Talk:T-14 Armata

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

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.  nagual  design   18:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Main Battle Tank?
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..." 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."  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)
 * Whatever media are typing, classifiyng tanks in light, medium and heavy ist obsolete since late sixties.--Markscheider (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

News
At the end of the text of the picture. This is the official source of State. Active dynamic protection (всеракурсная = all directions) and the ability to destroy any ammunition + active system and the destruction of mines in the ground () + all directions explosive reactive armor + 152 mm 2a83 = a full set of weapons and protection of all areas/

Without a doubt it is a heavy tank (the main tank according to the weight & Medium weight of 48) 195.218.182.81

Failure in Red Square
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * '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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * Just one url (pars pro toto) . 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)
 * 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.  nagual  design   22:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.   nagual  design   23:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Please do not misrepresent the sources by downplaying what the sources (including video) report happened. Lklundin (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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.  nagual  design   18:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Additional Information
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)

Chassis and shooting in the movement
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)

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)
 * Done! -Khathi (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Unit cost
In 2015. Has not officially declared price. It was said about the possible decline in the number tanks to the procurement.

Nezaniato (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly 200 (approx. $5.0 million). Significantly more than the T-90S, and is approximately equal to the M1A2.
 * Is rumored to be at around 400 million (approx. $7.4 million) Equal to the cost of the MiG-29 fighter aircraft. That's less than some of the Main battle tank.
 * The price is already a fixed The total cost is reduced and will be additionally reduced in mass production.


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

2а82
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)

2A83 has APFSDS with speed of 1980 m / s and at a distance of 2 km from the speed of 1900 m / s 2A83 annum creation 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khathi (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khathi (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done -Khathi (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Detection range
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)


 * 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. 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)


 * ЭПР=0,3 метра квадратных, это выдумка писателя, в любом 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 communication and stealth for the movement
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)


 * http://www.uvz.ru/product/70/88 ВПЕРВЫЕ В МИРЕ КАПСУЛА ЭКИПАЖ


 * http://vpk-news.ru/articles/3326 о накидке. не имеет отношения к теме, но очень интересно для понятия Смотрите также.


 * ПЫ.СЫ. недельку убил распихивая вес арматы и т14 и 2с35 по прочим языковым томам благо везде было больше чем и скорость ниже чем.

Palma.palash.yandex. (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

turret addition
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.93 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Translations?
Could someone provide translations of the above? Sadly google translate butchers it. To the point I think I'm reading a recipe for Borscht. Kitsunedawn (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not much. First, some tidbits about 152-mm 2A83 gun, like the supposed 7700 bar barrel pressure or 1.7 times decreased dispersion, then about 30 potential variants of the chassis. Then that stuff about the turret core size under the lightweight cover, for which there is no sources anyway, just speculations. In short, just another fanboy talk. -Khathi (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jane's report as external link
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)
 * Added. -Khathi (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Active protection system
No known weapon on earth can track and intercept an anti-armor hypersonic kinetic penetrator. I see that the claim is sourced, but it seems biased; likely to be exaggerating the vehicle's capabilities. 96.244.249.184 (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the word "hypersonic", which generally means greater than Mach 5, as the maximum speed of an interceptable projectile is currently 1,700 m/s. That is more than adequate to stop sabot rounds (~1,550 m/s) though, and if the system is upgraded as planned the term "hypersonic" will be valid. Hope that satisfies.  nagual  design   03:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.rg.ru/2015/02/02/tank.html official government source
official government source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.92 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Stealth= Stealth - the geometry of the tank in combination with a special coating significantly reduces the visibility of "Almaty was" in the thermal and radar bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.81 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Source about new-generation ERA system
Key Points The Russian T-14 Armata MBT has a new-generation ERA system, according to a Tractor Plants source The new armour's resistance to APFSDS rounds is significantly increased compared with previous ERA systems, according to the source

http://www.janes.com/article/52464/russia-s-t-14-armata-mbt-has-new-gen-era + http://www.rg.ru/2015/09/21/armata-site-anons.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.81 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC) --Linker5000 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Production?
Are these vehicles actually in production, or just prototypes? Some sources suggest they will be procured from 2015, suggesting productions vehicles have already been handed over to the army, but it seems more likely that these are all prototypes, and that production vehicles are still some time off.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * News today, 7th November 2016, that the British military is very concerned about the superiority of this tank would indicate that it's not just about one or two prototypes. Egypt will not buy because they are obliged to buy US, as the US provide the funds. British military had not given much focus to tank development as they were not useful to fight jihadis, so said. What's baffling is that the Chinese consider their new tanks/tank development superior to the Russian tank. If the Russian tank is superior to NATO tanks and the Chinese are superior to the Russian one that's interesting. But discussion in media today confirms that fighting on two fronts, jihadis and Russia, will not be sustainable. 2001:8003:A0B9:C400:9C53:EEA:67ED:488E (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What news reports and discussions are those? It's helpful to others if you actually cite those sources when making claims such as that. - BilCat (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Lack of components - Nightvision cameras
Should the recent addition of the bit about the lack of components for the T-14 Armata remain unchallenged, given that the original source for this information is heavily biased? (pro-Ukrainian hackers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.196.228.132 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I described history with IR cameras in T-14 in new version of Armata T-14 article (see unstable version). Brif info.
 * IR cameras are more critical component as many expert thinks because this cameras create "virtual 360 IR radar". This optic radar involved in APS and assist to protect main radar against radio noise by additional info of targets
 * Main IR cameras are Russian made (http://prokazan.ru/news/view/101756)
 * Small cameras with cheap and simple microbolometer matrix may be from Thales. However may Russian manufacturers are producing all components for microbolometer IR cameras (example http://www.astrohn.ru/price/price_2A_2015_2016.pdf)
 * Thales sold its technology for Russia before sanctions

--EPC2016 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If this is true then the claim that Russia does not have the necessary components for the T-14 must be challenged and ultimately removed, as according to the links you provided, Russia has been and continues producing IR cameras without external assistance. If someone knowledgeable with Wikipedia's system would be so kind as to challenge that statement, I'd be grateful.

Abrams Comparison
Is extremely relevant. How is it not? Saint Aviator  lets talk 01:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * See my post below. What makes them relevant? The article cited does not say they are relevant to each other. -- Katan gais (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Have a look around Wikipedia, what I have put in is commonplace. Saint Aviator  lets talk 01:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Information about the Abrams
Howzit all,

Under the section "NATO response" in this article there has consistently been a sentence which states that the US is planning on upgrading and maintaining its existing fleet of "1979 designed" M1 Abrams. I do not understand why this sentence belongs in the article. Nor do I understand its significance, since that is a policy decision made by the US military that has nothing to do with the T-14 Armata. Now the Germans have indicated that they plan to up-gun their existing tank guns as a direct response to the T-14 Armata so that by comparison is relevant information which deserves inclusion.

I will helpfully point out that article used as the source for the particular Abrams tidbit also states that the American involved with the Abrams programme being interviewed declined to comment whether an entirely new tank was warranted by the appearance of the Armata. The interviewee "deferred comment". That's the only place in the article that mentions the Armata.

There also seems to be a rather skewed perception by User:SaintAviator that I am responsible for the addition of POV content and am constantly removing information simply because I don't like it. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm neither a Westerner nor a Russian (Malaysian here) and very rarely edit on articles concerning either Russian or U.S. defence equipment so I fail to see how my opinion could be any less objective.

Look, all I'm asking is that we reconsider the addition of that seemingly unrelated sentence from a Wikipedia point of view. The fact that the US is proceeding with some routine maintenance and upgrades to its own tanks has nothing to do with a Russian tank that came out on the other side of the world, and at no point does the source cited state there is a direct correlation. -- Katan gais (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Armata is the newest Tank for Russia. It is designed to combat enemy tanks in Russias main potential enemy Nato. It is the first 3rd Gen tank in production. It is innovative. So much so it has caused a stir and response in Nato nations. All this is RS available and not disputed. The US is Natos biggest nation. Its very very relevant to put in the US's main battle tank and design date. As these two tanks (Armata / Abrams) are the main tanks of each nation, and could face off, a mention is encyclopedic Saint Aviator  lets talk 01:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So if I am understanding this correctly the T-14 was designed specifically to fight American tanks, including the Abrams? In which case then I understand why it is relevant despite their being from two different countries. -- Katan gais  (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * With respect you may want to research military techknowledgy development similiar to tanks, Fighter jets for instance. F35 vs Sukhois (Russian) Saint Aviator  lets talk</i> 03:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Much of the NATO response section seems a little propaganda-ish. Saying it's the "newest and most advanced" sounds like a marketing attempt. It is, in fact, not a third generation MBT, and certainly not the first 3rd gen to be produced. The Abrams SEP v3 upgrade cited has nothing to do with a response to the T-14. If this section remains, it should have some clean up done. America789 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This tank is notable for breaking down during Victory parade
Here is] just one of many references. This tank model is notable for not working during the Victory parade, i.e. the only time it was shown to general public! Why exactly that had happened was a matter of debate. For example, according to Victor Suvorov, that had happened because of an incompetent soldier-operator, but the fact of breaking down is actually the only reason general public (like me) knows about this tank. This is the most important info to be included in Introduction - per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * re 'the fact of breaking down is actually the only reason general public (like me) knows about this tank.' Can you reference this? Or r u soapboxing? <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 04:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is how this tank was reported by major news outlets, , ,,, and that's how I have learned that Armata even existed. This became a matter of public scandal and therefore known to general public. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not up to me to comment on yr knowledge issues. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 00:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody asked you to, KremlinAviator. 217.91.160.59 (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Since you did not explain here any objections, I included it, although not in the intro. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is full of Soviet (or Nazi) style propaganda claiming it's the best and most advanced "Wunderwaffe". In fact it's over engineered and extremely complex and costly piece of crap. Russia possess no expertise nor resources to produce anything but a few units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.208.90 (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The T-14 Armata did not break down on parade. Multiple sources, including a youtuber called Matsimus who manned tanks in Britain say that an inexperienced parade pilot deployed handbrakes by accident, the handbrake was eventually turned off and the vehicle sped off under its own power minutes later. Suggesting deletion of this claim or that this correction be added or atleast mentioned 209.212.4.2 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Joe Anon

Weight comparison with Japanese type-90
The comparison with the Japanese type-90 tank in the main article seems to make little sense:

"Its moderate mass of ~48 tons allows it to be easily rail- and trailer-transported, conserving its engine and transmission's service life, and it can navigate most of the solidly built bridges in the country, unlike, for example, the Japanese Type 90 Kyū-maru MBT, whose 50+ ton mass and large size forces it to operate only in areas with specially reinforced bridges and railways with sufficient clearance"

The weight of the T-14 is given as 49/50 tons in the article's info box. The weight of the type-90 is given as 50.2 tons (in the type-90 article). So the difference in weight seems essentially negligible, but the article text seems to imply that it's very significiant.... What's up with this??

Snogglethorpe (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC) 48 not 50,2, 50,2 = breakdown of the bridge, drowning in the ground after the rain, inability to take off, destruction of wagons and railway tracks. it's like a small hole in a condom, only 2.2 mm (50.2-48) ha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGbDtgqoCyw haha →

→carefully study it, then do not shit stupidity https://www.calc.ru/Tablitsy-Raschetnogo-Soprotivleniya-Grunta.html m1a2 >1.1 but many surfaces are 0,3-1, if rain is very many surfaces!!! you ever stick to the ground in the mud after the rain? apparently there is NO.

"Weakness" section makes no sense
It looks like it has been poorly translated, and unfortunately I don't understand it well enough to re-write it into coherent English.

Referenced below:

Weakness[edit] It remains dependent on the actions of cumulative HEAT min (important for urban warfare).

Actual shooting is Confirmed. Rate of fire for two GSh-23 is 16-20 thousand rounds per minute (allow without restrictions to make 1200 [53] a couple of shots of guns in the time interval of 10 seconds, or 100 shots in one second). On range two km rate of the fire with high probability will destroy the gun, instruments (the sights and vision of the review), elements to armours, sought-after part. Most of the components will be destroyed Afghanit, (many elements of reactive armor Malachit is destroyed a large number of hits). The actual firing of proof for such a possibility with a rate of fire weapons only 700 shots, the gun still get 4 breakout.[54]

Raspberrypirate (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is unreadable :-( Alanthehat (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources
Ultraviolet sensor

Press release http://izvestia.ru/news/606369

Device specification (wave diagram, size and etc) http://katodnv.com/upload/iblock/5c6/5c6f8d771278738b986e752329430204.pdf

'''Long wave infrared sensor '''

Device specification https://4science.ru/files/19342f35ca25491fb4c2bb46d060b966

TOC-6 mount for IR sensor (sizes) http://www.z-mars.ru/docum/kt2-3.pdf

'''Protection against kinetic perpetrators '''

Results of tests http://www.niistali.ru/upload/iblock/804/%D0%9C%D0%AB%D0%9B%D0%AC%D0%9D%D0%AB%D0%95%20%D0%9F%D0%A3%D0%97%D0%AB%D0%A0%D0%98%20%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%20%D0%90%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8B%20%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD.pdf

Review for link of the tests to Afganit hardkill https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2272620.html 213.21.40.144 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Practical tests confirmed the destruction of the uranium subcalibration projectile (goal speed up to 2 km / s).https://iz.ru/news/633700

20 - 30 km/h?
Infobox says max speed of 30 km/h. That can't be right. 89.241.27.247 (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

production number not well cited
for the sentence 'The Russian Army initially planned to acquire 2,300 T-14s between 2015 and 2020.', two of the three sources do not mention this figure, and the last is a seedy global security article. this is a long standing mistranslation of a russian defense industry official hoping for figures to rise that high and is not real 98.97.141.232 (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably the end of R&D and production of the T-14 Armata
This could probably be the end of R&D and production of the T-14 Armata ... https://www.moscowtimes.eu/2022/11/11/20-trillionov-na-veter-krupneishaya-v-rossiiskoi-istorii-gosprogramma-proizvodstva-oruzhiya-ostanovlena-posle-provalov-v-ukraine-a26303 - Kleiner Stampfi (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * moscowtimes is a strongly pro-Western site, so the article is nonsense with too much propaganda without any sources, and the Wiki entry of course too.
 * This is an entry on arms, not politics. As such, the normal procurement programme was suspended as it was designed for peacetime, not for the needs of an ongoing war.
 * There is no news regarding the T-14, in fact, there are now videos of T-14s rolling into training ranges, which points to slow and gradual adoption continuing, or at least testing in the final stages. BoringGuy69 (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Moscow Times is a reliable journalistic source. There is no propaganda in the article in question. It links to sources at Kremlin.ru and Vedemosti.ru, and quotes others.
 * Second paragraph in the comment above is self-contradictory: this is about arms not politics; the procurement of arms was affected by politics.
 * That said, the T-14 is mentioned in passing, and the source doesn’t offer much more to this encyclopedia article than “introduction of the T-14 may be affected by the halting of the strategic state armaments program (GPV), while Western intelligence sources say that affected by sanctions, the Russian military-industrial complex is unable to produce and maintain significant equipment for the war in Ukraine.” —Michael Z. 18:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same sources that said Russia had run out of cruise missiles a year ago, or the ones that claim you can simply take a chip out of a washing machine and put it in a weapon? BoringGuy69 (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to criticize, please actually cite something that actually exists. “A year ago”? —Michael Z. 22:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another source on the same subject: Newsweek. —Michael Z. 18:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what this could probably mean. The cited source is on topic with respect to the program halt. If further, notable developments are reported by WP:RS then that can be added too. Lklundin (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent videos of Armata T-14 on training grounds in Russia
has cited a couple of sources that a T-14 Armata has been seen driving around on training grounds inside Russia. As a general note to editors, we should be careful to not editorialize or synthesize changes involving these reports. On social media (i.e. I see no WP:RS now) it is noted how in that video - and in a similar one from October - the gun stabilizer is not operational, essentially making the whole tank useless in battle. Lklundin (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't see what a tank being spotted driving around on some training grounds nearby brings to the article, anyone able to enlighten me on that? BP OMowe (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lklundin (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)