[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

Zivo wrote:I pulled some images from otvaga, showing the left side of the turret which for some odd reason isn't photographed often.

Something I've noticed from these images is that bump which I suspect is the directional smoke launcher can rotate 360 degrees.

Notice in this image the smoke launcher is actually pointed over the roof of the turret, towards the building with the black and gold sign.

Another shot of what I suspect is a radar element of the APS.

Interesting. Good observations. However, I'm keeping my cool till they finally remove those tarps.
Dang, waiting is killing me.

Here's the one image that actually shows the launcher for those who haven't been following. Each unit has 12 grenades, so 24 total between the two launchers.



The smoke obscuration system on these vehicles is really elaborate. Imaging infrared seekers are going to have a tough time with armata as the launcher can accurately and efficiently put a cloud between the missile and armata. Since radar is involved, passive lock-on offers no advantage against these countermeasures. Russian tank design has always put strong emphasis on multi-layer defense, this philosophy has been carried over to the new generation of vehicles.

Given that this thing can be aimed, it could actually be effectively used as a instant-response close range anti-personnel weapon if loaded with fragmentation grenades, just in case someone tries to run up and gank your tank with C4.

Given that this thing can be aimed, it could actually be effectively used as a instant-response close range anti-personnel weapon if loaded with fragmentation grenades, just in case someone tries to run up and gank your tank with C4.

Battlefield Whitephosphorous^^

Werewolf wrote:

Given that this thing can be aimed, it could actually be effectively used as a instant-response close range anti-personnel weapon if loaded with fragmentation grenades, just in case someone tries to run up and gank your tank with C4.

Battlefield Whitephosphorous^^

They may just find a vehicle, strap 4 C-4's on the hood, drive at full speed towards the tank and jump out at the last second, and detonate...

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Given that this thing can be aimed, it could actually be effectively used as a instant-response close range anti-personnel weapon if loaded with fragmentation grenades, just in case someone tries to run up and gank your tank with C4.

Battlefield Whitephosphorous^^

They may just find a vehicle, strap 4 C-4's on the hood, drive at full speed towards the tank and jump out at the last second, and detonate...

That's why the T-14 has an auxiliary 2A42.

Zivo wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Given that this thing can be aimed, it could actually be effectively used as a instant-response close range anti-personnel weapon if loaded with fragmentation grenades, just in case someone tries to run up and gank your tank with C4.

Battlefield Whitephosphorous^^

They may just find a vehicle, strap 4 C-4's on the hood, drive at full speed towards the tank and jump out at the last second, and detonate...

That's why the T-14 has an auxiliary 2A42.

or aux. 57mm GL. that sh!t would rekt anything not under IFV level armor(or medium class i think.)

or aux. 57mm GL. that sh!t would rekt anything not under IFV level armor(or medium class i think.)

It could have a 57mm mortar, there's plenty of room in the bustle for the magazine, I don't think it will though. If it jams, some one will have to climb up on the turret to unjam it. Automatic mortars have reliability issues as the rounds are mechanically hard to handle.

In contrast, the 2A42 is very reliable and in the case of a misfire, the gun can be autonomously cycled with a small charge.

Zivo wrote:Here's the one image that actually shows the launcher for those who haven't been following. Each unit has 12 grenades, so 24 total between the two launchers.



The smoke obscuration system on these vehicles is really elaborate. Imaging infrared seekers are going to have a tough time with armata as the launcher can accurately and efficiently put a cloud between the missile and armata. Since radar is involved, passive lock-on offers no advantage against these countermeasures. Russian tank design has always put strong emphasis on multi-layer defense, this philosophy has been carried over to the new generation of vehicles.

Given that this thing can be aimed, it could actually be effectively used as a instant-response close range anti-personnel weapon if loaded with fragmentation grenades, just in case someone tries to run up and gank your tank with C4.

Any chance they can use the beak to ram a building? Plus fire frags on both sides with a sweeping motion. And why not add RPO-A on the turret for extra CQC.

Also, if they follow the model from before, should this line be the grenade launcher?

magnumcromagnon wrote:They may just find a vehicle, strap 4 C-4's on the hood, drive at full speed towards the tank and jump out at the last second, and detonate...

Eh... That was my life in battlefield.    

Too bad server owners began to crack down on it. 

 On my part.

I would suspect those box launchers are just part of Shtora-2 and that TR-1s information about an APS system that is reloadable and able to aim suggests these box launchers aren't it.

The 57mm grenade launcher has a 4-5 round box magazine so if they are using it on this vehicle they would need to have converted it to belt feed at the very least.

Even if a round fails to fire there should be a way of removing the dud round to fire again... with the 30mm cannon they have a squib cartridge that fires into the side of the cartridge case in the breach so if the primer fails to fire the round the squib will blow a hole into the side of the shell case and ignite the propellent to fire the round and start the firing process again without needing to be manually cocked to remove the dud round. I suspect the same option is available for the 57mm grenade launcher and the 125mm gun. the alternative is to cycle the weapon which is incredibly dangerous in the case of a hang fire.

With a normal rifle with old or dodgy ammo sometimes you pull the trigger and just hear a click but no bang... what do you do? With a Mosin Nagant rifle you can pull back the cocking piece on the bolt with the bolt closed and try again. With an AK you have to eject the round by pulling back the cocking handle. It is much safer to keep the bolt closed and try to fire again because you might have a hang fire where the primer has been hit but the propellent has gotten wet and might be smoldering and any sharp jarring movement like cycling the round from the rifle might make it go bang... without a chamber around it to help pressure build up it would be pretty harmless, but a 57mm grenade round or a 125mm cannon round or even a 30mm cannon round is not so harmless... their HE payloads should not explode because of safeties... but you never know...

chicken wrote:

Also, if they follow the model from before, should this line be the grenade launcher?

A lot of people think the auxiliary weapon is placed in the same as the 2A42 was placed on Objekt 195:



The protrusion you highlighted is actually symmetrical, there's an identical protrusion on the other side. This leads me to believe that it's either part of the wood frame, part of the APS, or some sort of sheet metal plating like what the T-90SM has.

There is another possibility, it could be auxiliary weapon mounts, minus the guns themselves. This has been overlooked, because without the guns it's not obvious. But if you look at the other vehicles, the Kurganets BTR variant doesn't have the gun fitted to the RWS yet.

Anyways. The red line on the bustle and circle on the mast indicate the limiting points, we know those are boundaries. The green line indicates the peak of the smoke launcher The blue line is roughly were the 2A42 may be located if it's mounted similarly to Obj. 195's 2A42.

kvs wrote:

Zivo wrote:From Otvaga:

Now I am confused about the size of the gun.   It looks longer and with a greater diameter.   Is it 125 mm or 152 mm?

The gun could be longer.
Btw, I think that comparison is not accurate. See the tracks on road and you might notice there is some difference between distance of Armata and T-90 from the camera.

Dima wrote:

kvs wrote:

Zivo wrote:From Otvaga:

Now I am confused about the size of the gun.   It looks longer and with a greater diameter.   Is it 125 mm or 152 mm?

The gun could be longer.
Btw, I think that comparison is not accurate. See the tracks on road and you might notice there is some difference between distance of Armata and T-90 from the camera.

That was my conclusion too, the red overlay is too small.

armata is not only taller and larger but also much wider tank.. the comparisons are actually good.. T-14 is like 30% bigger than T-90.

On a humorous note:

Dropped, painted in politically correct color, and don't forget to check out da rims, yo.  

alexZam wrote:On a humorous note:

Dropped, painted in politically correct color, and don't forget to check out da rims, yo.  

The gansta level is weak in you Padawan.

It lacks neon lights beneath and it is not bouncing, long way to go....

Werewolf wrote:

alexZam wrote:On a humorous note:

Dropped, painted in politically correct color, and don't forget to check out da rims, yo.  

The gansta level is weak in you Padawan.

It lacks neon lights beneath and it is not bouncing, long way to go....

Export version to Asian market would have a spoiler and custom dragon paint on carbon-fiber custom hood and underwings, fo'shizl.



Spread it to otvaga and paralay guys. Let them have a good laugh too.

alexZam wrote:On a humorous note:

Dropped, painted in politically correct color, and don't forget to check out da rims, yo.  

looks a'ight, cept fo' tha tarp. whut you hidin under there brotha?

alexZam wrote:

Export version to Asian market would have a spoiler and custom dragon paint on carbon-fiber custom hood and underwings, fo'shizl.



Spread it to otvaga and paralay guys. Let them have a good laugh too.

damn, digging that nicki minaj of an ace - give it a gyaru makeover an is pu-uh-fecto!

This was posted on Gur Khan attacks.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post_97.html

Basically it's a summary of a 2009 report covering the transmission for the unified chassis (Armata).

Here's what I took away from it. The transmission that could be used on Armata is a digitally controlled mechanical drive transmission, it's not hydromechanical, electric, or CVT. I'm guessing it's mechanically similar to manual transmissions, but Armata's computer controls actuators to do all the clutchwork and gear selecting. The driver just hits the go button. It has 4 forward gears, and 4 reverse, Armata could drive backwards at max speed, which maybe how it pulls off using the same bits for the forward and rear mounted engine variant. It's a pretty amazing trick.

Compare it with the Leopard 2's transmission, which is a 6 gear automatic, four forward, two reverse. ~70km/h forward, ~30km/h reverse. Given armata's power to weight ratio, the T-14 will be faster than most MBT's, even when driving in reverse.

Well it is definitley a plus over T-90/72 which lacks reverse speed and automatic gearbox.

The T-14 Armata would have HP/T ratio by 1500hp engine:


56t = 26.79 hp/t
55t = 27.27 hp/t
54t = 27.77 hp/t
53t = 28.30 hp/t
52t = 28.85 hp/t

Sounds like a vast improvement over the previous hp/t ratios.

Werewolf wrote:Well it is definitley a plus over T-90/72 which lacks reverse speed and automatic gearbox.

The T-14 Armata would have HP/T ratio by 1500hp engine:


56t = 26.79 hp/t
55t = 27.27 hp/t
54t = 27.77 hp/t
53t = 28.30 hp/t
52t = 28.85 hp/t

Sounds like a vast improvement over the previous hp/t ratios.

This is true, one of the few glaring flaws of the T-90 was it's ridiculously slow reverse speed. And yes reverse speed is very important for a MBT, especially in a urban warfare environment.

Zivo wrote:This was posted on Gur Khan attacks.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post_97.html

Basically it's a summary of a 2009 report covering the transmission for the unified chassis (Armata).

Pretty good post by the "Khan"...and thanks for sharing here.

On Otvaga I noticed he's bragging how his prediction re: the Armata's wheels (sizewise in between the T-72/90 and T-80 wheels) came true.

Werewolf wrote:

Sounds like a vast improvement over the previous hp/t ratios.

hate to rain on your parade but the initial batches would have their engines derated to 1200hp

magnumcromagnon wrote:
This is true, one of the few glaring flaws of the T-90 was it's ridiculously slow reverse speed. And yes reverse speed is very important for a MBT, especially in a urban warfare environment.

x2, weve seen vids of T-72s in Syria that were turned into funeral pyres because they werent able to back away from a street clearing immediately or with the frontal armor facing the threat.

the ability to backpedal quickly is also important for a tank-killer role. the best tactic for countering tanks is ambushing them with anti-tank firepower (anti-tank guns in WW2, tanks and atgm on ifvs in cold war) placed in prepared sites (mainly hull down positions and tank trenches against arty) ahead of predetermined kill zones, like a road or a bridge. after knocking out the vanguard the rest will try to spread out - now you collect all your anti tank weapons and run back to the next line while bombarding anything behind you and tossing minefields left and right(if you hadnt already). what the ability to backpedal as fast as you can with your tanks and ifvs mean you can do things like swing in and out of cover driving backwards and shooting back.

Cyberspec wrote:

Zivo wrote:This was posted on Gur Khan attacks.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post_97.html

Basically it's a summary of a 2009 report covering the transmission for the unified chassis (Armata).

Pretty good post by the "Khan"...and thanks for sharing here.

On Otvaga I noticed he's bragging how his prediction re: the Armata's wheels (sizewise in between the T-72/90 and T-80 wheels) came true.

Yes, I noticed this too. He did win this time so he is very proud maybe he knows people's comments on him recently...

hate to rain on your parade but the initial batches would have their engines derated to 1200hp

Who's to say all batches won't have their engines derated to 1200? It's a smart idea to reduce hp for everyday operations, it's more efficient, increases the engine's lifespan, and reduces emissions. In extreme environments, like deserts and high altitude, it really improves lifespan vs stock tuning. Armata's are going to spend the vast majority of their lifespan fighting plywood cutouts on training grounds anyways, there's no reason why they need to be any faster than current MBT's for peacetime missions.

In wartime, the engine control unit could be reset to 1,500 horsepower. Keep in mind, the engine also can exceed 1,500hp for heavier variants like Coalition.