, etc. lacks or have available? Still no match to the A1 or A2.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 11:22 PM

2015-07-15T23:22:31-04:00

This tank, with all the "modularity", sounds like something designed to be made quickly, cheaply, and to use the same hull for as many different configurations as possible. We'll see an air-defense version with robo turret, an artillery version, a heavy mortar, a heavy rocket version, etc. And if part of it breaks down, pull & replace with a modular component.

In other words, it seems to fit with the usual Russian notion that "quantity is a quality all its own". Their strategy, which served them well in World War 2, is to throw wave after wave of cheap crap at an enemy and wear them down. Unfortunately, they no longer have the population base to support that, and modern warfare requires technically proficient troops (who, if they are "technically proficient", have marketable skills outside and so need to be pampered somewhat, which the Russian Army is not well-known for).

They're still planning to win the war we all expected in the 1980's, at the Fulda Gap.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jul 16 at 2015 8:04 AM

2015-07-16T08:04:13-04:00

I know this was for 19K, but I wanted to weigh in. The Russians are historically know for building pretty good tanks. I worked with the Ukrainians in Iraq in 2004 and their military was sub-par at best. I think that even if they get close to the capabilities of a M-1 they will not have the training to keep up.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 2:36 PM

2015-07-16T14:36:00-04:00

I'll take 3-4 second reload any day over an autoloader. I say Russia is in for a world of hurt when those electronics are outdated in a few years.

Response by SPC Shannon Younger made Jul 17 at 2015 6:31 AM

2015-07-17T06:31:05-04:00

Well Sargent Major Wettstien
I asked my father who was in a half track in the battle of the bulge and from my experience. We both agree that the crew is what makes a tank what it is and along with today's technology you really have to sum it up by the stats and the battle history to even begin to compare the two. The M-1 is a pretty tough act to follow. Let them Russians get there feet wet with there new piece of equipment and go thru the bugs and deficiency's and the proof will be in the cold steel pudding.

Response by SSG Jose Mercado made Jul 21 at 2015 12:31 PM

2015-07-21T12:31:54-04:00

T-14 Armata doesnt even come close to the M1's. its manned by 2 people in the hull, crewless turret which will bring lots of issues. Autoloader like the rest of the russian vehicles. its mostly digital. its already showing issues. during a parade, the tank went into "protective" mode and didnt not want to move. I believe this tank will probably be a showcase tank. 2 man crew in combat? i dont see it happening. For us, we know what our capabilities and our limits are with our tanks. IMO, the T-14 Armata is nothing.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 3:08 PM

2015-07-21T15:08:22-04:00

Any tank is a deadly tank....that being said we practice an if it aint broke dont fix it mentality with the abrams. Its a phenomenal piece of equipment that gets better with every small upgrade. Russian attitude has always been quantity over quality and lets face it thats just not plausible in a modern world. It may have a few cute bells and whistles like lazer dazzler im sure like the t90-A, and an incoming atgm warning system, but what that actually says is i need other defenses because my armor isnt worth a damn. Another hard hitting problem with russian vehicles is the ammunition if im not mistaken they just cant afford to make a tungsten coated depleted uranium rod in large quantities like western allies. In addition they couldnt afford to own that many t90s or t90-A's so my guess is just like those tanks thia one is meant to be an exportAnyways just a few things to note ,or its even cheaper than those prior. Just a few of my thoughts. Treat em' rough!

Response by SSG Sean Knudsen made Jul 21 at 2015 4:32 PM

2015-07-21T16:32:43-04:00

Personally because it's not in production, has a smaller main gun, their crews lack the discipline needed on the FEBA and it has no proven record I give it the thumb down.

In reality, if you want to see what it's capabilities are against our combat proven M-1 and our nations crews, invite them to the CAT challenge. Either way, my guts as a former 19K30 Instructor tell me that the proof is in the tests it passes....and fails.

As of today, it a NO GO.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 9:33 PM

2015-07-21T21:33:25-04:00

To be totally honest! If the U.S. continues to hollow out the force by replacing all the civilian ran jobs with red cycle taskings it won't be long until the Armata or any other tank could take us!!!

What makes our tank so lethal is the lethality of the crew as a whole, not some TC with tons of knowledge or a gunner who can track it's working and training together as a team.

In the past few years you have seen decreased budgets for training, more focus on infantry training and never taking the tanks out of the MotorPool. But as soon gunnery comes around BOOM!!! Better be ready for TT VI! And tanks are breaking left and right because their never used except for starting them up on Mondays for Command MT! If u left your car in the garage for 6 months and only started it a couple times a week and then decided to drive it, stuff would break, but now days it's the crews lack of PMCS that causes it!

Wake up people the U.S. has the greatest army cause of the training our Soldiers receive!!!! Let's stop tasking Soldiers for everything under the sun, let's cut back on some of the mandatory 350-1, and let's focus on STT and MOS related skills/tasks!

Response by SPC Daniel Maskew made Jul 22 at 2015 4:28 PM

2015-07-22T16:28:13-04:00

I feel that with Russia it's always about show. Throughout history they've always tried to on-up us with weapons or machines. In the end it never amounted to anything because they put everything into a few "show" versions and never in-depth production. They have never had the infrastructure to quantify there ideas. Sure it looks impressive and will probably be a good tank with proper crew and training as alluded to in some previous replies. Sure you can swap out parts when damaged, but can you during a firefight? To many bells and whistles for me though.

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made Jul 22 at 2015 4:43 PM

2015-07-22T16:43:20-04:00

I see up sides and downsides to this new tank.

Up Sides;
It is smaller and lighter than the M1 series so there for it will be easier to move and possibly faster due to weight. It will be similar in battle to our Sheridan.
I do see advances on it with Gunners and TCs Optics on the turret as well as a cross wind sensor and it is a larger main gun.

Down Sides;
It will not have the armor that the Abrams has.
It has an auto loader that we are not font of for a few reasons. 3 man crew means less people but also less men to repair track and other issues that take an entire crew (more stress on the men).
Auto loader again, More moving parts means more things to break.
From what I am reading no one is in the turret there may not be room to work manually as we always train to be able to do. How do you clear a jam when you are not even in the turret?
Larger rounds means more range but with the addition of weight and fewer rounds or other extras like armor.
I only saw 4 grenade launchers on each side. The Abrams has more on each side and they are fired in different salvos so that you can fire half of them or all of them.
I looks narrow and tall so I would worry about moving on steep contour. Where the Abrams has a wide stature. I would like to see how it shoots with the turret turned to its flanks with that big gun.

While I saw that the speeds on both are similar I can attest that that is the Public version of the max speed. I know the Abrams is capable of 175% of its listed speed. If you ever get to see one hauling across the ground let me tell you they do fly and leave the ground with little effect on the crew.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 24 at 2015 7:56 PM

2015-07-24T19:56:15-04:00

I question the TC not being at the top.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 12 at 2015 11:54 AM

2015-08-12T11:54:40-04:00

SGM Steve Wettstein - Sergeant Major; Some of the T-14s claimed capabilities are coming under fire.

http://www.janes.com/article/53540/armour-experts-sceptical-over-t-14-invisibility-claims?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_J360%2012.08.15%20_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

However no one will actually know how good/bad the T-14 is compared to the M1A2 until someone runs a head-to-head between the two (using crews of equivalent quality).

There is no disputing the fact that "Where the hardware [H] is roughly equal, then it is both amount of hardware {A] and quality of crew [C] that count." [take that as "H = A x C" as a rough formula]. You can make up for a lower [A] with a higher [C] and vice versa, but there are limits. [For example, if your MBT carries 60 rounds of AP and can travel at 45mph, it is very likely to be killed by 65 tanks that each carry one round of AP and can travel at 55mph. AND, if you run out of your MBTs before the other guys run out of their little tanks - you will lose.]

On the other hand, I strongly suspect that the T-14 (while probably better than the existing Russian tanks) is intended more to sucker the US government into a race to "produce more and better tanks" (which isn't something that should really be imposed on the US economy [or military budget] at this time) and is possibly not even intended to go into mass production at all.

Armour experts sceptical over T-14 'invisibility' claims - IHS Jane's 360

Armour specialists from both Russia and the United States are sceptical of recent claims made by the enterprise that produces Russia's new T-14 Armata MBT that the tank is essentially "invisible" to radar. The claim was made by the director of the Nizhi-Tagil-based UralVagonZavod (UVZ)

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 23 at 2015 10:01 PM

2015-08-23T22:01:37-04:00

How many TC's will be decapitated?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Aug 23 at 2015 10:02 PM

2015-08-23T22:02:42-04:00

I bet they're both pretty vulnerable to hellfire missiles fired from UAVs.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Sep 16 at 2015 8:07 PM

2015-09-16T20:07:00-04:00

Automated Turret and Autoloader? LOL No one can make this work , especially the Russians.
And 3 man crews CANNOT perform all the duties involved in an armor unit, or on an individual tank.

So a faux hi-tech toy with an inadequate amount of personnel. Nope, Stick with a tried and tested and good tank, M1-M1A2.

In battle , I would expect results something like T-34' vs Tiger 1's, but the tiger can move at 60 and shoot, and the T-34 having less maneuverability than historic.

Response by SFC Wayne Theilen made May 17 at 2016 11:13 AM

2016-05-17T11:13:51-04:00

Crap. Who knows if it's even a working tank and not a vis mode version like at the NTC.

Response by SPC Douglas Hemmingway made May 31 at 2016 8:50 PM

2016-05-31T20:50:34-04:00

I'm an old 19E and I have no idea. A FB friend of mine has been sharing data and stills of the T-14 and I have not seen a comparison with the M-1 series yet. I served on the old M-60 series (M-60 slick and M-60A3). My guess is as long as it is a face on engagement they may be on equal footing, but if the T-14 is like most Russian and prior Soviet armor it likely has an auto-loader and the best time to engage is when the barrel is elevated to load.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2016 2:46 AM

2016-06-03T02:46:27-04:00

Sure the technological advances of the tank are quite substantial but in retrospect as two earlier comments about the proficiency of the crew let alone possibilities of equipment failure as we are all well too familiar with how fast things fail under stress and the fact that the crew has been reduced to two people trying to troubleshoot an entire computer system and fight and maneuver a tank I would believe it poses no significant threat whatsoever in the standoff fight

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Oct 25 at 2017 8:41 AM

2017-10-25T08:41:03-04:00

Draw a 1 inch X on it and I could hit it at 1500 meters with my old Chrysler M1 . SN0054

Has an unmanned turret and a 3 man crew , all bad ideas.

Response by PV2 Calvin Millican made Nov 8 at 2017 3:28 PM

2017-11-08T15:28:05-05:00

I believe that our tankers know that they have to be fast at what they do so i go with the M1

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Nov 26 at 2017 10:24 AM

2017-11-26T10:24:22-05:00

Would need to see this unit performing before I passed judgement, by I am partial to saying the M-1A3 has no competition from it.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Nov 26 at 2017 2:01 PM

2017-11-26T14:01:13-05:00

The picture of the Russian tank has either been vertically stretched or horizontally compressed. Look at the barrel

Response by GySgt H Logan made Apr 4 at 2021 11:32 PM

2021-04-04T23:32:12-04:00

Quick steel on target.