[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150514/1022123636.html

"We have a shell that can burn through a meter-wide steel [plate] for this tank, we will fit it onto the Armata," Rogozin was quoted as saying by Izvestia.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150514/1022123636.html#ixzz3a5UVnsf9

I think he is talking of new APFSDS and not 152 mm Gun

cracker wrote:According to the article above... "armata is not a prototype, not a model, it's a production model"... Really? a production model with no coaxial MG and so many questionable design issue on the turret? i hope this guy is not serious (ie = knows jack)

where exactly did you see that?

It's not a production model since they haven't even conducted preliminary tests yet, which are then followed by official state tests...says clearly in the interview

Austin wrote:http://sputniknews.com/military/20150514/1022123636.html

"We have a shell that can burn through a meter-wide steel [plate] for this tank, we will fit it onto the Armata," Rogozin was quoted as saying by Izvestia.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150514/1022123636.html#ixzz3a5UVnsf9

I think he is talking of new APFSDS and not 152 mm Gun

Exactly....been mentioned already that they claim the new gun/ammo combo is capable of penetrating 1M of armour

Austin wrote:http://sputniknews.com/military/20150514/1022123636.html

"We have a shell that can burn through a meter-wide steel [plate] for this tank, we will fit it onto the Armata," Rogozin was quoted as saying by Izvestia.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150514/1022123636.html#ixzz3a5UVnsf9

I think he is talking of new APFSDS and not 152 mm Gun

i like the wording of that - everyone please use "burn through" instead of penetrate.

IS 1 m good enough to penetrage frontal section of Western MBT ?

The report of Rogozing says the Future ARmatas will receive a bigger Gun..
The 1m steel penetration , i think was in reference to the actual munition they have now for the 125mm++ cannon .not the future 152mm cannon . this is the way i understood it.

Russian Next-Generation Armata Tank to Receive Bigger Cannon

So if this is correct ,then future 152mm cannon with also receive new munition ,that should have more than 1m penetration power that the currently used gun..in T-14.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150514/1022123636.html

magnumcromagnon wrote:Quick question about the T-15 IFV/APC. The front mounted engine is likely protected within the crew capsule correct? Would the passenger space also have a armored capsule as well? If it doesn't wouldn't that defeat the purpose behind Armata's design principle of personnel protection? I know, I know weight restrictions and ground pressure and all, but still...

Depending on the requirements for the T-15. If it has requirement to be anything above Kurganetz IFV in respect of deploying and supporting infantry closer to enemies or under heavier enemy fire then it should be, this thesis is of course supported by the fact that it is a heavyier plattform than the kurganetz.

The T-14 has almost no internal volume meaning it weights more not to mention the turret weights several tons more and penetrates the hull. The T-15 has internal volume for crew compartment meaning there is quite a lot of weight saving which they can play with. Currently the T-14 has 30 hp/t and that is huge since the tank does not weight more than 50t. The T-15 most probably throttled to 1200 hp and i assume a weight of around 40-46t combat loaded it would mean it has around 30-26.1 hp/t ratio which is great. I would assume they have strengthend the armor on the sides otherwise it does not make much sense to have such a monster of engine in it and it would mean they are just wasting fuel rather than using the extra power for something useful like armor.

I'm sure they will also do something about the lack of protection of the engine.

IS 1 m good enough to penetrage frontal section of Western MBT ?

Depends on the ammunition type and if this decade old assumption is true, the assumption that western tanks are better protected against CE rather than KE.

1000mm RHAe should be enough to destroy the hull lower or upper hull when it is CE and when it is KE there is little to no spot that is protected enough to withstand that.

Finally the driver's position of T-14 will be no more in the stone age like the rest of Russian tanks such as T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90...

Stealthflanker wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

From memory all of the "non-Russian" 120 mm guns have maximum chamber pressures of much less that 6000 atm, closer to 5000 atm, and that includes all the embellishments (lie factor) also. I'll find out the correct numbers and post them.
.

I wonder. In Ogorkieswicz's Technology of Tank book, the Rheinmetall 120mm gun's chamber pressure is 6300 Bar (6217 atm) The 105mm L-7 however is 5100 Bar (5033 atm)

But then, those performance subject to temperature. The maximum chamber pressure quoted above is for the highest temperature the gun will be fired. Which is around 50 Degrees Celcius. In 21 degrees Celcius however or room temperature, the chamber pressure is less. The L-7 gun above in 21 degrees Celcius reach chamber pressure of only 4300 Bar or 4200 atm.

How much do you think Ogorkiewicz has overstated it by? 15%, 20%, ...?

One thing is certain; Ogorkiewicz values would as usual be massively embellished.

One problem is that there used to be much lower maximum chamber pressure values (close to 5000 atm) widely circulated in the literature for the Leopard 2's 120 mm gun, but after the forums (including Ogorkiewicz) eventually "discovered" the concept of chamber pressure, they started making up these high numbers for these.

Recently, I have noticed that they have realized that the muzzle "velocity" for Leopard 2's gun is much lower than, let's say, that of the 115 mm; so they have just began fabricating higher muzzle "velocities" for the Leopard 2 gun. Obviously until now they hadn't realized that there can be a relationship between the muzzle "velocity" and the chamber pressure.

Maximum chamber pressure has more than one meaning; in this context it refers to the gun's structurally limited chamber pressure, not necessarily a certain round's maximum chamber pressure.

collegeboy16 wrote:what? where the road wheels are placed is not solely determined by the static weight it would support and you know it. a tank has that massive gun to fire and so is the arty vehicle - when it fires the turret ring would receive the stress and transmit it downwards.

Collegeboy,

Do you have any idea about what you write in your posts? What are you majoring in?

For the time being, please don't spread disinformation, especially on this forum. When you write 8000 bar in your post, the next user would make it 10000 bar, and in no time it would be 10000000000 bar.

im a bit confused tho- the recent reports suggest a modernized 2a82 gun is used, prolly designated as 2a82-1m. the article says its longer by 1m so its now 7m long (L/56) which would make put the energy output of the gun higher than the original 2a82's 1.17 times against L/55 120mm. the only thing bugging me though is that it doesnt look like the gun is 7m long, or maybe its just my eyes deceiving me. counted pixels too, and it doesnt look like 7m.

You are assuming they would display the latest 7m long gun at a May Day parade... it might be in testing still... or just not ready to be displayed like the 45 and 57 mm guns weren't.

and no, length matters too - the longer a gun the longer the time the propellant gases accelerate it - once it leaves there is no acceleration. though generally the majority of the acceleration happens like 1/3 to 1/2 the length of the gun depending on the pressure of the ammo ofc - as you go to the end the pressure drops.

Barrel length is important but not everything... otherwise 10 metre barrels would be common but that would just make them unwieldy and likely to bend.

the secret is to have the barrel long enough to get the power you want but short enough to be light and manouverable and not over burden the stabilsation system.

I suspect the EM additions they are planning to increase performance will increase acceleration of the projectile in the existing barrel without requiring a longer barrel.

i like the wording of that - everyone please use "burn through" instead of penetrate.

Which suggests he is talking about HEAT.

It's on RT news as well.

Rogozin states Armata next supreme 152mm gun to sport super-piercing shell

The full Rogozin interview is here:

http://izvestia.ru/news/586485

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

From memory all of the "non-Russian" 120 mm guns have maximum chamber pressures of much less that 6000 atm, closer to 5000 atm, and that includes all the embellishments (lie factor) also. I'll find out the correct numbers and post them.
.

I wonder. In Ogorkieswicz's Technology of Tank book, the Rheinmetall 120mm gun's chamber pressure is 6300 Bar (6217 atm) The 105mm L-7 however is 5100 Bar (5033 atm)

But then, those performance subject to temperature. The maximum chamber pressure quoted above is for the highest temperature the gun will be fired. Which is around 50 Degrees Celcius. In 21 degrees Celcius however or room temperature, the chamber pressure is less. The L-7 gun above in 21 degrees Celcius reach chamber pressure of only 4300 Bar or 4200 atm.

How much do you think Ogorkiewicz has overstated it by? 15%, 20%, ...?

One thing is certain; Ogorkiewicz values would as usual be massively embellished.

One problem is that there used to be much lower maximum chamber pressure values (close to 5000 atm) widely circulated in the literature for the Leopard 2's 120 mm gun, but after the forums (including Ogorkiewicz) eventually "discovered" the concept of chamber pressure, they started making up these high numbers for these.

Recently, I have noticed that they have realized that the muzzle "velocity" for Leopard 2's gun is much lower than, let's say, that of the 115 mm; so they have just began fabricating higher muzzle "velocities" for the Leopard 2 gun.  Obviously until now they hadn't realized that there can be a relationship between the muzzle "velocity" and the chamber pressure.

Maximum chamber pressure has more than one meaning; in this context it refers to the gun's structurally limited chamber pressure, not necessarily a certain round's maximum chamber pressure.

And the following is from a "manufacturer's" web site. Please pay attention to the quotation marks.

http://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/120mm/

GarryB wrote:

i like the wording of that - everyone please use "burn through" instead of penetrate.

Which suggests he is talking about HEAT.

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the effective principle of shaped charges also ultimately kinetic, and not temperature, melting or "burning"?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
And the following is from a "manufacturer's" web site. Please pay attention to the quotation marks.

http://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/120mm/

and you missed this part of my reply.

"
But then, those performance subject to temperature. The maximum chamber pressure quoted above is for the highest temperature the gun will be fired. Which is around 50 Degrees Celcius. In 21 degrees Celcius however or room temperature, the chamber pressure is less. The L-7 gun above in 21 degrees Celcius reach chamber pressure of only 4300 Bar or 4200 atm."

My conclusion after reading that link is the test was done in lower temperature. Thus less chamber pressure. Not indication of "Technology of tanks is lying, overstating value bla-bla-bla" Have you ever read the book yourself ?

The same technology of tank book however do state that maximum chamber pressure sustainable by 120mm barrel is 7100 Bar.

GerryB wrote:
>>>“Having an engine in front of them makes them rather less safe as engines are not made of armour strength metals and are full of very hot components and fuel and oil that can ignite. The troop transport armatas have front mounted engines only so troops can get out the rear ramp doors.”<<<

There are several reasons why the Israeli Merkava tank has the engine in front.

1. The tank was design after the big war in 1973 when Israel was attacked by Egypt and Syria. At that time the penetrators were not as good as they are today, and the engine helps to stop some of the penetrator’s energy.

2. When you put the engine in the front of the tank, you can put a door at the rear of the tank like in the T-15. This door can help the crew to evacuate the tank if it gets hit.
A wounded soldier has a big problem to get out from the turret, and if he doesn’t get out he might burn inside. Even if he got lucky and get from the tank trough the turret, he might get hit from enemy MG. To get out trough the back door is much simple and safer, and you can use this door to load the tank with ammo, and even soldiers, if you need to.
The Israeli find, as part of the lessons from the war, that it’s easier to replace the tank’s engine, than get a new crew for the tank.

3. Tank with front engine has much more power to deal with rocky areas like the area in the Golan Height.


The Israeli experts checked and learn every hit that the tanks get trough the war, there conclusion from that, become a list of requirements for the Merkava tank, and the first requirement was how to protect the crew.
The Merkava is not the best tank in the world, but it’s the best tank for Israel.

BTW-the name Merkava in English is Chariot and in Chariot the engine (horses) was in the front, in the Israeli tank the engine is in the front too, so they call the tank Chariot. Chariot in Hebrew is Merkava.

AJ-47 wrote:GerryB wrote:
>>>“Having an engine in front of them makes them rather less safe as engines are not made of armour strength metals and are full of very hot components and fuel and oil that can ignite. The troop transport armatas have front mounted engines only so troops can get out the rear ramp doors.”<<<

There are several reasons why the Israeli Merkava tank has the engine in front.

1. The tank was design after the big war in 1973 when Israel was attacked by Egypt and Syria. At that time the penetrators were not as good as they are today, and the engine helps to stop some of the penetrator’s energy.

2. When you put the engine in the front of the tank, you can put a door at the rear of the tank like in the T-15. This door can help the crew to evacuate the tank if it gets hit.
A wounded soldier has a big problem to get out from the turret, and if he doesn’t get out he might burn inside. Even if he got lucky and get from the tank trough the turret, he might get hit from enemy MG. To get out trough the back door is much simple and safer, and you can use this door to load the tank with ammo, and even soldiers, if you need to.
The Israeli find, as part of the lessons from the war, that it’s easier to replace the tank’s engine, than get a new crew for the tank.

3. Tank with front engine has much more power to deal with rocky areas like the area in the Golan Height.


The Israeli experts checked and learn every hit that the tanks get trough the war, there conclusion from that, become a list of requirements for the Merkava tank, and the first requirement was how to protect the crew.
The Merkava is not the best tank in the world, but it’s the best tank for Israel.

BTW-the name Merkava in English is Chariot and in Chariot the engine (horses) was in the front, in the Israeli tank the engine is in the front too, so they call the tank Chariot. Chariot in Hebrew is Merkava.

Agree on the assesment. Merkava is an Israeli Tank, for Israel. IE a country basically coninously at war with a huge military strain on the budget. Cause and effect, cost needs to be contained, machines need to multitask, crew becomes a priceless commodity.

By Andrey Kryuchenko
http://a_andreich.livejournal.com 

I'm posting high-res and link to original.

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6004/8955119.a/0_9c6a7_427de1fb_orig

wow.. a multifunctional display :3

looks neat.

BKP wrote:

GarryB wrote:

i like the wording of that - everyone please use "burn through" instead of penetrate.

Which suggests he is talking about HEAT.

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the effective principle of shaped charges also ultimately kinetic, and not temperature, melting or "burning"?

Yes, HEAT rounds are Kinetic energy penetrators, but there is a missconception and wrong believe that it "burns" through the armor. The copper liner uses the massive velocity over 25 Mach to penetrate armor while KE penetrators use weight, velocity and dense materials to do this job. This missconception of "burning" through armor comes from the fact that entrance hole of HEAT weapons often is molten but that comes through the high fraction from the copper jet against the armor.

BKP wrote:

GarryB wrote:

i like the wording of that - everyone please use "burn through" instead of penetrate.

Which suggests he is talking about HEAT.

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the effective principle of shaped charges also ultimately kinetic, and not temperature, melting or "burning"?

Yes, you are correct. The basic principle of armour penetration by cumulative jet is essentially kinetic. The pressure and velocity of the cumulative jet is so enormous that the material strength (resistance of the crystalline lattice) of armour is effectively ignored (the collision of cumulative jet with armour can, to first approximation, be modelled hydrodynamically as an interraction b/w inviscid and incompressible fluids). Effectively, a cumulative jet "pushes" through armour.
There is absolutely no "burning" involved.

Austin wrote:IS 1 m good enough to penetrage frontal section of Western MBT ?

Yes....every single Western hull would be pentreated by that round. 

My only question is if that round will be available on the current 125 mm or not.

   Social networks are evil...)


Koaliciya?
2S35


T-14:

Stealthflanker wrote:

...My conclusion after reading that link is the test was done in lower temperature.

Where does it say that? Your conclusion can't be more incorrect. How do you even "know" that Orbital has even tested it?

Thus less chamber pressure.  Not indication of "Technology of tanks is lying, overstating value bla-bla-bla"  Have you ever read the book yourself ?

The same technology of tank book however do state that maximum chamber pressure sustainable by 120mm barrel is 7100 Bar.

The max chamber pressure refers to two different concepts. In this context the definition I referred to is used and is of significance. You are confusing the two together. Either read my post or learn the definition from elsewhere. In this context, it's mainly about the steel not about the charge and its temperature.

Holy smokes! Looks like they were not making any secrets at all... Just look at those open hatches and kids crawling all around. It's a big tease for all tankophiliacs, hehe

This is Khodynka residential area in the back, I know those buildings.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:

...My conclusion after reading that link is the test was done in lower temperature.

Your conclusion can't be more incorrect. See below.

Thus less chamber pressure.  Not indication of "Technology of tanks is lying, overstating value bla-bla-bla"  Have you ever read the book yourself ?

The same technology of tank book however do state that maximum chamber pressure sustainable by 120mm barrel is 7100 Bar.

The max chamber pressure refers to two different concepts. In this context the definition I referred to is used and is of significance. You are confusing the two together. Either read my post or learn the definition from elsewhere. In this context, it's mainly about the steel not about the charge and its temperature.

To elaborate for the sake of ..., the maximum chamber pressure for the gun and the maximum chamber pressure for the round are two different things. Not that any of this makes any aspect of your posts on this topic any less incorrect.

Temperature, temperature, temperature has very, very little to do with the first definition, which is the one Orbital and anyone with any clue refers to in this context.