Talk:T-14 Armata

Russia: Technology & engineering / Military Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Military history: Land vehicles / Russian & Soviet Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Military land vehicles task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Merge Same content, same infobox, i don't know what is the difference. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. It looks like there's been a number of changes to both articles over the past week or so, and they are quite distinct from one another. Perhaps you're confused. nagualdesign 18:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. The Armata combat platform is the body of all its variant vehicles, including the T-14 Armata. SkoraPobeda (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. Armata IS NOT tank. This is plaform for several armed vehicles. Armata = engine + transmision + armored capsule for crew. No weapons included in Armata plaform. Weapons delivered separetly as "combat modules". For example tank tower for T-14 or Epoha for armored personnel carrier. 213.21.40.144 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge As previously stated, Armata is not the tank itself. Kitsunedawn (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge As previously stated... Armata is hull, engine and transmission; serves for different vehicles. T-14 is MBT based on Armata. I'll close this case. --Markscheider (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge - Merging the information on the combat platform into the page about the tank makes little sense, given that there are artillery platforms and APCs which use the same design as well. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While officially, the T-14 is classified by most outside nations as a "Main Battle Tank" or MBT, most reporting agencies are classifying it as a "medium tank" due to the Amarta system being able to be used for a "heavy" tank. As CNN says: "Copies of the new Armata T-14 medium tank have been rumbling through Moscow this week..." [1] and Russia Beyond the Headlines who said quote "On the Ministry of Defense's website, the T-14 Armata tank is classified as a medium tank, which raised questions among defense industry experts interviewed by the website Lenta.ru." and "The T-14 tank and the T-15 heavy infantry combat vehicle are known to have been developed under the designation "universal heavy-tracked platform Armata."[2] Given this information, shouldn't we change the page to instead read "The T-14 Armata (industrial designation "Object 148") is a Russian advanced next generation medium tank based on the Armata Universal Combat Platform. It was first seen in public (initially with its turret and cannon shrouded) during rehearsals for the 2015 Moscow Victory Day Parade.[2]"Kitsunedawn (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever media are typing, classifiyng tanks in light, medium and heavy ist obsolete since late sixties.--Markscheider (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNN or any other media are hardly the most reliable source for military designations. There have been cases of media types calling tracked APC/IFV's tanks, sometimes even when the vehicle is wheeled!! As Markscheider says light/medium/heavy designations for tanks is pretty well obsolete. Proper designation is main battle tank (MBT). Jagaer meister (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNN definitely isn't reliable when it comes to identifying vehicles. They had pictures of "Russian tanks on the move" in Crimea, but these tanks were in reality 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzers... SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't currently have relevant regs on hand, but I've been told time and again that the Russian GABTU (MoD Armor Directorate) doesn't actually have any "main battle tank" class on its books. While they use the term unofficially, on the paper all Russian MBTs are officially designated as "medium tanks", because that's the class they all ultimately descended from, and there wasn't any Russian heavy tank since T-10. Some people even speculate that the possible future 6"-armed version of "Armata" might be designated as a heavy tank, officially reviving the class. -Khathi (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm thinking. Since the self propelled gun is being called the "heavy" variant, then it makes sense that the Russian military would classify the T-14 as being a medium vehicle, while the IFV is classified as light. Kitsunedawn (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the breakdown? It's been covered so extensively in independent sources that the breakdown is arguably notable in its own right. Wikipedia articles should certainly reflect what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should reflect what sources say and not someone's personal opionion. This doesn't mean that we have have to reflect every minor incident. I've seen a Vespa scooter today at roadside. Apperently it was broken, because it's driver was trying really hard to push it over a crest. Do we cite such incidents in Vespa? No, of course not. Why not? Because it isn't relevant. Here it is the same, media coverage doesn't change that. First of all, we don't know if this tank has had a breakdown for real, because after some 15 minutes or so it moved under it's own power. So maybe the russians are right and this was staged, maybe not and they were able to fix it on the spot (without all the spectators noticing some opne hatches, toools, mechanics and whatever). But his doesn't matter at all. Breakdowns of this (or any other tank or verhicle in generell) would only be relevant, if they appear in numbers and frequently. One single vehicle breaking down - faked or for real - means absolutely nothing. I'm quite annoyed by the fact that i have to explain such simple, basic things of how wikipedia works. Im suggesting reading WP:ROC first - to you and all other people here, who are jumping with excitement because they've spotted a spot at this shiny new tank. Omg. --Markscheider (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC

Of course we shouldn't mention the Vespa; you just mentioned it. We should mention the tank breakdown, because it's been highlighted by several independent sources. That's what makes it relevant; that's what NPOV requires. NPOV doesn't say anything about random trivia which isn't mentioned by any sources, so it is unclear how you concluded the Vespa example would be either relevant or helpful. bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be helpfull to explain to you, why single vehicle breakdowns (or rice bags falling over in china, for that matter) are _not_ releveant for wikipedia. Maybe i've overestimated your cognitive capabilities. --Markscheider (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Markscheider: We were just having a nice and constructive discussion, and now we risk to have it spoiled with personal remarks. Please try not to do that and instead focus for example on explaining below what you meant by 'the Ukraine crisis'. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Western' relations with russia are tense now because of Crimean crisis and War in Ukraine. That's the generell con- and pretext for this kind of news. Since 70 years soviet union (and now russia as it's successor) is celebrating victory over nazi germany with a military parade. And traditionally new hardware is presented at this occasion. There's nothing really new with it - except for they're weapons, of course. I mean, you cannot take western or other media coverage as proof of relevance. Die schreiben viel, wenn der Tag lang ist (I don't know what this german proverb means in english, literally: media writes a lot of things at long days). You don't have to take 'em with a grain of salt, you don't have to take those media hype at all. News of a russian tank that has or has not stopped because of mechanical breakdown at red square are only get this kind of extensive coverage because of the tensions between the west and russia. Thats all, and wp should leave such hype where it belongs to be. --Markscheider (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bobrayner here. There is extensive media coverage of this incident, which happened with a vehicle of strategic importance at an important time and place. My main reservation is WP:RECENTISM, but again, this was not an event at some random time and place. Lklundin (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lklundin: agreed. But answer me this: did it really happen? The extensive media coverage has only one reason: the ukraine crisis. And thats it. No relevance for this particular article.--Markscheider (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Markscheider: You have me confused. Multiple news outlets, including Russian state controlled media such as rt.com has reported the T-14 standstill and is distributing video, where one can see a column of 2S35's having to change lanes to avoid the immobilized T-14 and the subsequent failed towing attempt. Are you suggesting all these videos from different sources are all fake? I see no relevance of any Ukraine crisis here. Lklundin (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one url (pars pro toto) [3]. I suggest nothing. I raise questions. Made it news? Yes, for sure. Is it relevant for this article? Not at all. --Markscheider (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Markscheider; Newsworthy≠notable. There are any number of political reasons why this little story made it to the news. Something went wrong (possibly) during a rehearsal is all. That's what rehearsals are for. Who cares? Let's not allow WP to be dragged into the media engine. nagualdesign 22:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: Please, what are these 'number of political reasons why this little story made it to the news'? And keep in mind that these political reasons would need to explain why the reporting media include Russian media such as rt.com and the Moscow Times. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're not familiar with the news? This incident happened in Red Square and the T-14 is quite new, perhaps not quite ready, which made it newsworthy (in Russia, at least). Meanwhile Russia been 'flexing its military muscles', to use the common media parlance, since the beginning of the crisis in Ukraine, which made this relatively minor incident internationally newsworthy!!! Draw your own political conclusions. As for Wikipedia, we are left to decide whether or not this is notable, regardless of how the media or international politics operates. See guidelines here. nagualdesign 23:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal political analysis is just WP:OR with no relevance as to why an incident widely reported both nationally and internationally should be left out. Lklundin (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be OR, if nagualdesign has had posted it into the article. It's just an explanation, why such a minor incident got that much media coverage. And still i'm asking: was it really an incident? What have we seen: a vehicle stops for short period of time (sources differ from 15 uo to 30 minutes) during a rehearsal, than moves again, engine was running all the time. All the rest of 'putins new toy', 'embarassing' and so on is just media bs. --Markscheider (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent the sources by downplaying what the sources (including video) report happened. Lklundin (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this; this article does not yet have a History section, so make one and put it in their. Yes, a vehicle breaking down is not something to write in every single time, but this is when it was first publically presented, so a short sentence that includes it stopped moving when it was first shown off seems a noteworthy inclusion. America789 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim isnot true. A problem during a rehearsal for a parada is nothing noteworthy. It's not that people died like in the A400M case, or anything else that will still be remembered in a year. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that instead of chewing over the politics we stick to discussing WP policy and guidelines. For example;

(From WP:NOTNEWS) News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.

(From WP:PERSISTENCE) Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.

I've yet to hear any policy- or guideline-based reasoning for including this non-event in the article. nagualdesign 18:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The breakdown is not noteworthy information, since it's nothing extraordinary in tanks and these were prototype tanks which are meant to show what flaws are left in the design. Lastdingo (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is technically not a breakdown at all — there are tons of videos displaying the tank driving away under its own power. The insiders suggest that it was a simple driver error: an overstressed driver first let the tank stall, and then, due to lack of experience with the radically revised controls layout, mistakenly engaged a parking brake, which prevented towing. When an experienced factory test driver was brought in, he disengaged the brake, restarted the tank, and happily drove away in a couple of minutes. Don't have any reliable sources for that tidbit aside from forum discussions, though. Khathi (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied a fair amount of photos and footage both public and classified from parades and similar and would say that such a failed towing attempt is rare. But it is true that it could just be a driver error. I guess time will tell how reliable the Armata platform turns out to be (and as long as I don't get to see it on my local town square, then that is fine by me). Lklundin (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask less English-gifted Russian editors, especially anonymous ones, to add their contributions here, and not on the article page itself? I appreciate the effort, but your questionable grasp of English (or, in some cases, even the painfully obvious use of machine translation) makes everyone's life miserable. The people actually knowing English always have to clean up the mess you leave behind, and it's a chore. This way the more linguistically gifted may add it to the article without the time-consuming copy-editing. Thank you in advance. (In Russian) Люди, большая просьба: ну не знаете вы английского — не лепите переведённые промтом «лец ми спик фром май харт ин Ынглиш» прямо в статью, за вами потом не наредактируешься. Кидайте сюда, а мы переведём и сразу вставим. -Khathi (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Семикатковая активная подвеска на лопастных амортизаторах с дифференциальным механизмом поворота с гидрообъемной передачей.[3] Активная подвеска нивелирует раскачивание танка во время движения, что в 2,2 раза улучшает время захвата целей оптико-электронными средствами и в 1,45 раза уменьшает время поражения цели типа "танк"[11]

http://vz.ru/society/2013/9/26/652197.html Как и Т-95, танк Т-14 будет оснащен адаптивной подвеской – «умной», способной адаптировать режимы работы к рельефу, типу местности и скорости машины. Да, это дорого, но такая подвеска позволит увеличить скорость как движения танков в колоннах, так и движения одиночной машины по пересеченной местности. Она же снизит утомляемость экипажей на длительных маршах. А вместе с новой системой управления огнем (СУО) и стабилизатором танкового вооружения адаптивная подвеска даст возможность серьезно увеличить максимальную скорость, на которой танк способен вести точный огонь. Сейчас она составляет, в зависимости от танка, обычно до 30–35 км/ч, редко чуть больше, но наиболее оптимальный режим обеспечивается до 25 км/ч. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezaniato (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html http://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.89 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -Khathi (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2015. Has not officially declared price^[1]. It was said about the possible decline in the number tanks to the procurement.

• Possibly 200^[2](approx. $5.0 million). Significantly more than the T-90S, and is approximately equal to the M1A2.^[3]
• Is rumored to be at around 400 million (approx. $7.4 million)^[4] Equal to the cost of the MiG-29 fighter aircraft. That's less than some of the Main battle tank.^[5]
• The price is already a fixed^[6] The total cost is reduced and will be additionally reduced in mass production.^[7]

Nezaniato (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -Khathi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with MiG-29 is nonsense. A MiG-29 costs even as basic "Fly-away" price much more than 10 million USD. Lastdingo (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source, as I view it, must refer to an already amortized cost for the domestic buyer, not a commercial fly-away one, though your point probably still stands. -Khathi (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2A82 developed new ammunition BPS "Vacuum 1" length of 900mm. Fragmentation high-explosive incendiary projectile with detonation by command and the rocket 3UBK21 "Sprinter".

2А82 были разработаны новые боеприпасы APFSDS "Вакуум-1" длиной 900мм. Осколочно фугасно зажигательный снаряд с детонацией по команде и ракета 3УБК21 "Спринтер".

http://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html = Для новой пушки 2А82 были разработаны новые боеприпасы БПС "Вакуум-1" длиной 900мм. Для 82-й пушки был разработан и новый "Тельник" с подрывом на траектории и УРС 3УБК21 "Спринтер". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezaniato (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2A83 has APFSDS with speed of 1980 m / s and at a distance of 2 km from the speed of 1900 m / s^[8] 2A83 annum creation 2000.^{[9][10][11][12]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khathi (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khathi (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Khathi (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html

• 5/3,5/ 7500 for faiter AND major(command) = 2. take aim at two identical sight. today wiki use 1 *sight* unknown (where and who uses it)

• + 3 aim 2500+1000 mettersю actually there are 2 identical (range but perhaps tight slit sight and a broad overview of sight) + 1 = 3

Камрады, пишите по-русски, вашего «английского» я НЕ ПОНИМАЮ, настолько он плох. -Khathi (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• время замены блока двигателя полчаса // это указано в многих статьях, можно заменить весь блок, и время нуцжное для замены

• о да, 48 тонн это стратегическая мобильность, можно таскать по мостам, ЖД и самолётов.^[13] не попадалось про армату Т-14. но можно указать типовую грузоподъёмность ил-76 или авитраспортабельность вплоть до абрамса (случалось видеть).
  • Really inapplicable. First of all, the 48 ton mass is just a speculation yet, second, only PS-90-equipped Il-76 can lift such mass anyway, and there are still a lot of D-30 equipped-ones in Russia, and third, the tank's dimensions are still classified, and we all know that even a T-72 barely fits into the ol'Candid's hold. So I'd hold the air mobility statement until they actually try. -Khathi (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ЭПР=0,3 метра квадратных, это выдумка писателя, в любом Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). строго указано *размер* эпр 0,3 даже для миллимитрового диапзона даже для плоского круга будет 0,15, в любом случае размер и ЭПР прямо не очень связаны и если *размер* то размер, а ЭПР убрать.

stealth for the movement - Hidden means for lighting ways of motion in the dark Т-14 имеет инфракрасные светодиодные фары и габаритные огни, что затрудняет обнаружение колонны техники во время ночных маршей[12]. stealth for communication - invisible to the enemy a way to exchange data Возможно использование инфракрасных приборов для связи с другими современными российскими ББМ в режиме «радиотишины» при установки специальных опций[35] http://lenta.ru/news/2015/05/15/atom_armata/ http://defense-update.com/20150509_kurganets-25bmp-btr.html#.VVvsobntmkq http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t15_analysis.html#.VVvspbntmkq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.64 (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html

• 2A83 суммарное рассеивание при стрельбе в движении сократилось в 1,7 раза.

давление в орудии до 7700 АТМ против до 3000 у других орудий

http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201504260950-qyc9.htm

30 вариантов трансформации арматы (это для т-14 статья или армата статья)

боекомплект внутри корпуса в броне капсуле + о внутри корпуса и спецмодуле http://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html

http://www.zr.ru/content/articles/782836-bronya-krepka-i-tanki-nashi-premery-parada-pobedy/

те самые дрожащие на ветру *картонные танки* внешний вид башни это стелс оболочка фактически башня гораздо меньше там же и тут http://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html факт того что полочка сзади на башне над корпусом висящая это ящик ЗИП и ящик с патронами в значительной своей части, то есть консерва разрушение которой ничего не значит. (а это уже от себя ) ну и уже если побегать с рулеткой, боковая проекция собственно башни арматы раза в 2 меньше чем фактический размер башни леклерк или абрамс или к2 но это будет в источниках нескоро. опять же к слову треть лобовой проекции башни абрамс это воздух за боковыми фальшбортами

I don't know where to add the external links section. http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russia-s-armour-revolution Lastdingo (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. -Khathi (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]