[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

T-14 will not be initially produced with the 152 mm cannon for a few reasons -- if it was, we'd have heard it by now, we know the Object-195's 2A83 was immature and had issues related to barrel life, and the fact of the 2A82-1M's existence in the first place. It was developed for T-14.

As a result, Grifel is completely off of the table in its initial form.

Another important reason is to take a military lead, to take advantage from the rest of rivals.

That is a fanboy reason... no military force will introduce a new tank gun to have the biggest tank gun... especially in this case as the Russian 125mm gun is already larger in calibre than the standard NATO calibre of 120mm.

If you take the change to 152mm like to say that the rest of Russian tanks can not do the job, neither the rest of the tanks of the world would be able to do the job. Despite to be not right because the 125mm tanks are useful, it obviously shows how the T-14 would become leader worlwide with a 152mm gun.

You clearly do not understand the purpose of the gun on a tank.

There are no prizes for the biggest. The purpose of the gun on a tank is to penetrate the enemies equivalent vehicles from battlefield distances.

Actually the Sheridan air droppable tank has a 152mm gun and has had such a weapon for decades... a version of the M60 also has a 152mm gun/launcher and it too is pathetic.

It is probably the worst tank gun in service... it is basically a low velocity missile launcher.

There is still plenty of scope upgrading 125mm rounds so they will likely continue in service for some time to come.

Mike E wrote:T-14 will not be initially produced with the 152 mm cannon for a few reasons -- if it was, we'd have heard it by now, we know the Object-195's 2A83 was immature and had issues related to barrel life, and the fact of the 2A82-1M's existence in the first place. It was developed for T-14.

As a result, Grifel is completely off of the table in its initial form.

This was object or project 299, made by Kirov PB


this is heavy IFV...


And this is engineer vehicle obj 232 or komplekt 2.



All this vehicle was based on one platform obj299 made by Kirov factory. Also grifel rounds made not for obj. 195, but for obj. 299 and obj. 292....

We dont know will or not armata have 152mm gun in the future. For now it is certain that it will not have this 152mm gun.

Auto loader on T-14 is identical to auto loader made for T-80 tanks. Why is that i wondering?

GarryB wrote:

Another important reason is to take a military lead, to take advantage from the rest of rivals.

That is a fanboy reason... no military force will introduce a new tank gun to have the biggest tank gun... especially in this case as the Russian 125mm gun is already larger in calibre than the standard NATO calibre of 120mm.

If you take the change to 152mm like to say that the rest of Russian tanks can not do the job, neither the rest of the tanks of the world would be able to do the job. Despite to be not right because the 125mm tanks are useful, it obviously shows how the T-14 would become leader worlwide with a 152mm gun.

You clearly do not understand the purpose of the gun on a tank.

There are no prizes for the biggest. The purpose of the gun on a tank is to penetrate the enemies equivalent vehicles from battlefield distances.

Actually the Sheridan air droppable tank has a 152mm gun and has had such a weapon for decades... a version of the M60 also has a 152mm gun/launcher and it too is pathetic.

It is probably the worst tank gun in service... it is basically a low velocity missile launcher.

There is still plenty of scope upgrading 125mm rounds so they will likely continue in service for some time to come.

Every time a new caliber has been introduced on tanks has bee because of this reason: To take advantage over the rivals, to have the tank with bigger hability to destroy the warfare of the enemy in case of war. No-one government that impulse new tank designs is waiting until the current caliber can not do the job. Sorry but you are seriously wrong on this, which is a very basical concept on military engineering, used on every type of warfare, that you obviously do not know. As example, would you say Russia developed the S-400 because the S-300 can not do the job? Would you say Russia developed the Su-PAK-FA because the Su-27 can not do the job? would you say Russia developed the T-14 because the T-90 can not do the job? Far from true. Russia developed all them finding improvements, trying to take advantage over the rivals.

And be serious talking about archaic failed prototipes or about vehicles that are not main battle tanks, because, we are not talking about to put a 400mm mortar of the XIX century on the armata platform. The first requirement is a competent weapon of 152mm that improves the features of the current 125mm weapons. Something that is possible to reach.

galicije83 wrote:
Auto loader on T-14 is identical to auto loader made for T-80 tanks. Why is that i wondering?

What evidence do you have for this claim?

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Another important reason is to take a military lead, to take advantage from the rest of rivals.

That is a fanboy reason... no military force will introduce a new tank gun to have the biggest tank gun... especially in this case as the Russian 125mm gun is already larger in calibre than the standard NATO calibre of 120mm.

If you take the change to 152mm like to say that the rest of Russian tanks can not do the job, neither the rest of the tanks of the world would be able to do the job. Despite to be not right because the 125mm tanks are useful, it obviously shows how the T-14 would become leader worlwide with a 152mm gun.

You clearly do not understand the purpose of the gun on a tank.

There are no prizes for the biggest. The purpose of the gun on a tank is to penetrate the enemies equivalent vehicles from battlefield distances.

Actually the Sheridan air droppable tank has a 152mm gun and has had such a weapon for decades... a version of the M60 also has a 152mm gun/launcher and it too is pathetic.

It is probably the worst tank gun in service... it is basically a low velocity missile launcher.

There is still plenty of scope upgrading 125mm rounds so they will likely continue in service for some time to come.

Every time a new caliber has been introduced on tanks has bee because of this reason: To take advantage over the rivals, to have the tank with bigger hability to destroy the warfare of the enemy in case of war. No-one government that impulse new tank designs is waiting until the current caliber can not do the job. Sorry but you are seriously wrong on this, which is a very basical concept on military engineering, used on every type of warfare, that you obviously do not know. As example, would you say Russia developed the S-400 because the S-300 can not do the job? Would you say Russia developed the Su-PAK-FA because the Su-27 can not do the job? would you say Russia developed the T-14 because the T-90 can not do the job? Far from true. Russia developed all them finding improvements, trying to take advantage over the rivals.

And be serious talking about archaic failed prototipes or about vehicles that are not main battle tanks, because, we are not talking about to put a 400mm mortar of the XIX century on the armata platform. The first requirement is a competent weapon of 152mm that improves the features of the current 125mm weapons. Something that is possible to reach.

Your position is supported by WWII. The T-34 only became useful with the 85 mm gun. The flexibility of being able to deploy a high
energy 152 mm gun on the Armata platform is worth quite a bit. I am sure that the Armata platform was designed with such flexibility.

galicije83 wrote:
This was object or project 299, made by Kirov PB

Interesting. Looks like the predecessor to the Armata platform. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar actually became production
reality. The 152 mm gun version of the T-14 does not need to have the turret in the same location and even resembling the 125 mm gun
turret.

Big_Gazza wrote:

galicije83 wrote:
Auto loader on T-14 is identical to auto loader made for T-80 tanks. Why is that i wondering?

What evidence do you have for this claim?

Probably he used the wrong word. I believe what he means is "why Armata put the catridges vertically like T-80 instead of put them horizontally like T-72".

galicije83 wrote:

Mike E wrote:T-14 will not be initially produced with the 152 mm cannon for a few reasons -- if it was, we'd have heard it by now, we know the Object-195's 2A83 was immature and had issues related to barrel life, and the fact of the 2A82-1M's existence in the first place. It was developed for T-14.

As a result, Grifel is completely off of the table in its initial form.

This was object or project 299, made by Kirov PB


this is heavy IFV...


And this is engineer vehicle obj 232 or komplekt 2.



All this vehicle was based on one platform obj299 made by Kirov factory. Also grifel rounds made not for obj. 195, but for obj. 299 and obj. 292....

We dont know will or not armata have 152mm gun in the future. For now it is certain that it will not have this 152mm gun.

Auto loader on T-14 is identical to auto loader made for T-80 tanks. Why is that i wondering?

We don't know what system is being used on the T-14. Also the 299 was planned with oscillating turret  in order to work properly. The current turret is self-encased/articulated, like most classical layouts. That difference alone makes the current t-14 more viable. There's a lot of things you seem to invent or mis-interpret. Why is that I'm wondering.

Every time a new caliber has been introduced on tanks has bee because of this reason: To take advantage over the rivals, to have the tank with bigger hability to destroy the warfare of the enemy in case of war.

The purpose of a tank gun is to penetrate the frontal armour of the enemy tank of the period at battlefield ranges.

A vehicle in the design phase has to be designed to defeat projected tanks the enemy will operate when it enters service.

NATO has been talking about making lighter more mobile tanks because their 70 ton tanks are too difficult to move around easily and like all tanks everywhere do not off 360 degree protection from anti armour weapons. There were several western prototypes of 40 ton tanks in the 1990s.

Against such tanks the 125mm gun would be perfectly adequate.

If Nato went for 90 ton tanks with even heavier armour then a 152mm gun might be critical.

The fact is that they still have tanks from the 1970s in service... albeit in upgraded versions.

If the US started introducing a new tank design with much better armour then the 152mm might need to go into service urgently.... but they aren't so it isn't.

No-one government that impulse new tank designs is waiting until the current caliber can not do the job. Sorry but you are seriously wrong on this, which is a very basical concept on military engineering, used on every type of warfare, that you obviously do not know.

It takes ten years to develop a new system and get it into service in numbers to make it relevant.

Things in design are not developed to combat existing systems but projected future systems the enemy will have in service when the new system is ready.

The first model abrams had a british 105mm rifled main gun.... which was replaced by the German 120mm smoothbore when it was realised that the 105mm probably would not cut it against late model T-72s.... tanks that were already in service.

As example, would you say Russia developed the S-400 because the S-300 can not do the job?

The S-400 was developed because projected western threats were increasing. The S-300 could be improved and was, but new systems are needed periodically.

The point is that there is nothing in service in the west that demands the Russians have a 152mm tank gun in operational service.

The armour of western IFVs means 30mm cannon shells are not longer effective for a BMP so a 57mm gun is being developed and will likely be fielded when it is ready.

The 30mm has been inadequate against Marder IFVs for several decades and newer IFVs make it even worse.

Would you say Russia developed the Su-PAK-FA because the Su-27 can not do the job?

Su-27 can't do the job.

would you say Russia developed the T-14 because the T-90 can not do the job? Far from true.

The T-90 can't do the job... there is not that much room for further improvement past the T-90AM... in comparison the Armata is just getting started and will fill the role of every vehicle in a division.

Russia developed all them finding improvements, trying to take advantage over the rivals.

But the advantage is measured.

You don't install a big gun to have the biggest gun... that is asinine.

You have a gun powerful enough to defeat enemy vehicles and projected enemy vehicles likely to be deployed now or in the near future.

The west has nothing that demands a 152mm gun... now or within the next 5 years.

In 5 years time they might have something, but until then it just makes sense to keep the 125mm standard all their other front line tanks use, and keep developing the 152mm gun and ammo and use the technology developed for that gun and ammo to develop new more effective ammo for the 125mm.

The first requirement is a competent weapon of 152mm that improves the features of the current 125mm weapons. Something that is possible to reach.

It should be fairly easy to create a 152mm gun that offers significant performance advantages over the 125mm gun.

The question is... is that extra performance actually needed at the moment or near future... and I say the answer is currently no.

So keep developing the 152mm gun, but introduce the Armata with a 125mm gun with new ammo.

The T-34 only became useful with the 85 mm gun.

That is not true at all. The only targets the T-34 needed an 85mm gun to deal with were Tiger and Panther tanks... and how few of those were made?

There was a version of the T-34 that had a powerful high velocity 57mm gun mounted... it was a total failure because the vast majority of targets the T-34 fired its gun at could better be dealt with using a moderate velocity but heavy HE shell of 76.2mm calibre than a high velocity 57mm shell made of exotic and expensive metals.

The flexibility of being able to deploy a high
energy 152 mm gun on the Armata platform is worth quite a bit. I am sure that the Armata platform was designed with such flexibility.

The Armata family are expected to be the standard front line heavy vehicle for the next 20-30 years so a 152mm gun will be fitted at some stage as a tank gun... a small calibre EM gun might even be fitted in 20 years time or sooner... but right now they don't need more than a 125mm direct fire tank gun.

The Coalition will have a 152mm gun but not a tank gun.

In terms of the T-80 autoloader... its main fault was exposed combustable propellant stubs... any penetration of the turret sends a shower of hot burning material onto cardboard coated stubs designed to completely combust in the gun chamber.

The T-72 model had an armoured plate a few mms thick over both ammo and propellant stubs so combustion from a penetration was unlikely.

In an unmanned turret as long as there is protection for the stored ammo stubs from hot fragments from a penetration it would not matter whether they were vertical or horizontal.

If you think Russia will wait to introduce the 152mm weapon on tanks until the US has a tank in production that can not be destroyed by 125mm you are dreaming. The 152mm tank weapon is too easy to do for it. The transition from Abrams with 105mm weapons to Abrams with 120mm is not an example of introduction of a caliber in tanks, because the new caliber was working in other models more than a decade before.

For sure Russia is working hard now on 152mm tank weapons, without wait like you say. No matter if we know it or not. When a 152mm weapon that improves the features of the 125mm weapons is ready, it will be introduced.

If the procurement of new T-14 is a little delayed, the probability of this tank having 152mm weapon since the begin increases. I'm not sure if Russia wants to have 100, 200 or 400 T-14 with 125mm weapons for 50+ years and the rest of the fleet with 152mm weapons.

You are far from realistic talking about new weapons. You have low hability of preview what can happen in a decade or two, and this is vital in the design of new weapons. And saying the S-300, the Su-27 and the T-90 can not do the job, you only show that you have low hability of judging the hability of the warfare to do the job.

Why you mix quotes of different people without write who said every thing?

Some information on the first Armata order

---

Russia to receive first 70 T-14 Armata main battle tanks by 2020

The Russian Armed Forces are to take delivery of around 70 advanced T-14 tanks on the Armata chassis before year-end 2019, a source in the defense industry has told TASS. "The Defense Ministry has signed a contract worth several billion rubles for the first batch of 70 production-standard armored vehicles of the type to be delivered by late 2019," the source said.


According to him, the tank’s production has been under way since early 2016. The first batch is to be fielded with the 1st Guards Armored Army stationed in the west of Russia, the source added.

TASS has no official confirmation of the information.

Vyacheslav Khalitov, deputy director general of the Armata’s manufacturer Uralvagonzavod, said in April 2016 that the first batch of 100 tanks would be fielded in 2017-2018. He did not specify whether the prototypes given to the military for testing were part of the batch.

The T-14 Armata was unveiled for the first time to the public during the military parade in Moscow for the Victory Day, May 9, 2015.
The T-14 Armata is equipped with an unmanned turret and all the crew is located at the front of the hull. The new unmanned remote turret of Arama T-14 would be equipped with new generation of 125mm 2A82-1M smoothbore gun with an automatic loader and 32 rounds ready to use.

Standard equipment of Armata T-14 includes probably day and night vision equipment, NBC system, front mounted dozer blade, fire detection and suppression system and a battle management system as modern Russian-made main battle tanks.

Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russia_to_receive_first_70_t-14_armata_main_battle_tanks_by_2020_21409161_tass.html

---

Very nice 20 tanks already in trials, plus 70 new tanks are meaning that the Russian Army will have a fully equipped Armata brigade by 2020. Today's tank brigades are equipped with 94 T-72 / T-80 / T-90 tanks (4 of them are command variants fitted with additional radio sets). Maybe in the near future, the Russian MoD will order Armata vehicles (T-14 MBTs and (BMP)T-15 heavy IFVs) in brigade/regiment sets. Actually, there is a tank brigade (namely the 6th Detached Tank Brigade at Mulino, Nizhniy Novgorod region), so maybe it will be the first russian tank unit to operate Armata tanks/IFVs.

First footage of T-14 with the new gun at 32:00....But HOLY CRAP what proceeds beyond 33:00 is a real jaw-droppa!!!



...What was demonstrated was that the Armata series of ERA is so efficient, that it is capable of completely protecting unarmored civilian vehicles from HEAT munitions, which is completely unheard of!  A real historic eye-watering moment indeed!

magnumcromagnon wrote:...What was demonstrated was that the Armata series of ERA is so efficient, that it is capable of completely protecting unarmored civilian vehicles from HEAT munitions, which is completely unheard of!  A real historic eye-watering moment indeed!

Agreed. That was quite a jaw-dropping display. That ERA performance is quite simply fucking superb!!

^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

Werewolf wrote:

BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

The new ERA is designed to defeat munitions up to 150 mm (such as the 152mm Kornet).

Werewolf wrote:

BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.

kvs wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.  

As you can tell the SUV was really fragile and delicate (relatively speaking), and it really opens up Pandora's box with consideration of future applications. Like whats the possibility of applying the Armata series of ERA to BTR-80/82's, to BMP-3/3M/BMD-4, to Typhoon-U/K's, to Bumerang's, for legacy SPG's? For that matter could this new ERA usher in a new generation of defense measures used to defend platforms previously thought to be not possible? Like for example naval ships. to defend against AshM's, or adapted versions for CAS aircraft, to protect them against MANPAD's. There needs to be extensive testing to fully flesh out the potential of these defense measure applications, to protect these platforms like no one else has before.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

kvs wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.  

As you can tell the SUV was really fragile and delicate (relatively speaking), and it really opens up Pandora's box with consideration of future applications. Like whats the possibility of applying the Armata series of ERA to BTR-80/82's, to BMP-3/3M/BMD-4, to Typhoon-U/K's, to Bumerang's, for legacy SPG's? For that matter could this new ERA usher in a new generation of defense measures used to defend platforms previously thought to be not possible? Like for example naval ships. to defend against AshM's, or adapted versions for CAS aircraft, to protect them against MANPAD's. There needs to be extensive testing to fully flesh out the potential of these defense measure applications, to protect these platforms like no one else has before.

The problem is that while the Era is really impressive, it is also very heavy and also will only help to defeat one round, before GTFO. This means that the vehicles need to be in bunch in order to cover one another if in HOT area and dismounts can't be available.

If you think Russia will wait to introduce the 152mm weapon on tanks until the US has a tank in production that can not be destroyed by 125mm you are dreaming.

They wont wait until the west has a vehicle in production that requires a 152mm gun to defeat before introducing the new round, but the cost of putting a new round into production and also putting the gun into service needs to be justified.

When they put the T-34 into service they could have developed all sorts of guns for the vehicle... they chose the gun the chose because it was good enough for all the tasks it needed to perform.

As I mentioned above they could have chosen a high velocity 57mm round but it had a weak HE round and the vast majority of targets on the battlefield in 1941 didn't need a heavy penetrating round... most needed a good HE shell. Most tanks of the period could easily be defeated with the 76.2mm gun the T-34 was introduced with.

After meeting the T-34 on the battlefield the Germans introduced first the Tiger, which they were already working on, and the Panther... which was a copy of the T-34 with heavier armour and a better penetrating new gun.

The T-34/85 didn't get a bigger gun to match the bigger gun in the Tiger (88mm) or to match the high velocity 75mm gun in the Panther. It got a bigger gun so it could fight on equal terms both tanks and penetrate their frontal armour at battlefield ranges.

The 152mm tank weapon is too easy to do for it. The transition from Abrams with 105mm weapons to Abrams with 120mm is not an example of introduction of a caliber in tanks, because the new caliber was working in other models more than a decade before.

They changed the gun at short notice because they had doubts the existing gun could do the job.

The fact that they chose an off the shelf design is not relevant to the situation... they didn't buy the 120mm smoothbores from West Germany... they produced their own and their own ammo which makes it as expensive as introducing the 152mm gun and ammo into the Russian military.

They wont save any money because the 152mm tank gun is the same calibre as the 152mm artillery as the ammo will likely not be compatible and nor will the guns.

For sure Russia is working hard now on 152mm tank weapons, without wait like you say. No matter if we know it or not. When a 152mm weapon that improves the features of the 125mm weapons is ready, it will be introduced.

And that is where your mistake is. Even a simple scaled up gun from 125mm to 152mm gun will have improved performance. A more complex increase where performance parameters are maximised will lead to rather bigger improvements, but those improvements mean nothing if they are either not relevant, or don't justify the cost of introduction.

If the Russian military believe their current 125mm guns and ammo will penetrate any NATO vehicle from battlefield distances how could they justify introducing a new round not compatible with existing rounds that will also penetrate any NATO vehicle?

If the procurement of new T-14 is a little delayed, the probability of this tank having 152mm weapon since the begin increases. I'm not sure if Russia wants to have 100, 200 or 400 T-14 with 125mm weapons for 50+ years and the rest of the fleet with 152mm weapons.

Only in the sense that they will eventually introduce a 152mm tank gun so any delays will of course increase the probability of more vehicles being produced with the new gun as standard when they are produced.

You are far from realistic talking about new weapons. You have low hability of preview what can happen in a decade or two, and this is vital in the design of new weapons. And saying the S-300, the Su-27 and the T-90 can not do the job, you only show that you have low hability of judging the hability of the warfare to do the job.

The Russians are replacing the S-300 in service as we speak, and new aircraft are replacing the Su-27 and this thread talks about replacements for the T-90... why would they do that if they could still do the job as front line first defence systems?

They are not obsolete and can perform their function, but better systems can and have been developed... S-400, S-350, S-300V4, BUK, and Su-35, and Su-30SM and Su-27SM3, and of course Armata tank, Kurganets tank, Boomerang tank, and Typhoon gun platform.

Why you mix quotes of different people without write who said every thing?

I try not to make things personal... I just quote what I am replying to... if you are following the thread you will know who said what or can check yourself.

Very nice thumbsup 20 tanks already in trials, plus 70 new tanks are meaning that the Russian Army will have a fully equipped Armata brigade by 2020. Today's tank brigades are equipped with 94 T-72 / T-80 / T-90 tanks (4 of them are command variants fitted with additional radio sets). Maybe in the near future, the Russian MoD will order Armata vehicles (T-14 MBTs and (BMP)T-15 heavy IFVs) in brigade/regiment sets. Actually, there is a tank brigade (namely the 6th Detached Tank Brigade at Mulino, Nizhniy Novgorod region), so maybe it will be the first russian tank unit to operate Armata tanks/IFVs.

But when do they start with all the other vehicles... when will they start with command and ambulance and air defence missile and gun and gun/missile vehicles etc etc.

Will the first units to have armata tanks and IFVs also get other armata platforms or will they replace the tanks and IFVs first?

RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

Actually that is a very impressive display.

ERA was never applied to IFVs in Russia mainly because ERA is an explosive and when detonated with the warhead often defeated the thin armour of light vehicles anyway.

ie the warhead didn't penetrate but the combined explosion of the warhead and the ERA blocks crushed the armour in and did serious damage to the vehicle and occupants.

To use ERA on an unarmoured civilian vehicle like this is impossible.

This suggests this is NERA.

BTW In the previous part of the video... at the 31 minute or so mark they are testing ARENA which could easily be used to further degrade the penetration performance of incoming munitions too for lightly or unarmoured vehicles.

The development of a new weapon (no matter the caliber) is justified with the development of the new tank. It would fall in aditional costs if later is necessary the development of a new weapon in the middle of the cycle of life of the tank, but not now. Also, most of the ammunition types needed are covered with the current 152mm ammunition, then this is not a big problem.

Again, the case of the Abrams is not a case of introduction of a new caliber. At least the T-62, the Chieftain, the T-64, the T-72 and the Merkava used calibers between 115 and 125mm before the Americans come to this conclussion with the Abrams.around 1980. The Abrams was a late entry in the new range of caliber, and not an example of the introduction of a new caliber.

Russia has the experience of the Soviet Union in how and when to introduce new calibers. If the Russian engineers feel some doubt about the 125mm caliber being not enough for the entire life of the tank they will move forward to the 152mm caliber. It is not about being enough now, it is about being enough in the following 50 years. Here is where your lack of long term view fall. To change the weapon of a tank after 10-20-30 years is a bad business. To have tanks with shorter life because of their weapon becomes obsolete before the end of the cycle of life is also a bad business.

I expect the 152mm weapon to be introduced during the life of the T-14, I do not know when. The economic analysis favors an early introduction over a late introduction. Despite we hear nothing now, I would not be totally surprised if the 152mm weapon is used since the begin.

GarryB wrote:

Very nice thumbsup 20 tanks already in trials, plus 70 new tanks are meaning that the Russian Army will have a fully equipped Armata brigade by 2020. Today's tank brigades are equipped with 94 T-72 / T-80 / T-90 tanks (4 of them are command variants fitted with additional radio sets). Maybe in the near future, the Russian MoD will order Armata vehicles (T-14 MBTs and (BMP)T-15 heavy IFVs) in brigade/regiment sets. Actually, there is a tank brigade (namely the 6th Detached Tank Brigade at Mulino, Nizhniy Novgorod region), so maybe it will be the first russian tank unit to operate Armata tanks/IFVs.

But when do they start with all the other vehicles... when will they start with command and ambulance and air defence missile and gun and gun/missile vehicles etc etc.

Will the first units to have armata tanks and IFVs also get other armata platforms or will they replace the tanks and IFVs first?

Actually, what I heard is that the MIM-1A multifunctional engineering vehicle and the UMZ-A mine layer/dispenser vehicles will be firs tested by 2017. I don't know much about the other variants, but they should be at least developed by the time the Armata platform enters service.