Daily Mail: Putin's new 'super tank' leaves West totally outgunned

[Hamilcar]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910052/British-intelligence-chiefs-warn-Government-Vladimir-Putin-s-new-super-tank.html

This story has languish written all over it.

[Maladict]

Tanks, how quaint.

The new Russian main battle tank is designed to protect the vehicle's crew

I stopped reading here.

[Siege]

Wow. Do the russians really think tanks still rule the battlefield? That's so 20th century.

[Siege]

Do you know what a really revolutionary tank looks like?
It is a drone, computer controlled instead of remote controlled, it is 24 inches by 12 inches, it can burrows underground until his target is within sprint distance, it carries a 10 inches single shot EFP explosively formed penetrator, which no known armor mixture can stop.

But you dont even need a drone. Any anti tank aerial munition can take out ANY tank. Deploying tanks on the modern battlefield without achieving and maintaining air superiority is ridiculously suicidal.

And then, even if your air defense keeps enemy aircraft away, light infantry carries a little toy called Javelin that can take out any tank as well.

Tanks today are like battleships. Completely obsolete.

[Berkut]

I like that if you read the article, all the "revolutionary" stuff is completely uninteresting.

ZOMG THE RUSSIANS MADE A TANK THAT ISN"T DESIGNED TO KILL ITS OWN CREW???? WE ARE FOOKED!

[mongers]

I'm gonna hold back from commenting until we have a report form Languish's defence correspondent, sir Hockney.

[Josquius]

Air power bitches.

[Drakken]

The new Armata is the first Russian tank which considered the crew's ability to survive

[Razgovory]

I like that if you read the article, all the "revolutionary" stuff is completely uninteresting.

ZOMG THE RUSSIANS MADE A TANK THAT ISN"T DESIGNED TO KILL ITS OWN CREW???? WE ARE FOOKED!

Yeah, that was a bit amusing.  One of the photos of the new tank appears to be a group of T-72s.  The new "low profile" is three feet taller than it's predecessors.  Two feet taller than the Abrams.  The new tank may very well be an improvement over the old ones, but I doubt it will be "revolutionary".  The French had a tank with an unmanned turret back in the 1950's.

More interesting is the new APCs.  The possibility of a Russian APC that can't be disabled by machine guns is a bit more intriguing.

[Hamilcar]

More interesting is the new APCs.  The possibility of a Russian APC that can't be disabled by machine guns is a bit more intriguing.

Have you checked what Sam Harris thinks about Russian APCs?

[Razgovory]

Uh, no.  I don't get my opinions from podcasts.

[KRonn]

Probably built based on stolen US and NATO nations tech.

[Eddie Teach]

Do you know what a really revolutionary tank looks like?
It is a drone, computer controlled instead of remote controlled, it is 24 inches by 12 inches, it can burrows underground until his target is within sprint distance, it carries a 10 inches single shot EFP explosively formed penetrator, which no known armor mixture can stop.

But you dont even need a drone. Any anti tank aerial munition can take out ANY tank. Deploying tanks on the modern battlefield without achieving and maintaining air superiority is ridiculously suicidal.

And then, even if your air defense keeps enemy aircraft away, light infantry carries a little toy called Javelin that can take out any tank as well.

Tanks today are like battleships. Completely obsolete.

Why would it move underground?

[Admiral Yi]

Why would it move underground?

Hard to shoot.

[Razgovory]

Why would it move underground?

Hard to shoot.

It can't spot things either.  A weapon that can't only take out tanks if they are within "sprint distance" aren't much use.  Siege has described a very expensive mine, he's also unaware there are lots of ways to stop an anti-tank missile.