Should Russia build 80+ ton Ηeavy Tanks?

MBT's in the Russian army seem to be required to weigh less than 55 tons witch is a severeley limiting requierment yet Russian engineers have with the T-14 Armata created a tank that has better firepower and base armor than any other MBT however if the weight limit was removed for a small number of tanks (200-500 or so) Russia could have a super formidable elite heavy tank force capable of defeating any wetstern tanks in a 3 on 1 battle.

The Soveit Unions heavy tank programs resulted in many exeptional vehicles like the IS-7,T-10M and Object-279 all of witch had exelent armor mobility and firepower and would easily annahilate and oponent in battle but saly heavy tank development was stopped in the 1960s likely due to nato MBTs being completely outmached by the T-64.

A modern heavy tank in the Russian army could have upward of 2500mm RHAE frontal armor and a ultra powerfull main gun capable of defeating any concievable oponent in the near futre I am thinking either a massiveley more powerfull 152mm smoothbore than the 2a83 or a new smoothbore 180mm tank capable of completely destroying a tanks turret in 1 shot.

The vehicle could also have its own close in AD system like Pantcir to gaurd against air attack and artillery.

It could also have hundreds of APS munitions and fire cruise missiles.

What do you thik of building heavy tanks?

Note I suggested use as an elite fore and only for a small number of heavy tanks to be produced (300-500) not thousands like the 1940s Soviet Union and A heavy tank will simply be imune to 120/140/whatever natards develop so it will not get sniped

And if the pressure per squere cm is the same as on the Armata it will not sink into anything that the Armata would no sink into aswell excluding barges and bridges ofcourse but since its a heavy tank it does not need to be easily transported you have MBTs for that

No.

Waste of money and time.  .

rrob wrote:Maybe consider using some money in improving the quality of life of it's people for a change.

Every nation on the planet is guilty of this (some more than others however).... our species of marginally-evolved arboreal primates isn't very good at getting our priorities straight.

It

rrob wrote:It seems in the latest conservative estimate that almost 20 million Russians live(that's a good one) below the countries poverty line of 9452 Roubles a month (approx 139 us dollars) I cannot imagine the horrendous pain, sacrifice, and suffering that this must burden their people with. You try living on that amount and see what it is like.   Here in Hawaii, 61,000.00 dollars a year is what we give to the welfare families of 4! Free medical insurance for anyone, they hunt you down, you don't even have to ask and if you have children they give you food stamps, cash and try to get you shelter that day! Almost no one starves here unless they want to. That's the difference in our government's admittedly reckless defense spending at least the imposition on the people is not too great. Not trying to blow the horn for the US only to highlight why it is important to spend carefully and not be reckless and behave like the rich people down the street who won't be starving anytime soon.  Buying some stinking unneeded redundant piece of hardware like a tank that will likely never be needed let alone used seems irresponsible when looking at starving children and old people who have to face a coming winter and survive in a tough cold environment that Russsia has.  Homeless people here just sleep on the beach as there is no winter just rain so not so tough. Bad enough my damn country spend billions on useless crap but our living conditions are pretty good and basic things like food and shelter are not too bad for the people overall.  If I could say something to the Russian leadership it would be to hell with competing with any other country, look after the welfare of your people and use wisdom in the expenditure of much-needed resources to yes guard and secure them, but not be frivolous and to be compassionate and generous for those in your care.
Aloha

It all depends on where you live. I earn $200 a month living in a 20k populated small town in a 3rd world country(Philippines), and I am healthy and happy as fuck. Why? The cost of living here is low, very low. I eat 3 times a day own a small house with a bicycle, a car and internet and 2 happy Shih-Tzus. I am NOT poor! I have seen slums, those are poor.
I am debatably poor if I step out of my town and move to the capital city (3x-5x cost of living). I am poor if go out of the country and to a first world country like say France. But see, I don't have to.

Obviously there are poor people in Russia but I haven't seen large slums there. Homeless people? Yes but no large slums like the things you see in the Philippines or India.
Earning $139 a month doesn't necessarily mean they are poor because they buy Russian things in Russian Rubles not American things in American dollars. I am not poor because I buy Filipino products with Filipino peso not Us products with US dollars.

Even then, All that criticism of yours is applicable to every country. Total student loans in the US amount to $1.2 trillion dollars yet they want 2000 F35s. The list goes on.

There are lazier people too, hence deserve to be poorer.

PS, Russia is still recovering from the 90s.

Doesn't matter how heavy you make a tank it will never be invincible... a batch of less than 500 tanks in the 100 ton weight range wont be any safer than a vehicle in the 50 ton range when you look at conventional armour and ERA and APS and air defence support like TOR and Pantsir-S1.

A super heavy tank will cost more to buy and to operate and will be a constant pain in the ass.

WWII experience showed the Soviets that a force mixed with light T-26s, Medium T-34s and heavy KV-1s often led to the T-26s getting there first and being massacred, the T-34s arriving second and then the KVs arriving last if at all.

Heavy tanks became obsolete because non conventional armour structure arrays offered heavy protection without the excessive weight and new high energy smoothbore guns offered better anti armour performance than simply scaling up the calibres.

So for these and lots of other reasons... no.

Super tanks belong in computer games.

Homeless people? Yes but no large slums like the things you see in the Philippines or India.

I would say the extreme cold of winter would make homeless people less of a problem.

I would also suspect the best solution to housing shortages is not capitalism...

A heavy tank can be made to go at almost the same speed as an MBT just look at the IS-7 and Oject-279.

If tanks not arriving at the same time is such an issue the all of the T-90s,T-80 and T-72s should be scrapped because the they cant keep up with the Armata.

And you do realise the whole point of a heavy tank is extreeme survivabillityas well as superior firepower so a heavy tank is not going to be so easily killed and with an anti air system similar to or better than the Pantcir it will be well protected against air attack not to mention it will also be protected by the Buks,S-300v4s and other army air defence units.

If Russia makes an 80-100 ton tank it will be vastly superior to the T-14 in survivabillity and firepower therefore justifying its increased cost and as a heavy tank it does not have to be easily transported to the theatre of war immediatley your MBTs will be there for that. Since the T-14 is so good Russia will not rely on heavy tanks they would be there as extra force for large operations.

Maybe they should stick to the "build tanks" part, which for over 3 years they haven't implemented much.

KiloGolf wrote:Maybe they should stick to the "build  tanks" part, which for over 3 years they haven't implemented much.

As the nazis proved in WW2 a few good heavy tanks can be fromidable... Just remember to make sure the bulk of you tank force isn't obsolete. Yes Russia should get on with it and replace eaverythin with the T-14 armata heavy tanks do not help you if you get overrun.

rrob wrote:Buying some stinking unneeded redundant piece of hardware like an 80 ton tank that will likely never be needed, let alone used because some damn Russian general wants to play Georgie Zhukov seems irresponsible

By playing Zhikov do you mean winning?

GarryB wrote:Super tanks belong in computer games.

No superweapons belong in reality what better way to make Russias technological superiority clear and deter attack.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:Maybe they should stick to the "build  tanks" part, which for over 3 years they haven't implemented much.

As the nazis proved in WW2 a few good heavy tanks can be fromidable... Just remember to make sure the bulk of you tank force isn't obsolete. Yes Russia should get on with it and replace eaverythin with the T-14 armata heavy tanks do not help you if you get overrun.

The Nazis lost that war for reasons independent of the myth of "low tank production". In fact the Nazis had a huge tank force throughout that war.

By the end of 1944 they were building way more tanks than in the beginning of that war. In fact during those first four months of 1945 (till surrender) they built more tanks than they did in 1941 and almost as much as during 12 months in 1942. The Nazis were increasing production of tanks during the war, rapidly and steadily; till the very end.

Had they not maintained such production pace, the war would have ended by the end of 1943.

Russia of 2017 is competing with itself in reducing their MBT fleet and capability to the level of Egypt or worse. Until the announced upgrade of retired T-80s starts delivering, the Russian MBT will keep shrinking. T-72B3 upgrade has merely been an effort to minimize the demise of the entire T-72 fleet (thousands out of service). T-90 production has been stopped and some T-90s are already withdrawn, pushed to Syria and so on.

T-14 is still not in service and won't be until the decade ends, at best.

Sorry Russia, but an MBT force of 1800-2000 (mostly upgraded T-72s) aint gonna cut it.

Russia needs to focus on staying afloat, and not building superheavy tanks of questionable value.

Well T-90 did pretty well in Syria. Leopard 2 was destroyed easily by anti tank teams ... not better than t72/80 in chechenya. Let don t speak about egyptian abrams which are made only to be easily destroyed by israelis ...

Who cares how much tanks they have and how modern they are. No one is gonna attack them anyway. Having t-14 in low numbers for low lvl wars is enough. WWIII is going to happen anyday soon and if it happens they won t be decisive so why spend lot of money to replace 10000 tanks by 1 tank that cost 4 million while a decent upgrade cost not even 1 million and 400 000$ for a modern APS ?

T-90,T-80 and T-72 are not superior to every possible oposition and are therefore insatifactory Russia needs superior tanks so producing many thousands of T-14s makes sence.

Heavy tanks are special units for use in strategic ereas and would not exist in large numbers.

KiloGolf wrote:In fact the Nazis had a huge tank force throughout that war.

Yes but that was mostly old Panzer IVs with 75mm kwk 40s witch are nowhere near as good as the T-34-85s the Soviet union was using meaning the majority of Soviet tanks were better than the majority of nazi tanks.

Personally I believe Russia should cut funding for the airforce in order to have complete superiority on the ground. Who cares if nato has more planes Russia has the best air defence on the planet to shoot them down with.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Yes but that was mostly old Panzer IVs with 75mm kwk 40s witch are nowhere near as good as the T-34-85s the Soviet union was using meaning the majority of Soviet tanks were better than the majority of nazi tanks.

So you can draw parallels to the upgrade of T-72B3. Old stuff nowhere near as good as the majority of the tanks of the opposing force (M1A2, Leo 2A5/A6 and so on).

Isos wrote:Well T-90 did pretty well in Syria. Leopard 2 was destroyed easily by anti tank teams ..

Leopard 2A4 did as bad as T-72 with 1st generation ERA. Turrets flying off and all that jazz.
If one wants to compare the T-90 with something that would be the US Army's M1A2 or some kind of Leopard 2A5. Both absent from that war.

https://youtu.be/Llj5iFc7u6E?t=7m52s

Regards

Aaaarggh! Please no discussion about 80+ ton tank!

Tha Nazis tried something similar with "Panzer VIII Maus" and a weight of 188 tons. It was complete CRAP!!!

Advantage of a tank is mobility and armour! With 80+ tons you will loose complete mobility. Armata weighs 12-14 tons less compared with western MBTs, but with better protection level. So Armata is fast and agile and use not too much fuel!

rrob wrote:... the Russian defense budget is only 69 billion dollars...
Regards

Russian weapons are not buyed in US-Dollars international, they are buyed in Rubles inside Russia! So it sounds not much, but it's enough for the second strongest army in the world after USA and before China.

rrob wrote: I know American policy here is a nuclear response to any important asset like a US carrier that is sunk or badly damaged no matter if it was only the result of a conventional attack. Such is the way of the world.
Best regards

So thats how they keep their carriers afloat by threatening nuclear war because someone sunk thier silly boat how immature.

And this is about Heavy tanks not silly us aircraft carriers or budget issues so would you be so kind as to stay on track?

A heavy tank can be made to go at almost the same speed as an MBT just look at the IS-7 and Oject-279.

Of course it can but it would need a huge powerful and expensive engine and vastly upgraded transmission and lot of other improvements to make it as effective as the vehicles they use now, yet none of this will stop a 500kg LGB from shattering it.

If tanks not arriving at the same time is such an issue the all of the T-90s,T-80 and T-72s should be scrapped because the they cant keep up with the Armata.

A pretty shortsighted conclusion that ignores the obvious.... don't group heavy, medium, and light tanks in one unit.

Heavy tanks in heavy divisions, medium tanks in medium divs and light tanks in light div and everything will arrive together as a cohesive force.

Your suggestion means scrapping the entire current fleet of Russian armour and the Russian army operates with the 12 or 16 Armata tanks they currently have.... yeah... that is not smart.

And you do realise the whole point of a heavy tank is extreeme survivabillityas well as superior firepower so a heavy tank is not going to be so easily killed and with an anti air system similar to or better than the Pantcir it will be well protected against air attack not to mention it will also be protected by the Buks,S-300v4s and other army air defence units.

Heard of land mines?

If it is so well protected from air threats then WTF does it need to weigh so much? If SAMs are keeping it safe from air threats then it might as well be an Armata based vehicle they have already developed...

If Russia makes an 80-100 ton tank it will be vastly superior to the T-14 in survivabillity and firepower therefore justifying its increased cost and as a heavy tank it does not have to be easily transported to the theatre of war immediatley your MBTs will be there for that.

Making a 100 ton tank means it needs to be able to engage any future vehicle that might be built to counter it... ie a NATO 100 ton tank.... like an Abrams with a little bit of add on armour, which means it will need something like a 180mm main gun which further adds weight and reduces on board ammo. And increases costs to buy and to operate.

Since the T-14 is so good Russia will not rely on heavy tanks they would be there as extra force for large operations.

Wasting money and time and talent on super tanks is one of the main things that cost Germany the war... instead of pissing away resources on super tanks they could have simply ramped up production of tanks that were actually effective and used them in combat instead of just having promises of super tanks on their way that will fix everything.

As the nazis proved in WW2 a few good heavy tanks can be fromidable...

A few heavy tanks can be a problem, but in this day and age with the power of air power a heavy tank wont last long.... just like a heavily fortified bunker wont last very long either.

No superweapons belong in reality what better way to make Russias technological superiority clear and deter attack.

It would be the quickest and easiest way to make Russia weak and poor and not safe.

Land monitors are pointless wastes of time and money.

The Nazis lost that war for reasons independent of the myth of "low tank production". In fact the Nazis had a huge tank force throughout that war.

By the end of 1944 they were building way more tanks than in the beginning of that war. In fact during those first four months of 1945 (till surrender) they built more tanks than they did in 1941 and almost as much as during 12 months in 1942. The Nazis were increasing production of tanks during the war, rapidly and steadily; till the very end.

But I thought the Germans lost the war because of the western strategic bombing campaign and D Day?

Late production were turretless vehicles that could hardly be compared with real tanks... it was all too late.

Sorry Russia, but an MBT force of 1800-2000 (mostly upgraded T-72s) aint gonna cut it.

The only practical enemy is NATO and for that war MBTs wont matter much for very long.

The only person suggesting a super heavy tank for Russia is one deluded fanboy...

It is not going to happen.

They are developing new families of systems... once they are ready they will go into full production to replace pretty much all existing types.

Until they are ready there is no serious threat to Russian ground forces... a few hundred Abrams in former soviet republics and former warsaw pact states don't even warrant anything better.

The Armata IS their new heavy tank.... get over it.

GarryB wrote:The Armata IS their new heavy tank.... get over it.

Armata is years, if not a good decade from operational.
Armata doesn't exist right now, other as a set of few prototype MBTs and alleged limited production batch (confirmed by no solid evidence).

Gloriously breaking down in the middle of Red Square during parade.