[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

From what i am aware mortar in Mekava is manually operated by loader. And its was though time mostly used to launch illuminating shells or to mark position for "real" artillery. Idea was to use it aganist AT teams at first. I had picture of Merkava mortar on my PC but i cant find it it seems. When i find it ill post it for reference.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Manually operated and à PITA.

Zivo wrote:

Werewolf wrote:The T-90A turret weights somewhere at 14t iirc so i would guess the T-14 turret weights less since the current version is only the core without the armor shell which we will see at the end.

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

From what i am aware mortar in Mekava is manually operated by loader. And its was though time mostly used to launch illuminating shells or to mark position for "real" artillery. Idea was to use it aganist AT teams at first. I had picture of Merkava mortar on my PC but i cant find it it seems. When i find it ill post it for reference.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:The T-90A turret weights somewhere at 14t iirc so i would guess the T-14 turret weights less since the current version is only the core without the armor shell which we will see at the end.

 Though I do not deny the likelihood of that happening, it is thus-far completely unconfirmed and should be treated as such. It is more likely the core will remain the same and the 'soft' shell may change, possibly allowing for the addition of ERA on the side or something.

Unmanned turrets are said to shave off 5 tons, to there you go; ~9 tons, maybe less.

In other news, Armata has (already!) passed testing; here

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:The T-90A turret weights somewhere at 14t iirc so i would guess the T-14 turret weights less since the current version is only the core without the armor shell which we will see at the end.

 Though I do not deny the likelihood of that happening, it is thus-far completely unconfirmed and should be treated as such. It is more likely the core will remain the same and the 'soft' shell may change, possibly allowing for the addition of ERA on the side or something.

Unmanned turrets are said to shave off 5 tons, to there you go; ~9 tons, maybe less.

In other news, Armata has (already!) passed testing; here

Cyrus the great wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

From what i am aware mortar in Mekava is manually operated by loader. And its was though time mostly used to launch illuminating shells or to mark position for "real" artillery. Idea was to use it aganist AT teams at first. I had picture of Merkava mortar on my PC but i cant find it it seems. When i find it ill post it for reference.

I made the mistake of not expressing myself a little more clearer. I meant to say that (unlike in the Merkava) the capability should be automated. It's one of the few features that I like in the Merkava; I don't like the front engine design, because it greatly increases the thermal signature of the tank or that stupid rear door that makes it far easier to kill the crew from a shot from behind.

The Merkava apparently has every little armor in the front hull and the sides -- the very opposite of this nonsense about the Merkava being the best protected tank in the world.

Werewolf wrote:The T-90A turret weights somewhere at 14t iirc so i would guess the T-14 turret weights less since the current version is only the core without the armor shell which we will see at the end.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

From what i am aware mortar in Mekava is manually operated by loader. And its was though time mostly used to launch illuminating shells or to mark position for "real" artillery. Idea was to use it aganist AT teams at first. I had picture of Merkava mortar on my PC but i cant find it it seems. When i find it ill post it for reference.

I made the mistake of not expressing myself a little more clearer. I meant to say that (unlike in the Merkava) the capability should be automated. It's one of the few features that I like in the Merkava; I don't like the front engine design, because it greatly increases the thermal signature of the tank or that stupid rear door that makes it far easier to kill the crew from a shot from behind.

The Merkava apparently has every little armor in the front hull and the sides -- the very opposite of this nonsense about the Merkava being the best protected tank in the world.

Merk's  have decent armour on the sides, it's just that it doesn't help with the inherent armor gaps that are forced by the engine outlay. The tank's main strength is the APS right now, NOT it passive protection.

Zivo wrote:The Merk IV's turret is well armored, but everything else is sketchy.

This is essentially the front lower hull. The fuel tank sits inside of this, and the transmission is right behind the fuel tank.

russian wikipedia traslated wrote:Other machines on the platform [ edit | edit the wiki text ]
LMC-2 - fighting vehicle flamethrower; [1]
TOS BM-2 - heavy ognemёtnaya system; [1]
TRV-2 - Freight loading vehicle heavy flamethrower system [1]
USM-A1 - mining system; [1]
IIM-A - a multi-purpose machine engineering; [1]
UMP-A - minelayer (draft); [1]
MT-A - launched bridge (project); [1]
TCP-A - floating conveyor (draft). [1]

- Tank T-72B3, which supply the Russian army, in six or seven times cheaper than foreign analogues. T-90 for our army five times cheaper than we sell in foreign markets. "Armata" today is three times cheaper than the "Abrams", "Leopard" or "Leclerc". Exactly three times. Only its capacity is considerably higher. But I will not say how much it will cost otmarketovanny on the world market. At the same time the same T-72 and T-90 in its survivability, combat potential is higher than other countries in the production of tanks, oddly enough. We carried out a lot of tests in different climatic conditions, know the potential of our competitors. We believe that the ratio of "price-quality" we have the most optimal.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F153808_Oleg_Sienko_Armata_ruchnoi_rabotyi_v_tri_raza_deshevle_Abramsa.html&edit-text=&act=url

magnumcromagnon wrote:No more second guessing, T-14 confirmed by UVZ to be 3 times cheaper than Abrams which costs around $8.5 million...it (T-14) was original thought to cost something in the ballpark of $3.7 million but it turns out that it's cheaper, like virtually $1 million cheaper at $2.8, also the new gun barrel is 30% more effective than the last version of the 125 mm barrel produced. I think I recall the barrel on T-90MS using a different and older barrel than the T-14. Also, tops speed for T-14 with 1350 HP engine is 80 km/h, but serial engines will be 1500 hp. Also drone T-72 fire-fighting MBT's confirmed. Lastly UVZ has stated their desire to integrate their Armata's with the 57 mm with max range of 16 km (and not the 45 mm):

- Tank T-72B3, which supply the Russian army, in six or seven times cheaper than foreign analogues. T-90 for our army five times cheaper than we sell in foreign markets. "Armata" today is three times cheaper than the "Abrams", "Leopard" or "Leclerc". Exactly three times. Only its capacity is considerably higher. But I will not say how much it will cost otmarketovanny on the world market. At the same time the same T-72 and T-90 in its survivability, combat potential is higher than other countries in the production of tanks, oddly enough. We carried out a lot of tests in different climatic conditions, know the potential of our competitors. We believe that the ratio of "price-quality" we have the most optimal.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F153808_Oleg_Sienko_Armata_ruchnoi_rabotyi_v_tri_raza_deshevle_Abramsa.html&edit-text=&act=url