Debate:NATO is lagging behind Russia in military technology

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by LobPo.

Proposition

Recently Russia has launched a new tank design T 14 Armata [1]. It is a departure from traditional Russian tank designs. It focuses on crew protection. It features an unmanned turret and more advanced armor than M1 Abrams. US is reluctant to upgrade the M1 Abrams design. The reason why M1 Abrams performed so well against Russian tanks in the Gulf War is that the Russian tanks against the M1 Abrams were t 72s. Even those T 72s supplied to Saddam were downgraded versions. Upgradation of M1 Abrams is not happening before 2020. Even that upgradation will not match the current configuration of the T 14. So the US is left with a 1990s design against a 5th generation opponent. --LobPo (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Last I checked the direction tanks were taking was to be lighter and faster, for rapid deployment. Fancy-ass tanks are most effective against targets without a well-supplied, co-ordinated military. A lot of potential Russian targets fit that bill (satellite and former satellite states such as Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine), so it makes sense to work in that direction. Cruise missiles, drones, bombers and attack helicopters will make mincemeat of any tank, no matter how much armour you stick on it. If you only need mobility kills, it makes even less difference. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If we feel the need to fight a shooting war with Russia, I'll let you know. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Differences between T 14 Armata and M1 Abrams:

• T14 is equipped with 125 mm canon (which might be upgraded to 152 mm canon), M1A2 is equipped with a mere 120 mm canon.
• T14 weight is only 48t, while the M1A2 weight is 62t. So the T 14 is much lighter than M1A2.
• T 14 needs less crew members (three) compared to Abrams (which needs four).
• T 14 has a triple armor protection which gives it greater survivability than Abrams.
• T 14 speed is 80-90 km/h compared to Abrams speed of 67 km/h.

All the above features gives Russia an upper hand in a tank battle with the US. In a tank battle between Abrams and T 14, the US will definitely find itself in the position of Iraq in the Battle of Medina Ridge. Note, the US will be using obsolete M1 Abrams tanks (which won in the said battle only because its opponents were downgraded soviet tanks or monkey models) against a vastly superior enemy.

It is evident that the US military is cancelling a lot of modernization programs such as Future Combat Systems. If US does not take Russian advancement like T 14 seriously, it will lose a real battle against new Russian weapons. --LobPo (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, if we decide to fight that battle, I'll let you know. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh goody, our ursaphobic friend LobPo is back! Long time, no see. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Military technology

Not all areas are equally important. Any war between nuclear powers would very likely not be fought with infantry and tanks. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but

Why should we waste time trying to match Russian tanks when most of the people we are actually landing boots and tracks against aren't going to be using those fancy t-14s? All the fancy bells and whistles don't mean much against enemies using asymmetric warfare, and I figured America learned that lesson in vietnam and now Iraq-Afganistan. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are suggesting US should not improve its outdated defense hardware while Russia is building much more advanced military hardware? --LobPo (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to spend money making our warfare capability actually be relevant to the people we are going to be fighting, so no. But we have no incentive to actually play keepup with the russians, if they want to make fancy looking tanks which will never see real action go for it, but i'd rather we build tanks that are designed to help support and be supported by our troops fighting people who are not using tanks. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think improving the Abrams by making it lighter, requiring less crew members, giving it greater armor protection to increase tank survivability and increasing its speed is actually going to cut the maintenance and operational cost of the US Army tank fleet as well as the security and safety of the crew fighting inside the tanks well as the hardware itself. If Abrams becomes lighter, it will require lesser fuel and it will be able to travel over terrains like bridges. It will reduce both operational cost as well as increase its wartime capability. If, by making technological improvement, one lesser crew is required, Abrams operational cost will be reduced. The tank regiments will need lesser people for the tanks. If a triple armor protection is given, it will increase the chance of its survival. So hardware loss will not be much of a concern. Its crew will feel much safer and tank crews who have essential wartime skills would be saved. Manpower loss could be reduced. Increasing speed will increase its wartime capability. I don't understand why can't improvements can be made in these fields. These are not unproductive improvements, but very productive developments in the positive direction. All these will require US Army lesser money to operate its tanks and reduce risk of equipment and manpower loss. --LobPo (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)