Tank Layout

[Bronezhilet]

@XDrake

 

https://mega.nz/#!19N3VbbY!tSb2gj4Ms9Lzk__m7tSVna2CNqdMu4twjIiU_pF2Wa0

 

"Theoretical Study of a Diesel-Filled Airtight Structure Unit Subjected to Shaped Charge Jet Impact" by Gao et al

 

Enjoy.

[Mighty_Zuk]

So what happened to Tal's rule of thumb that 7cm of diesel equals 1cm of RHA? (i.e factor of 7:1, not 3:1).

 

 

[Xlucine]

48 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So what happened to Tal's rule of thumb that 7cm of diesel equals 1cm of RHA? (i.e factor of 7:1, not 3:1).

 

 

 

That's thickness efficiency, not mass efficiency, but a TE of 1/7 is still a mass efficiency of 1.4 (given the density of diesel is ~1/10th steel)

[XDrake]

3 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

@XDrake

 

https://mega.nz/#!19N3VbbY!tSb2gj4Ms9Lzk__m7tSVna2CNqdMu4twjIiU_pF2Wa0

 

"Theoretical Study of a Diesel-Filled Airtight Structure Unit Subjected to Shaped Charge Jet Impact" by Gao et al

 

Enjoy.

Thank you very much. Gonna enjoy this read.

[Steelninja333]

Would a Object 490A style tank with separated, blow-out panel equipped ammo compartments be a close to an ideal MBT before unmanned turrets, if vehicle weight was an important limit?

[McRocket]

On 12/4/2016 at 10:55 AM, Xoon said:

 

This is exactly what I was thinking about:

http://i.imgur.com/6G3eeOO.png

 

 

The US is considering hybrid electric drives, and they talk about what I proposed above:

 

I know it's really late.

But I just saw this and signed up today.

I thought about this myself, a couple years ago (but after 2016 - so you beat me to it - lol).

I think it is a fantastic idea.

Not only is crew protection massively enhanced? But escaping from the vehicle is INCREDIBLY easy.

And - if you are prepared to lose the tank to save the crew? All protection can be concentrated in the very front and on the crew module (just 20mm/splinter protection for the rest).

And - it would be simple to manufacture heavily armoured APC's/IFV's from this design.

Finally - Just expand the tank rearward 5 or 6 feet? And you have a combination MBT/IFV all in one.

I think your way is the future for MBT's.

[LoooSeR]

Uhh, Jesus Christ... MBT and IFV memembination. "Just expand the tank 5 or 6 feet" is something that you don't "just" do.

 

And this is not exactly way for future MBTs, becoming even bigger and heavier is not what modern MBT design needs.

[MoonDust]

As someone who has been a tank commander . . .  Adding another five feet or so of length to any IFV or MBT is something that’s both avoidable and unnecessary.  And would little to no benefit. 

 

There’s a reason most MBTS and IFVs are only so big, regardless of country of origin, and why western MBTs are are all roughly within the same general parameters for size and height.  
 

And adding length also changes up things like mobility, weight goes up, the amount of track you have to work on and runs afoul of design hard limits.  Things like how many you can fit on a HETT, how many a flatcar can carry, etc. 

 

 

EDIT:

 

The IFV/CFV and MBT have different and unique roles on the battlefield.  What works for say Israel’s threats, doctrinal philosophy and broader situation doesn’t readily apply elsewhere.

 

Trying to mix tanks and IFVs/creating an all in one AFV generally means you’ve created something that, instead of working as a combined arms team and being good at one or two things, is just equally shitty at every role it’s trying to fulfill all at once. 

[Beer]

26 minutes ago, McRocket said:

I know it's really late.

But I just saw this and signed up today.

I thought about this myself, a couple years ago (but after 2016 - so you beat me to it - lol).

I think it is a fantastic idea.

Not only is crew protection massively enhanced? But escaping from the vehicle is INCREDIBLY easy.

And - if you are prepared to lose the tank to save the crew? All protection can be concentrated in the very front and on the crew module (just 20mm/splinter protection for the rest).

And - it would be simple to manufacture heavily armoured APC's/IFV's from this design.

Finally - Just expand the tank rearward 5 or 6 feet? And you have a combination MBT/IFV all in one.

I think your way is the future for MBT's.

 

It's not a fantastic idea. Not at all.

 

A powerful enough engine is much larger than that box on the picture.

Cooling of an engine in front is extremely painful (Izraelis know).

The armor protection of the engine is compromised by the size of the engine and by the requirement to make engine and gearbox accessible for mainteanance or replacement (!) and by the need to put exhaust somewhere. 

The volume requiring heavy protection is larger, not smaller than with the conventional layout, i.e. the vehicle is a lot heavier. 

Such vehicle would be most likely very front-heavy which compromises driving performance and brings potential issues with suspension or tracks.

Driving of such vehicle is entirely dependent on cameras, there is no way to drive it by head sticking out of the hatch even in emergency. Crossing of rough terrain would likely be pretty awkward. 

Etc. 

 

 

[MoonDust]

That and carrying the vile peasants, uh, I mean the infantry aboard your glorious beast is just Haram. :p

 

[McRocket]

On 6/2/2021 at 4:48 PM, Beer said:

 

It's not a fantastic idea. Not at all.

 

A powerful enough engine is much larger than that box on the picture.

Cooling of an engine in front is extremely painful (Izraelis know).

The armor protection of the engine is compromised by the size of the engine and by the requirement to make engine and gearbox accessible for mainteanance or replacement (!) and by the need to put exhaust somewhere. 

The volume requiring heavy protection is larger, not smaller than with the conventional layout, i.e. the vehicle is a lot heavier. 

Such vehicle would be most likely very front-heavy which compromises driving performance and brings potential issues with suspension or tracks.

Driving of such vehicle is entirely dependent on cameras, there is no way to drive it by head sticking out of the hatch even in emergency. Crossing of rough terrain would likely be pretty awkward. 

Etc. 

 

 

Imo, you are clearly just guessing or making stuff up as you go.

 

1) Fine. Show me a link that proves 100% that the Israeli's are having all kinds of trouble cooling their Chariot engines?

2) The Merkava (Chariot) is considered one of the best, protected tanks in the world.

https://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?t=58379&start=20

Go down to the image of the front of the Merkava armor protection in the 7'th post in the above link.

It's armour protection is not compromised AT ALL.

3) Many tanks in history have had their transmissions and final drives in the front...so you had to access them already. Just more so for the engine. Yes...it is probably more of a pain. But it also means more 'stuff' between the crew and the front.

4) An engine only ways about 2 tons. MBT's today weight over 60t (in the West). The frontal armor will weigh FAR more than that. Plus, the turret would be farther back then on a regular tank...so they should not be any more nose heavy. Or if so...not by much.

5) Cameras? Big deal. Many drivers are 'buttoned up' during combat anyway. And I bet you the vision on a screen from dozens of different camera's mounted all over the chassis/turret would be FAR better then looking through a small, periscope with limited viewing angles.

 

Now answer my this, please?

 Which tank would you rather be a crew member in?

A standard tank?

Or a tank where ALL the crew are in an armoured cell in the back and egress if the tank is on fire is INCREDIBLY easy?

Think hard now?

 

So who am I going to believe - when it comes to whether front mounted engines on a MBT are 'not fantastic at all'?

Some, faceless, nameless guy on the internet?

Or the INCREDIBLY experienced and respected, IDF?

Who have manufactured (so far) 4 'Mark's' of the 'Chariot' and almost 2,000 vehicles in total?

Hmmmm?

 

[mr.T]

Which tanks have transmissions or final drives in front? Last mbt with front drive and rear engine was Sherman.

Powerpack size in western MBT is close to 8m3 so its hard to pack in front , and engine doesn't provide as much protection as armor can. Front engine also makes the hull higher in front , needing more armor to protect the increased volume vs the typical powerpack hump in the lightly protected back.

Given the volume and weight i have my doubts that Merkava is coparatively well protected,

 

 

 

 

[Atokara]

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

1) engine cooling would NOT be more difficult with a front mounted vs. rear-mounted engine. That does not even begin to make sense. Where is your link to proof of your statement on that?

Where would you put the radiator on a front engine tank? In a rear engine tank the radiator just sits at the engine deck where it doesn't compromise any protection.

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

Go down to the image of the front of the Merkava armor protection in the 7'th post in the above link.

It's armour protection is not compromised AT ALL.

For starters large pockets in spaced armor are not that effective. A bunch of much smaller gaps are proven to be much more effective, and really can't compare to ceramics.

Spoiler

 

Also lets not forget about this

Spoiler

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

3) Many tanks already have their transmissions and final drives in the front...so you have to access them already. Just more so for the engine.

No they don't, front mounted transmissions died in the 60s and the only AFVs you actually see with such a layout are APCs and IFVs that need the space in the back to carry troops and aren't meant to be taking shots from MBTs in the first place.

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

4) An engine only ways about 2 tons. The frontal armor will weigh FAR more than that. Plus, the turret would be farther back then on a regular tank...so they should not be any more nose heavy. Or if so...not by much.

Once again lol no. One of the lightest engines on an in service MBT belongs to the Type 10 and it's 4.2 tons. You have absolutely 0 concept of weight distribution if you think you could just slap an extra 2 tons up front, let alone 4.2 tons, then think you could move the turret back like 1.5 meters and everything would be fixed.

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

Cameras? Big deal. Many drivers are 'buttoned up' during combat anyway. And I bet you the vision on a screen from dozens of different camera's mounted all over the chassis/turret would be FAR better then looking through a small, periscope with limited viewing angles.

Lets just ignore how cameras can get damaged or dirty. There is a reason why all MBTs still retain periscopes for the driver and even old WW2 style telescopic sights for their gunners.

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

So who am I going to believe - when it comes to whether front mounted engines on a MBT are 'not fantastic at all'?

Some, faceless, nameless guy on the internet?

Or the INCREDIBLY experienced and respected, IDF?

Who have manufactured (so far) 4 'Mark's' of the 'Chariot' and almost 2,000 vehicles in total?

Hmmmm?

If the Merkava was some ultimate god tank that was as amazing as you claim it is wouldn't every single country in the world adopt a similar style? Who am I to believe, some nobody JIDF shill or every other tank engineer outside of Israel. In reality where everyone else lives, we understand that the Merkava is an incredibly niche tank that only makes sense for Israel combat. Also 2000 tanks across 4 different tanks isn't even all that impressive. Even Japan has roughly around those numbers. Still the Merkava is still 10x better designed than your fantasy super tank that just casually extends out an extra 2 meters in an era where everyone is trying to shed weight.

[Lord_James]

1 hour ago, McRocket said:

Now answer my this, please?

 Which tank would you rather be a crew member in?

A standard tank?

Or a tank where ALL the crew are in an armoured cell in the back and egress if the tank is on fire is INCREDIBLY easy?

Think hard now?

 

So who am I going to believe - when it comes to whether front mounted engines on a MBT are 'not fantastic at all'?

Some, faceless, nameless guy on the internet?

Or the INCREDIBLY experienced and respected, IDF?

Who have manufactured (so far) 4 'Mark's' of the 'Chariot' and almost 2,000 vehicles in total?

Hmmmm?

1. We all have faces and names, m8. Just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean we don’t have them... 

 

2. Your tone comes off as aggressive and arrogant. Please try to be a little more humble, or your stay here may be cut short... 
 

1 hour ago, McRocket said:

Imo, you are clearly just guessing or making stuff up as you go.

 

1) Fine. Show me a link that proves 100% that the Israeli's are having all kinds of trouble cooling their Chariot engines?

2) The Merkava (Chariot) is considered one of the best, protected tanks in the world.

https://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?t=58379&start=20

Go down to the image of the front of the Merkava armor protection in the 7'th post in the above link.

It's armour protection is not compromised AT ALL.

There’s a reason most western MBTs have big square fronts and engines in the back. 
 

Also Merkava 4’s hull front armor isn’t that impressive, but the hull side armor is better than pretty much all MBTs out there. The turret’s also not that out of the ordinary, except for the built in trophy APS. 

[McRocket]

1 hour ago, Atokara said:

Where would you put the radiator on a front engine tank? In a rear engine tank the radiator just sits at the engine deck where it doesn't compromise any protection.

 

For starters large pockets in spaced armor are not that effective. A bunch of much smaller gaps are proven to be much more effective, and really can't compare to ceramics.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Also lets not forget about this

  Hide contents

 

No they don't, front mounted transmissions died in the 60s and the only AFVs you actually see with such a layout are APCs and IFVs that need the space in the back to carry troops and aren't meant to be taking shots from MBTs in the first place.

 

Once again lol no. One of the lightest engines on an in service MBT belongs to the Type 10 and it's 4.2 tons. You have absolutely 0 concept of weight distribution if you think you could just slap an extra 2 tons up front, let alone 4.2 tons, then think you could move the turret back like 1.5 meters and everything would be fixed.

 

Lets just ignore how cameras can get damaged or dirty. There is a reason why all MBTs still retain periscopes for the driver and even old WW2 style telescopic sights for their gunners.

 

If the Merkava was some ultimate god tank that was as amazing as you claim it is wouldn't every single country in the world adopt a similar style? Who am I to believe, some nobody JIDF shill or every other tank engineer outside of Israel. In reality where everyone else lives, we understand that the Merkava is an incredibly niche tank that only makes sense for Israel combat. Also 2000 tanks across 4 different tanks isn't even all that impressive. Even Japan has roughly around those numbers. Still the Merkava is still 10x better designed than your fantasy super tank that just casually extends out an extra 2 meters in an era where everyone is trying to shed weight.

1) Wherever the rad is in the Merkava - duh.

2) Show me a link to unbiased, factual proof that the Chariot frontal armor sucks? Because your opinion holds zero weight with me.

3) Sorry...I forgot the transmission and the drive train. The engines themselves weight 2 tons (like with the Leopard 2's.) But the Power Pack weighs much more.

 But you didn't know either - because you also said 'engines' not 'power packs'.

And 'no'. The 'engine of NO battle tank weighs that much. And a tranny and drive gear is NOT part of an 'engine...but part of a 'power pack' or 'drivetrain'.

4) And I changed it to 'Many tanks in history' before you posted your 'post about front drive gears on tanks'.

5) Cameras get dirty? What? Periscopes don't? Again...DUH?

 

I said no where that the Chariot was a tank god. That is pure strawman, BS.

I simply am using it as an example of front engined tanks working. 

Throw a strawman out again at me - and I will waste no more time on you.

 

Now answer the question I put out - and answer it first thing in your (inevitable) reply to me of I will not read it.

 

Now answer my this, please?

 Which tank would you rather be a crew member in?

a) A standard tank?

b) Or a tank where ALL the crew are in an armored cell in the back and egress if the tank is on fire is INCREDIBLY easy?

Think hard now?

 

 

[McRocket]

2 hours ago, mr.T said:

Which tanks have transmissions or final drives in front? Last mbt with front drive and rear engine was Sherman.

Powerpack size in western MBT is close to 8m3 so its hard to pack in front , and engine doesn't provide as much protection as armor can. Front engine also makes the hull higher in front , needing more armor to protect the increased volume vs the typical powerpack hump in the lightly protected back.

Given the volume and weight i have my doubts that Merkava is coparatively well protected,

 

 

 

 

Read my post again...I changed it almost immediately about front final drives/trans

 

Guess how much weight your 'doubt' holds with me?

Show me a link that proves your doubt with unbiased, factual evidence or your words mean nothing to me.

[McRocket]

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

1. We all have faces and names, m8. Just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean we don’t have them... 

 

2. Your tone comes off as aggressive and arrogant. Please try to be a little more humble, or your stay here may be cut short... 
 

There’s a reason most western MBTs have big square fronts and engines in the back. 
 

Also Merkava 4’s hull front armor isn’t that impressive, but the hull side armor is better than pretty much all MBTs out there. The turret’s also not that out of the ordinary, except for the built in trophy APS. 

I will speak anyway I wish.

It's called 'free speech'.

If it gets me banned - so what?

Won't be the first or last time.

Any board that cannot handle the truth?

Ain't worth being a part of.

 

And, again, I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this. 

All I care about is facts.

So please post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the frontal, lower glacis protection of the Merkava is inadequate.

I have shown 'facts' on it's composition.

All I have from you people is guesses.

 

BTW - The fact that no other tank is built like the Chariot means NOTHING.

No other tank is built like the Armata?

And lots of people/tankers are raving about it.

[Korvette]

52 minutes ago, McRocket said:

I will speak anyway I wish.

It's called 'free speech'.

If it gets me banned - so what?

Won't be the first or last time.

Any board that cannot handle the truth?

Ain't worth being a part of.

 

And, again, I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this. 

All I care about is facts.

So please post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the frontal, lower glacis protection of the Merkava is inadequate.

I have shown 'facts' on it's composition.

All I have from you people is guesses.

 

BTW - The fact that no other tank is built like the Chariot means NOTHING.

No other tank is built like the Armata?

And lots of people/tankers are raving about it.

 

I feel like there is a discrepancy between the actual definition of discussion and fact and your definition of those two things. 

[TokyoMorose]

55 minutes ago, McRocket said:

I will speak anyway I wish.

It's called 'free speech'.

If it gets me banned - so what?

Won't be the first or last time.

Any board that cannot handle the truth?

Ain't worth being a part of.

 

And, again, I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this. 

All I care about is facts.

So please post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the frontal, lower glacis protection of the Merkava is inadequate.

I have shown 'facts' on it's composition.

All I have from you people is guesses.

 

BTW - The fact that no other tank is built like the Chariot means NOTHING.

No other tank is built like the Armata?

And lots of people/tankers are raving about it.

 

Nobody has replied here, because there is an entire dedicated thread to IDF vehicles - including lots of in depth photos of all key areas. The hull protection ranges from an absolute joke (Merk I/II - directly inferior to the M60A1) to merely sub-par (IV). Nobody is going to copy over hundreds of posts documenting this into this thread.

[mr.T]

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/04/merkava-4-damaged-during-training.html

 

Merkava is not something others wan't to emulate, i don't think Israelis convinced of its top dog either , there are considerable trade offs due to its layout . It helps if your known and potential enemies have nothing approaching a modern tank , and only have modern missiles so protection can be tailored towards that. Protected volume alone indicates its not the best armoured tank out there, not to mention it lacks the safe ammo storage of M1 

 

Armata while its new its not unique and similar layouts have been experimented with before but it likely only now that optronics are sophisticated enough to replace glass optics and make it work.

M1 Tank Test bed was kinda same base concept to Armata . 

[Lord_James]

24 minutes ago, McRocket said:

I will speak anyway I wish.

It's called 'free speech'.

Oh boy... 

 

25 minutes ago, McRocket said:

If it gets me banned - so what?

Won't be the first or last time.

Any board that cannot handle the truth?

Ain't worth being a part of.

Hmmm, perhaps it’s not “the truth”, or even your version of the truth, that’s getting you banned from those boards... 

 

30 minutes ago, McRocket said:

And, again, I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this. 

All I care about is facts.

So please post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the frontal, lower glacis protection of the Merkava is inadequate.

I have shown 'facts' on it's composition.

All I have from you people is guesses.

If you “don’t care what people on chat forums think”, why are you here? Also, you seem to care what the people on that “chat forum” thought... 

 

I took a look at the sources in your link... and I have to say, a lot of them are guesses and speculation, as well. 
 

45 minutes ago, McRocket said:

BTW - The fact that no other tank is built like the Chariot means NOTHING.

No other tank is built like the Armata?

And lots of people/tankers are raving about it.

It is indicative of what works “best”. Best insomuch that it is best for their doctrine, manufacturing ability, average height an weight of the population, expected adversaries, expected terrain when fighting said adversaries, et cetera ad nauseam. 
 

There have been several tanks built like the Armata, just none that made it past the prototyping phase, for one reason or another. The “crew in a capsule” idea is from the 80’s, IIRC. 
 

Lol, the Armata as it is barely works like they advertise after 5+ years of development. And even after she “shocked the world”, most of the west hasn’t changed much to combat this “new menace”. 

[McRocket]

24 minutes ago, Korvette said:

 

I feel like there is a discrepancy between the actual definition of discussion and fact and your definition of those two things. 

And I feel like I don't care a whole lot what you think about these things, at this point.

 

But, for the record, here is my definition of both:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/discussion

https://www.lexico.com/definition/fact

 

Have a nice day.

[McRocket]

17 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

Oh boy... 

 

Hmmm, perhaps it’s not “the truth”, or even your version of the truth, that’s getting you banned from those boards... 

 

If you “don’t care what people on chat forums think”, why are you here? Also, you seem to care what the people on that “chat forum” thought... 

 

I took a look at the sources in your link... and I have to say, a lot of them are guesses and speculation, as well. 
 

It is indicative of what works “best”. Best insomuch that it is best for their doctrine, manufacturing ability, average height an weight of the population, expected adversaries, expected terrain when fighting said adversaries, et cetera ad nauseam. 
 

There have been several tanks built like the Armata, just none that made it past the prototyping phase, for one reason or another. The “crew in a capsule” idea is from the 80’s, IIRC. 
 

Lol, the Armata as it is barely works like they advertise after 5+ years of development. And even after she “shocked the world”, most of the west hasn’t changed much to combat this “new menace”. 

I said 'I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this.'

'This' meaning discussions about armor.

Not on everything.

 

If you are going to quote me...please use the entire quote...not just the parts you feel like.

 

 

Again...this is exactly my point.

All you are doing is spewing forth opinions. And you are not even posting links.

They mean NOTHING.

Just as my opinions should mean NOTHING to you on this.

 

And you are guessing why tanks are still built as they are. You just assume - clearly. You do not take into account inertia, pride, greed, profit, ignorance, etc.

 To assume anything about something you have no direct connection to, without facts to back it up, is, IMO, simplistic, ignorant and arrogant. 

And a waste of time.

 

If you have a link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF - not opinions or guesses - but FACTUAL PROOF about how horrible the Armata is?

 

Then please post it or stop wasting my time with your 'theories and opinions'.

 

If your next post to me does not include a link to HARD DATA from UNBIASED SOURCES to back up your position?

Then I will not stop wasting my time with you on this subject as you are offering me NOTHING of substance but the rambling's of a faceless, nameless nobody on a chat forum.

 

Have a nice day

 

[McRocket]

44 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Nobody has replied here, because there is an entire dedicated thread to IDF vehicles - including lots of in depth photos of all key areas. The hull protection ranges from an absolute joke (Merk I/II - directly inferior to the M60A1) to merely sub-par (IV). Nobody is going to copy over hundreds of posts documenting this into this thread.

Well, thank you.

 

But if people are going to call me on my opinions about another post - which several have?

Then I expect them to back it up.

If they don't - they will be ignored.

 

But I appreciate you pointing out the facts you did to me.

 

Good day.

[McRocket]

1 hour ago, mr.T said:

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/04/merkava-4-damaged-during-training.html

 

Merkava is not something others wan't to emulate, i don't think Israelis convinced of its top dog either , there are considerable trade offs due to its layout . It helps if your known and potential enemies have nothing approaching a modern tank , and only have modern missiles so protection can be tailored towards that. Protected volume alone indicates its not the best armoured tank out there, not to mention it lacks the safe ammo storage of M1 

 

Armata while its new its not unique and similar layouts have been experimented with before but it likely only now that optronics are sophisticated enough to replace glass optics and make it work.

M1 Tank Test bed was kinda same base concept to Armata . 

1) that is not entirely true about the Merkava.

It was first designed in the 1960's. And the first prototype was in 1974...only 1 year after Yom Kippur.

So, clearly, they were designed for large tank battles - not urban tank battles with terrorists.

 They have since modified it more for urban environs though.

Also, I disagree with their armament stowage as well.

IMO, the idea of a dude shoving a main round into an MBT gun is dinosaur stuff.

Also, turrets should have become fully automated decades ago as well.

 

2) Fair enough.

But, no offense, testing means little.

I mean, the Germans tested the Maus. 

But they just did it to please Hitler.

No way it ever would have been produced.

But the Armata is actually in production

- it's just that Russia is so broke...they cannot afford to build many.