New Russian main battle tank Armata

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/uk-military-intelligence-issues-warning-over-russian-super-tank/

Army games 2016
youtube.com/watch?v=ZzcIEsG6QVc

Some facts about the tank
youtube.com/watch?v=tSjDUZDOVto

>"Mr. president Putin, our people are starving!"
>"Worry not, comrade, we are investing heavily into new military equipment."

>"Mr.President people in province starving because they don't work"
>"Worry not, comrade, they are not people but bydlo"

>Non-stealth tanks
Reminder that there could be Polish stealth tanks in your country RIGHT NOW and even their production facilities are undetectable.

>people can't buy some obscure Danish cheese and delicious Polish apples
What a life is that without Polish apples? Just send me to the battlefield, comrade Putin, so I can die with honor.

In a real war all these fancy weapons will be the first to go

It's not even orange, kek

Russia BTFO

>Searching tanks with radars

>Dutch in charge of camouflage

It's supposed to camouflage itself in the IR spectrum.

It is nice tank

What's the difference between high explosive and kinetic energy shells?

All those fancy sensors aren't going to do shit with a molotov in the air intake :^)

HE uses a shaped charge, but is usually a warhead, KE I think is a fin-stabilized sabot

The first is good against soft vehicles that a sabot would just make a hole through

>already had its engine break down in public on more than one occasion
>russian """""""""""""""engineering"""""""""""""""

>Swedish """"""""""""""""""""""""""""tank""""""""""""""""""""""""""

The S-tank is highly praised and was technologically very advanced when it was introduced. It was specifically made to defeat a numerically superior enemy (Russia). And unlike the T-14 it actually works.

Looks expensive.

Why not go for an autonomous mass produced model.
Then build a wall of tanks, but it will be a mobile wall, with guns and cannons.

>couldn't even penetrate t64

really makes you think

It's not a frontal attack vehicle. It lies in ambush and attacks from the sides or behind and then rapidly redeploys (it can drive as fast backwards as it can forwards).

wow typical delusional 14yo fatnik

>Attack from side
>With that little speed
>With that deploy time
lol could work in theory

So it was basically designed to hide in the woods and sudden-thrust the russian rear with that long, thick, fix, metal tube gun?

You can do it russia

precisely

18 hp/t is enough for rapid redeployment

>can't shoot without turning
>need time to change mode
Wow

maybe you took my many previous sarcastic posts like "give us food" too serious
we aren't starving

it supposed to actually
pretends to have the lowerest detectability as one of advantages

Зaткниcь, шкoльник.
Bo вcём миpe opyжиe нopмaльнoe. Убийcтвeннoe.
He дypaки жe дeлaют.

hey

Unimportant attributes if you're laying waiting in ambush.

Remember, it's 100% purpose built for that one specific task. It's not a general purpose tank like the T-64 was. Some people even argue it should be called a tank destroyer and not a tank.

fucking vatniks REEEEE

Hy paз в гoд дaжe пaлкa cтpeляeт.

>21st century combat
>tanks being relevant

You may pick one, and only one.

It's the age of the missile. Aircraft carriers and tanks will be less and less important as time goes on. A missile will always be cheaper than a tank or ship. Missile countermeasures will increase the cost of each tank, while the missiles will remain the same cost or cheaper. The tanks days are numbered.

>aircraft carriers
No, not really

Зaчeм вooбщe вaм тaнки, кoгдa cтpaнa пpoeбaнa бaндe Пyтинa?

Missiles can't hold land. You always need boots on the ground and you always need vehicles to support those troops.

PAШКA CTPOHГ

>he tries to mock swedish engineering by linking a picture of one of the most clever tank designs of the 20th century

But Ivan, that's not how dissing people works.

Thats true, лiл

This. Holding territory cannot be done without troops and appropriate armor, especially in defensive wars.

Right now? Of course they are very useful, for fighting minor powers like Iran and Libya. Also excellent for dick-wagging contests in the South China Sea.

In a conventional war? Among the "great" world powers? They would be like battleships in World War II: the ultimate weapon from the previous war that is no longer relevant.

If I intercept 995 out of your 1000 Silkworm missiles, you've still sunk my $10 billion dollar aircraft carrier for 1/10th the cost. Carriers just aren't cost effective in a conventional conflict among great powers. This century belongs to the missile, and the drone.

Aircraft carriers would probably find a use, they aren't completely obsolete yet. I would use them in a supporting role, like clearing convoy routes or mop up operations.

But on the front line they will get SILKWORM'D.

I'm thinking at least two from now, not the current year. I think drones and missiles and cyberwarfare and Maskirovka-style special operations will all make tanks go the way of the horse cavalry.

We will see. But hopefully not, I kind of like the world peace between the great powers that we all enjoy.

Wtf Russia,why didn't you invited us to Tank Biathlon this year? We're m8s.

>at least two DECADES from now***

JUST fuck my post up senpai

>tfw your country will never be friendly enough with russia to get invited to a tank biathlon

Just to be devil's advocate, radar-guided anti-tank missiles are very common.

This post makes the sort of silly assumption that a Carrier just has to sit there and take it. The whole point is that it's an offensive weapon, and will be part of a group taking down the launch platforms (land, sea, and air) of these missiles. Defensive countermeasures are there to take care of whatever survives this, not survive the total missile stockpile of an enemy.

I heard that they invited several western european countries, but all denied.

>I think drones and missiles and cyberwarfare and Maskirovka-style special operations will all make tanks go the way of the horse cavalry.
This is the sort of thinking that loses wars.
People thought that tanks had gone the way of the dodo. Fast forward to Ukraine, and suddenly the US military realizes it has been ceding conventional, statistical warfare to the Russians in a big way, and needs to reorient itself pronto.

So much smoke.

American spyplanes and sattelites can't spy on.

>If I intercept 995 out of your 1000 Silkworm missiles, you've still sunk my $10 billion dollar aircraft carrier for 1/10th the cost.
Nobody (except USA maybe) have enough vector to launch a single wave of 1000 missiles powerfull enough to damage and sunk an Aircarrier.
So it makes your point biased because an Aircarrier is never ever alone. it's inclued in a aeronaval battlegroup wich provides it a massive protection against everything that fly or float, capable to stop wave of hundreds of missiles.
Also, the force projected by an aircarrier will always be relevant especially in modern war where air superioty is the key of everything. You speak about drones and missiles, both need a vector. An aircarrier typically.

But you don't need 1000. 20 salvo would be enough

>LED lights
Fuck, fuck, fuck.

How are you suppose to beat these tanks?

A wave of 50 missiles would not be enough to surcharge all the counter mesure of a battlegroup.
Also, again, nobody but America have a stock of 1000 missiles powerful enough to damage a Aircarrier and modern enough to pass countermesure of modern ships

Russia have also 20 would be really enough to damage group with burke escort

Who would fire that 20 missile salvo?

Would the USN respond to this theoretical foe?

i guess if you send it to a desert it cant be spotted. The tank will be a second sun or something

>zimbabwe
>zimbabwe, for real

My sides just left the solar system