[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Pay attention to the 4 little sensors that we only saw covered on real Armatas, it looks like Radar array.

Could be MAWS/LWR sensors aswell.

could someone tell me who do i have to kill just to get this sweet T-14 scale model?

There are few commercially available scale models on the retail market already. Some Irish company and (but off course ) Chinese already rolled out their versions. However they are small (like a bit longer than palm-size small) and not accurate, although a very "believable" - enough to put it on a shelf as toy for military armor enthusiasts, but not good for serious modelists or collectors. If you want I can shoot you the links.

Cyrus the great wrote:I was under the impression that the T-14 Armata [without the bustle-loader] was going to feature sabot rounds that were comparable to the M829A3 in terms of length... If not, this changes everything.

It will... the "Vacuum" series of rounds.

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:I was under the impression that the T-14 Armata [without the bustle-loader] was going to feature sabot rounds that were comparable to the M829A3 in terms of length... If not, this changes everything.

It will... the "Vacuum" series of rounds.

Not only Vacuum rounds, VIM on otvaga said there are a new generation of several rounds that are already in manufacture, but he didn't specified APFSDS or HEAT, probably both.

alexZam wrote:
There are few commercially available scale models on the retail market already. Some Irish company and (but off course ) Chinese already rolled out their versions. However they are small (like a bit longer than palm-size small) and not accurate, although a very "believable" - enough to put it on a shelf as toy for military armor enthusiasts, but not good for serious modelists or collectors. If you want I can shoot you the links.

oh yes please! palm-size is prolly what i can ever afford for the foreseeable future anyway. the usual sites ive browsed still dont have it.
also doesnt it look like its 3-d printed? damn, now my christmas list just got longer

Werewolf wrote:
Not only Vacuum rounds, VIM on otvaga said there are a new generation of several rounds that are already in manufacture, but he didn't specified APFSDS or HEAT, probably both.

vacuum series are a decade old- at least 1 generation of new rounds have been developed in the interim. my guess for improvements in the apfsds is better metallurgy to allow longer penetrators, insensitive propellants to achieve constant performance and reduce wear, additional volume of propellant and lighter sabots ofc.

They are older but still of long length, which was his question.

And now people that have been scarred with Western propaganda want to ruin the T-14.

How would increasing the available number of ready to fire rounds in a jettisonable magazine/autoloader ruin the T-14.

if the ammo was the only ammo carried then it would need addition protection, but we are talking about the ammo equivalent of external fuel tanks... they add to the available store but if hit can be dropped.

I was under the impression that the T-14 Armata [without the bustle-loader] was going to feature sabot rounds that were comparable to the M829A3 in terms of length...

Or longer...

As you've already mentioned, bustle-loaders allow the war fighter to carry more rounds with the use of blow-off panels... but that would necessarily mean that the turret would have to be protected with more armour = heavier.

Do external fuel tanks require extra armour?

GarryB wrote:

And now people that have been scarred with Western propaganda want to ruin the T-14.

How would increasing the available number of ready to fire rounds in a jettisonable magazine/autoloader ruin the T-14.

if the ammo was the only ammo carried then it would need addition protection, but we are talking about the ammo equivalent of external fuel tanks... they add to the available store but if hit can be dropped.

Ruins profile, adds complexity, etc.

T-14 is best in the world as is, no need to start going Frankenstein with it.

Having ammo available to hit with no armor in the most likely part of the tank to be hit is never a good idea.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Ruins profile, adds complexity, etc.

it wont ruin the profile, there is already a box for storage in the turret bustle already, if isnt a horizontal rammer type AL already. complexity is minimal- all of the added mechanical stuff is contained in the turret bustle AL module. you wont even have to cut another hole in the turret rear, just unscrew the bolts of the ammo port at the rear.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
T-14 is best in the world as is, no need to start going Frankenstein with it.

Having ammo available to hit with no armor in the most likely part of the tank to be hit is never a good idea.

having us observers overflowing with ideas for the tank is just testament to the design's adaptability and versatility.
and besides how terrifying would it be for the enemy to shoot this tank and see fireballs erupt and then suddenly the damn thing comes out of the flames and shoots back?

collegeboy16 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Ruins profile, adds complexity, etc.

it wont ruin the profile, there is already a box for storage in the turret bustle already, if isnt a horizontal rammer type AL already. complexity is minimal- all of the added mechanical stuff is contained in the turret bustle AL module. you wont even have to cut another hole in the turret rear, just unscrew the bolts of the ammo port at the rear.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
T-14 is best in the world as is, no need to start going Frankenstein with it.

Having ammo available to hit with no armor in the most likely part of the tank to be hit is never a good idea.

having us observers overflowing with ideas for the tank is just testament to the design's adaptability and versatility.
and besides how terrifying would it be for the enemy to shoot this tank and see fireballs erupt and then suddenly the damn thing comes out of the flames and shoots back?

I dont think you all realize how devastating ammo cookoffs can be, if the turret is hit and the ammo goes, then nothing will be left of the turret, severe damage on exterior, engine damage due to shockwaves etc.

The T-14 ammo setup along with its crew module is the best setup devised, apart from removing the crew altogether.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
I dont think you all realize how devastating ammo cookoffs can be, if the turret is hit and the ammo goes, then nothing will be left of the turret, severe damage on exterior, engine damage due to shockwaves etc.

The T-14 ammo setup along with its crew module is the best setup devised, apart from removing the crew altogether.

then you are just overestimating ammo cookoffs. propellant fires release lots of hot at high pressure yes, but provide them a way to vent all those gases and you are ok. dont, or fail to provide adequate venting and you end up with jack in the boxes.

http://www.popsci.com/china-builds-worlds-fastest-tank-gun-then-tries-hide-it

The 127th Ordinance Research Institute's news 125mm tank cannon is the world' largest, with a barrel length over 7.5 meters and highly powerful shells.

collegeboy16 wrote:http://www.popsci.com/china-builds-worlds-fastest-tank-gun-then-tries-hide-it

The 127th Ordinance Research Institute's news 125mm tank cannon is the world' largest, with a barrel length over 7.5 meters and highly powerful shells.

^ What about this? All they need was extend the length and add some lengthened propellant...totally impractical.

collegeboy16 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
I dont think you all realize how devastating ammo cookoffs can be, if the turret is hit and the ammo goes, then nothing will be left of the turret, severe damage on exterior, engine damage due to shockwaves etc.

The T-14 ammo setup along with its crew module is the best setup devised, apart from removing the crew altogether.

then you are just overestimating ammo cookoffs. propellant fires release lots of hot at high pressure yes, but provide them a way to vent all those gases and you are ok. dont, or fail to provide adequate venting and you end up with jack in the boxes.

http://www.popsci.com/china-builds-worlds-fastest-tank-gun-then-tries-hide-it

The 127th Ordinance Research Institute's news 125mm tank cannon is the world' largest, with a barrel length over 7.5 meters and highly powerful shells.

Interesting, however, adding a secondary ammo storage location to the T-14 is a worthless endeavor and would not add much.

Lol @China with their suped up 125mm cannon, would love to see them try to mount it, would be floored to see the life time of such a gun, or the ammo load for it.

China, joke of the Eastern militaries.

He let cat out. do think mach 6?

Mach 6... For the first shot...

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Interesting, however, adding a secondary ammo storage location to the T-14 is a worthless endeavor and would not add much.

about half the hull AL worth of ammo added does not add much? um, it actually increases the amount of targets the T-14 can deal with, or increase the amount of pain dealt to each.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Lol @China with their suped up 125mm cannon, would love to see them try to mount it, would be floored to see the life time of such a gun, or the ammo load for it.

they are adopting unitary projectile and propellant charge like most western tanks and the article states they would want an AL in the turret bustle so a  system like so is most likely.

34 round in the AL alone. btw a turret bustle AL and fume extractor means manned turret. if the article is correct the future Chinese tank will be of conventional design.
dont wanna comment on the quality of the gun just yet, but i find it amusing they went and one-upped the Russians again. the 2a82-1m is only 56 calibres long or 7 m compared to this 60 calibre, 7.5 m long monstrosity. but, the 2a82(-1m) gun is said to be a necked out 2a83, whatever that means. prolly the chamber dimensions (powder volume) are similar.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
China, joke of the Eastern militaries.

ehem, that honor is reserved for my beloved country.

collegeboy16 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Interesting, however, adding a secondary ammo storage location to the T-14 is a worthless endeavor and would not add much.

about half the hull AL worth of ammo added does not add much? um, it actually increases the amount of targets the T-14 can deal with, or increase the amount of pain dealt to each.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Lol @China with their suped up 125mm cannon, would love to see them try to mount it, would be floored to see the life time of such a gun, or the ammo load for it.

they are adopting unitary projectile and propellant charge like most western tanks and the article states they would want an AL in the turret bustle so a  system like so is most likely.
34 round in the AL alone. btw a turret bustle AL means manned turret. if the article is correct the future Chinese tank will be of conventional design.

The T-14 represents the absolute perfect realization of a new generation tank to this day.

It has been carefully and lovingly crafted by the engineers at Uralvagonzavod.

Every aspect has been accounted for, aspects like its CONOPS, readiness times, manufacturing,

and all the way to it's survivability against opposition forces, taking account aspects like enemy ISR platforms with its low RCS shaping, the presence of APS systems to enhance survivability against every threat.

The T-14 is the absolute pinnacle of the combination of strategic and tactical needs, the fusion of the characteristics needed to fight wars against insurgencies and major world powers.

The addition of a bustle autoloader to the T-14 would spoil many of the above, and ruin the others I have not mentioned.

collegeboy16 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
China, joke of the Eastern militaries.

ehem, that honor is reserved for my beloved country.

China, the 2nd joke of the Eastern militaries after Thailand.

You know, the gif you have in your signature perfectly describes what everyone in favor of a bustle loader on the T-14 is doing.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
The T-14 represents the absolute perfect realization of a new generation tank to this day.

It has been carefully and lovingly crafted by the engineers at Uralvagonzavod.

Every aspect has been accounted for, aspects like its CONOPS, readiness times, manufacturing,

and all the way to it's survivability against opposition forces, taking account aspects like enemy ISR platforms with its low RCS shaping, the presence of APS systems to enhance survivability against every threat.

The T-14 is the absolute pinnacle of the combination of strategic and tactical needs, the fusion of the characteristics needed to fight wars against insurgencies and major world powers.

The addition of a bustle autoloader to the T-14 would spoil many of the above, and ruin the others I have not mentioned.

dude, arent you exaggerating a bit here? its not even the best tank on the planet (T-95 is a thing duh) and also isnt the "absolute perfect realization of a new generation tank to this day' or 'the absolute pinnacle of the combination of strategic and tactical needs', at least for anyone that are not Russians.

its a great design, but it still has its flaws, whether from design tradeoffs and compromises or other factors. but the fact that people are willing to improve it means that it will stay in the lead for a long time.

also, why do You hate on bustle AL so much? reminds me of the people who hated on the Abrams taking on all sorts of systems in top of its turret. apparently these people dont like anything spoiling the clean. mean look of the turret- as if looks count for shit in a battle.  

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
China, joke of the Eastern militaries.

ehem, that honor is reserved for my beloved country.

China, the 2nd joke of the Eastern militaries after Thailand.

You know, the gif you have in your signature perfectly describes what everyone in favor of a bustle loader on the T-14 is doing.

oh no! apologies for the Thais and to You but my country is a bit to further to the east. the Pearl of the Orient Seas as the Spanish called it.

T-95 is long dead and even if it wasn't, Armata would be superior. The 152 gun on it wasn't ready.

Mike E wrote:T-95 is long dead and even if it wasn't, Armata would be superior. The 152 gun on it wasn't ready.

its only been dead for 5 years . anyway, the T-14 was always meant to be the T-95 lite, most specifications for the T-95, which are very ambitious even in 10-20 years time, are lowered for the T-14. the gun is obvious, they went from a monster 152 mm to a more manageable 125 mm. the revolutionary FCS, that prolly has all the spectrums of radiation covered is reduced to sorta meh ir, visual, and radio. the armor is fcking insane, even compared to the T-14's, the frontal hull armor is significantly thicker along with the roof armor and there is even a thick cicular plate spanning the turret ring, not to mention they plan to add blocks of composite armor to the sides that fit flush to the suspension arm, and tracks, with an option to add the heavy skirts like we see on T-14 today. etc. etc. and from what we know the T-14 is slated to receive upgrades that will restore it to or even exceed in some ways the T-95 bar. almost metaphorical for Russia to regain its former strength as the SU.

btw, counted pixels and the volume (and consequently powder volume) of the Chinese  propellant brass case is very, very similar to the Vacuum's with a ~460 mm long propellant charge. that is ofc. if the values for the vacuum round that ive used are correct or close enough(its just line drawing that i based my numbers, and even then i had to adjust said drawing for consistency).

collegeboy16 wrote:

Mike E wrote:T-95 is long dead and even if it wasn't, Armata would be superior. The 152 gun on it wasn't ready.

its only been dead for 5 years . anyway, the T-14 was always meant to be the T-95 lite, most specifications for the T-95, which are very ambitious even in 10-20 years time, are lowered for the T-14. the gun is obvious, they went from a monster 152 mm to a more manageable 125 mm. the revolutionary FCS, that prolly has all the spectrums of radiation covered is reduced to sorta meh ir, visual, and radio. the armor is fcking insane, even compared to the T-14's, the frontal hull armor is significantly thicker along with the roof armor and there is even a thick cicular plate spanning the turret ring, not to mention they plan to add blocks of composite armor to the sides that fit flush to the suspension arm, and tracks, with an option to add the heavy skirts like we see on T-14 today. etc. etc.

btw, counted pixels and the volume (and consequently powder volume) of the Chinese  propellant brass case is very, very similar to the Vacuum's with a ~460 mm long propellant charge. that is ofc. if the values for the vacuum round that ive used are correct or close enough(its just line drawing that i based my numbers, and even then i had to adjust said drawing for consistency).

I doubt any of that is really true... The T-95 was hyped way out of proportion, and IMHO Armata is its refinement. 

Not in this new gun... Have you seen how huge the propellant case is? It's massive!

The addition of a bustle autoloader to the T-14 would spoil many of the above, and ruin the others I have not mentioned.

OK how about a compromise... have a turret bustle autoloader variation turret for specific situations, like COIN ops or situations where the enemy is some third world country with T-55s.

I mean if it bothers you that much it could be fitted but not even loaded when there is a real threat the enemy was competent.

A propellent fire will lead to enormous flames coming out the top of the turret bustle rather rapidly but it wont detonate like an explosion unless it is contained.

Any HE rounds will just burn and should not detonate inside the autoloader.

As I mentioned it could be designed to allow it to be jettisoned for safety... even tanks that blow their tops generally burn for a few minutes till the fire reaches the propellent stubs.

Nice



Russia's T-14 Armata MBT 'has new-gen ERA'

Viktor wrote:Nice  



Russia's T-14 Armata MBT 'has new-gen ERA'

I read :
- 8. Gunner's sight
-...
- 10. Driver,
-...
- 13. Commander,
But where is the gunner itself?

AI is the gunner.
Gunner is sharing hatch with commander. Where exactly he sits was already covered pages ago.

A TASS article awhile back stated that the crew count may yet be reduced to two. If this was the case, out of curiosity which crew position would be most likely replaced?