The Russian T-14 Armata is supposedly the best main battle tank in the world – in the Ukraine war the system has played no role so far. Why is that? Colonel Jörg Loidolt, commander of Tank Battalion 14, in an interview with Militär Aktuell about the T-14 Armata, the Main Ground Combat System and the requirements for the main battle tank of the future.
Colonel, at the beginning of March, a statement by Sergey Chemezov caused quite a stir. The head of the Russian state armaments holding Rostec said that the T-14 Armata tank was “far superior to all other existing tanks in terms of functionality”, but that the vehicle was too expensive, which is why the (Russian) army hardly ever uses it. What do you think? Its design and the performance parameters attributed to the system do indeed sound outstanding – and assuming that this is all true, the tank would indeed be superior to all other systems. However, it looks as if the tank has not really been tested in the troops and that the number of units is too small for real combat operations. After all, the Armata is now coming to the front line in a roundabout way.
In what way? For example, there is a lot of Armata technology in the now revised T-72, especially with regard to the active defense systems. Photos recently showed how corresponding devices were also attached to a T-90 turret. Yes, exactly. The Russians seem to be pushing the technology this way instead of a fleet conversion. It should be quicker and they can equip more vehicles with it. This means that the vehicles currently being delivered by the Russians from the factories are superior to the Ukrainian T-72 or T-64, which is another reason why, from a Russian perspective, there is currently little need to invest time and money in the production of the Armata. In addition, the Russians do not have any recovery equipment or heavy-duty transporters for the Armata. We don’t know what the situation is with spare parts and war bridges, nor do we know the level of training of the mechanics. They also fear that one of them could fall into the hands of the Ukrainians during a battle. That would be a prestige success for Kiev, but above all Ukraine and Western armies could analyze such a tank in detail and evaluate technical details. From Russia’s point of view, it is better that nobody gets to see it. 
We have seen the Armata in the past, at least at official parades, but little else is known. The best we can say is about the basic concept, with a shelter behind the frontal armor. There is space for three crew members, the turret is remote-controlled, the engine is classically at the rear and the drive rollers are also at the rear. What do you like about the concept, what don’t you like? The concept is of course impressive. You get a large-caliber cannon with an automatic loader. With a weight of around 30 kilograms per projectile, this is an advantage not to be underestimated compared to tanks, which still have to be reloaded manually. The protection of the crew is also ingeniously arranged – in the heavily armored bow, separated from the others. I really like that. One problem I see is the digital all-round view.
Because the Armata no longer allows the commander to look out and survey the situation? Exactly, and whether this is really smart in the long term, I at least dare to doubt. If you rely entirely on digital cameras, it would theoretically be enough to hit the turret with a 120-millimeter color cartridge. It would be interesting to see how much the crew could still see.
https://militaeraktuell.at/soldaten-der-siebenten-beim-us-ranger-kurs/ That all sounds like you don’t expect the Armata to play a role on the battlefield in the short to medium term? No, and we haven’t seen much of the much-mentioned land drone in Ukraine either. On the one hand, there seems to be a lot under development on the Russian side, but on the other hand, these projects are probably still a long way from field usability. They would rather build three or four T-72 upgrades than invest money in a new Armata.
Does this mean that mass instead of class is still a valid winning concept, as it was in the Second World War? It seems to be the same as with the Sherman and the T-34 back then. There is often a discussion about which of the two tanks was the better one. In fact, they had one major advantage in common.
Namely? They could be produced quickly in large quantities, which made them superior to the more modern German tanks. Mass is in a class of its own – this is once again evident with the T-72, which is probably why Russia currently sees no need to push ahead with the development of the Armata. Why should they deploy the latest equipment when in reality a trench war of the cruelest kind is raging in Ukraine. There are no major tank movements there. And to come back to your initial question: I don’t know if the Armata is too expensive for the war. I just don’t think it’s ready for war yet.
Do you expect the Armata to be introduced in larger numbers after the end of the war in Ukraine? Could Russia replace the lost equipment with state-of-the-art equipment? The Russians still have so many T-72s that they can still refurbish. I don’t see why they should necessarily back another horse at the moment. They have also shown the Western states that they can develop an innovative vehicle – and if required, they can also produce it in larger numbers at any time, while the West is now fully committed to the Leopard 2 in the A8 version. This will become the new standard vehicle.
And what about the much-cited Main Ground Combat System? Hard to say. But when you see that Germany and Hungary (-> report) are getting new Leopards, Norway (-> report) and Italy as well, and the army is carrying out a combat upgrade of its tankspossibly the Czech Republic and Slovakia will also procure Leopard 2s and Poland getting Black Panthers from South Korea I currently see no need – and no market – for the Main Ground Combat System.
Since the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 came onto the market, the fourth and fifth generation of combat aircraft has been reached. This means that no fundamentally new main combat vehicle has been developed for the land forces for more than 40 years. What attributes would a new system need and what would it have to have to justify replacing the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams? From my point of view, it is certainly more about digitalization and specialization. With the MGCS, there is also the vision that the concept is based on four different vehicles – a classic main battle tank, an anti-aircraft tank, an armored engineer vehicle and a steep-fire vehicle. The latter three are unmanned and only the main battle tank is manned, which controls the other three. However, there are also many interesting concepts and developments at the moment. Take, for example, the KF-51 from Rheinmetall with a Leopard hull and 130-millimetre cannon and autoloader. The space this frees up can be occupied by the company commander or a drone operator. The integration of drones and loitering ammunition into the vehicle is also certainly important. And drone defense as a whole needs to be rethought. All troops need drone defense.
https://militaeraktuell.at/glock-zeigt-neuheiten-und-ueberraschungen/ So there would be potential for a new platform? Definitely, but I don’t see any such development in the foreseeable future – not least for economic reasons. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW, now part of the KNDS Group) has only just committed itself to the A8 and Rheinmetall will continue to supply the guns for it. And that will be it. In my time in service, and we’re talking about the next 15 years, I don’t think there will be a really new main battle tank in Europe … … unless Russia adds another development step on top of the Armata? That would change things, of course, but I don’t expect that to happen either. Russia still has 10,000 T-72s in stockpiles and before they come up with something completely new, they will first refurbish these vehicles and send them into battle.
