"What was the T-14 Armata built for?" Topic

Since the end of WWII every time a nation introduced a radically different MBT it was to counter some preserved threat or to achieve some tactical/operational/strategic goal that the prior designs were deemed unable to do. Given the cost and the risk of "going back to the drawing board" to come up with a new MBT design, it is never done on whim. It inevitably is done to achieve something specific and concrete.

What do you see Russia trying to accomplish with the new T-14? What need are they trying to meet?

Better crew protection, better armament, possibly better mobility, and potentially an unmanned variant. Foreign sales are also a need this tank may meet.
link

To give tank modellers something new to build?

Trying to greatly increase crew protection compared to T72 series, mostly.

Also to get all their heavy equipment (tanks, heavy IFV, arty) onto the same chassis.

The Kurganets is doing the same for BMP-based vehicles, and there's a wheeled chassis somewhere.

To keep the factories/workers trained as well as things noted above

I think they are also warily eyeing the rapid technological progress of China. The two aren't terribly fond of each other.

I think there is a bigger issue here than building a better tank. A fully upgraded T-90 is a pretty mean MBT. If the Russians just wanted something better why not T-90 2.0?

What Rakkasan said made me think. I think the unmanned turret/better crew protection and the potential for an unmanned or partially automated upgrade is the key here.

My theory is that Russia is preparing for a major demographic shift. Their population is shrinking in comparison to the rest of the world. I think Russia is preparing for a military that does not rely on a massive population to replace losses. So that means a greater focus on crew survivability and perhaps a reliance on unmanned, or semi-automated vehicles to allow a large mechanized army to be fielded with a lower population.

In fact you could argue that the old Soviet Russian armored doctrine would be an excellent fit for masses of armor controlled remotely or by basic AI. That was kind of the dream all along.

Regardless of doctrine or AI. I suspect that the T-14 is a reaction to a declining population.

What are your thoughts? Does the theory hold water?

Don't overthink it. It's simply the logical next technological evolution. The future battlefield will be fought by unmanned systems, including robot tanks and AI-controlled drones regardless of whether your population is in decline.

There's also that, from an economic standpoint, you save training costs. It's not cheap to train tank crews and keep them in fighting shape through continuous exercises.

The idea of unmanned turrets & moving the crew into the hull is nothing new or revolutionary. The US was goofing around with the idea in the '80s IIRC. We just never brought the projects into production, because the M1 was good enough (if not better) for any perceived future conflicts.

I personally think the Armata is a showcar project for the Russians: show the world (& potential customers) their technical prowess. Maybe those countries won't opt for Armatas, but the Russians have a few thousand very nice T-90s to sell you in the meantime…

Damon.

T-14 is just to look good on the parade ground to prompt USA into a very expensive rethink of its armoured force.

Its the concept tank that prompts other countries to go down dead end development routes as they have to go better not match Russia.

We are coming to a period when a complete rethink of armoured warfare is required but the main problem is the logistic one of shifting 70 ton beasts around the world and keeping them maintained at the end of a long and vulnerable logistic train.

T-14 is just to look good on the parade ground to prompt USA into a very expensive rethink of its armoured force.

Wouldn't put it past the Russian state, given their current game playing, but a tactic could rather bite you in the behind for obvious reasons – given that its unlikely Western democracies would manage to spend enough money on arms programmes to damage their economy! But may be they are playing a really deep game to ensure that any NATO expeditionary force to save Serbia from the PRC has some updated MBT's….

Well, the T14 has already led the US to look at new 120mm ammo. Might even lead to the US installing the L55 120mm (the Abrams are still rocking the short 120mm of the early Leo2s!), which would be the cheap alternative.

The expensive alternative would be 130mm or 140mm guns.

And the US is currently looking at a new generation of tanks and IFVs (and probably artillery, too). There is only so much more growth we can stretch out of the Abrams, and the Abrams are really way too heavy for the US's treaty obligations, take far too long to move to a trouble-spot.