UK military intelligence issues warning over Russian supertank threat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... uper-tank/

"British military intelligence has issued a warning over a ground-breaking tank being developed by Russia, according to a leaked document seen by The Telegraph.

The Ministry of Defence internal briefing paper raises doubts over the UK’s ability to combat the threat posed by the Kremlin’s new Armata tank.

It also questions why the Government has no plans for a rival tank for at least 20 years.



A prototype of the Armata was rolled out last year at the annual May Day parade in Moscow, prompting the commissioning of the five-page intelligence report. The tank is pioneering, according to the document, because of a revolutionary turret design that makes crew less vulnerable under fire.

The tank is also reckoned to be lighter, faster and lower in profile than Western rivals.

The document also suggests the tank will be kitted out with a radar system currently used on state-of-the-art Russian fighter jets and new composite armour. It has a “reported higher muzzle velocity” gun and the possibility of an upgraded missile system.

“As a complete package, Armata certainly deserves its billing as the most revolutionary tank in a generation,” concludes the intelligence briefing paper.

“For the first time, a fully automated, digitised, unmanned turret has been incorporated into a main battle tank. And for the first time a tank crew is embedded within an armoured capsule in the hull front.”

Are we on the cusp of a new technological arms race? Has an understandable focus on defeating the single threat of IEDs distracted Western military vehicle designers?
Military intelligence report
The Army intelligence officer says UK defence strategy has concentrated on the threat from improvised explosive devices deployed by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and ignored the danger posed by tanks."

"

According to the Left tank battles were becoming a thing of the past, well they're obviously not.

Honestly, the Armata is a mixed bag. It has completely abandoned the old soviet tank doctrine. It is very well armoured, and has an excellent gun. It has moderate maneuverability and sighting systems. However, it is a huge target when compared to Current western tanks, never mind older soviet tanks. It is also prone to mechanical breakdowns, and is very expensive for the Russians to produce.


If you were to equip a Leopard 2 with a new 130mm autoloader in a new low profile turret, having the Commander and Gunner sit lower in the turret on each side of the gun, and gave it a larger power plant bringing the power-weight ratio above 25hp/tonne, you would have a better tank than the Armata.

It's not according to the left - it's according to historical facts. Massed tank battles are largely a thing of the past.

Do you even have an idea of when the last time a Western army (aside from the Israelis) actually fought a major tank to tank battle?

IIRC, the last major tank battle involving western armies was Desert Storm - there may have been some smaller scale battles during Iraq part deux, but nothing like Desert Storm or WW2.

Before that, it was the Korean conflict, when western tank forces (Canada included), faced limited numbers of T-34s in North Korean/Chinese service. Unless the West gets into a conventional conflict with Russia or China, the odds of a massed tank battle is extremely low, because enemy armour will be eliminated with air power (gunships and/or CAS).

That's why western armies have generally moved towards lighter units that are air-transportable and can be deployed quickly (like US Stryker brigades).

There is a need to have some tanks in the arsenal, but the days of major powers fielding tens of thousands of them are almost certainly behind us.

It's not according to the left - it's according to historical facts. Massed tank battles are largely a thing of the past.

Do you even have an idea of when the last time a Western army (aside from the Israelis) actually fought a major tank to tank battle?

IIRC, the last major tank battle involving western armies was Desert Storm - there may have been some smaller scale battles during Iraq part deux, but nothing like Desert Storm or WW2.

Before that, it was the Korean conflict, when western tank forces (Canada included), faced limited numbers of T-34s in North Korean/Chinese service. Unless the West gets into a conventional conflict with Russia or China, the odds of a massed tank battle is extremely low, because enemy armour will be eliminated with air power (gunships and/or CAS).

That's why western armies have generally moved towards lighter units that are air-transportable and can be deployed quickly (like US Stryker brigades).

There is a need to have some tanks in the arsenal, but the days of major powers fielding tens of thousands of them are almost certainly behind us.

When was the last time the west engaged in a large scale conventional conflict? The only reason why tanks haven't been used en-masse by the west is because we haven't had a conventional war since Korea. Even the first gulf war was a flop in that regard.

The plains of Poland and Ukraine are still wide open for another round of that kind of battle, and probably will be some day again if Putin keeps at it with his belligerence. That's why we still need to have these vehicles, even if in most other places they're like the navies full of dreadnoughts in World War One that no side dared risk losing. Besides, the air superiority that the US had over Iraq won't be repeated over Russia. The A-10, for example, that is still doing so well in the desert ward would be a sitting duck against the Russian air force and anti-aircraft defenses. When air superiority is challenged, or even negated, the reliance on the big hammers like tanks will still be there.

It's not according to the left - it's according to historical facts. Massed tank battles are largely a thing of the past.

Do you even have an idea of when the last time a Western army (aside from the Israelis) actually fought a major tank to tank battle?

IIRC, the last major tank battle involving western armies was Desert Storm - there may have been some smaller scale battles during Iraq part deux, but nothing like Desert Storm or WW2.

Before that, it was the Korean conflict, when western tank forces (Canada included), faced limited numbers of T-34s in North Korean/Chinese service. Unless the West gets into a conventional conflict with Russia or China, the odds of a massed tank battle is extremely low, because enemy armour will be eliminated with air power (gunships and/or CAS).

That's why western armies have generally moved towards lighter units that are air-transportable and can be deployed quickly (like US Stryker brigades).

There is a need to have some tanks in the arsenal, but the days of major powers fielding tens of thousands of them are almost certainly behind us.
Thanos made a valid point of why battle tanks are still relevant because when NATO gets dragged in to face off against Russia in Poland and Ukraine we will need them.

So even the Russians have gone full Tiger.

Oh well, they will figure it out, butat least they still have the industrial
capacity to go back and crank out thousands of T series tanks. We don't.

Meh, weapons technology has already ensured its obsolescence in about 5 more years. While DUC munitions were fun, the US is developing an anti-tank weapon that makes DUC rounds seem like you're just slapping the tank with your hand. It's designed to make short work of depleted uranium armour and various composite armours as well as the crews inside.

Amazingly for Canada though, our govt actually listened to the lessons our military learned in A-Stan and one of those lessons was the need for more MBTs, NOT light armoured vehicles.