[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Sounds like the engine issues have been resolved. Have heard rumors of teething issues concerning the APS system. These are just rumors, though.

A conscript leaves the parking brake on and stalls the tank at a public event and western propaganda blows it all out of proportion.

They have been evaluating and fine tuning APS systems since the Soviet war in Afghanistan... now they are deploying the system into combat officially (Drozd was used in Afghanistan in the 1980s and in other places too for testing purposes) but it is really in active service that the real test begins and systems get sharpened and improved further.

Banger vid from Red. Check it out, worth every minute.

TMA1 wrote:Sounds like the engine issues have been resolved. Have heard rumors of teething issues concerning the APS system. These are just rumors, though.

Rumors that western politicians swallow hook, line, and sinker and sly defense manufacturers have used to keep selling inferior products to their customers for massive, massive profits. Because why risk billions of dollars developing a next gen MBT when you can sell the same warmed over shit for $20 million a pop?

What? You watch this guy's videos?
I happened to watch one of this idiot's videos on confirming an S-400 was destroyed by Urkraine, really "impressed" by his horseshit.

xeno wrote:
What? You watch this guy's videos?
I happened to watch one of this idiot's videos on confirming an S-400 was destroyed by Urkraine, really "impressed" by his horseshit.

If you set your filter to 'never made a factual error' you're never going to find something to watch. Its a youtube video, not a dissertation. If it really bothers you grab a beer and turn off some parts of your brain before engaging.

From paralay: Interesting cutaway of the T-14 MBT and T-15 IFV.

This thing hull simply can't be penetrated from the front.

ALAMO wrote:
This thing hull simply can't be penetrated from the front.

... Unless you're shooting at it with another T-14. Just look at the size of those shells.

A very serious weapon. All the anti-armor power of a 152mm gun, none of the drawbacks. Motovilikha really outdid themselves on this one.

Unlike some other company that seems to think theirs is still a richly funded military that can afford bespoke calibers out of their ass.

Crew is pretty much untouchable

Ammo compartment can be penetrated but it gets flooded with halon gas immediately and even if it goes off it doesn't affect the crew

Engine can get damaged but then you still have big ass gun shooting at you

Ukro war showed no one cares if you are protected form one side totally.

T-14 will explode same way as any other tank if FPV drones hit the top.

PapaDragon wrote:
Ammo compartment can be penetrated but it gets flooded with halon gas immediately and even if it goes off it doesn't affect the crew

Provided the blast wall between the crew and the fighting compartment remains sealed. Which can only happen with shots that actually pierce the armor from the front - very unlikely, and shots coming from the back - equally unlikely given the very fast reverse speeds that allow this vehicle to keep its most protected front at the threat while under fire.

Isos wrote:
Ukro war showed no one cares if you are protected form one side totally.

T-14 will explode same way as any other tank if FPV drones hit the top.

The unmanned turret is well protected, actually, and I'm tired of people claiming otherwise. It seems deceptively light on protection, but the turret is multi-layered armor with integrated heavy ERA topped with EM absorbent carapace that doubles as spaced armor. Its not heavy enough to rate against heavy caliber anti-armor weapons but smaller caliber cumulative warheads mounted on FPVs should not be a problem.

T-14 will explode same way as any other tank if FPV drones hit the top.

Turret will be damaged, but not more.
In that case crew and most likely engine will be unharmed.

The protection is about as good as you can get it.

Add in the APS system and the low RCS and IR coatings and of course the EO equipment for detecting lasers and using lasers to blind incoming optical threats... including drones and ATGMs as well as various systems to set off mines before they are on top of them and it is about as good as you are going to achieve.

BTW interesting that there is no roof cage armour and that gun above the turret looks rather big... like a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher weapon.

Is that artistic licence or does he know something?

I would say drones will be dealt with automatic systems like APS because of the short time between detection and impact... with its own tethered drone hovering above with MMW radar and IIR sensors it should get more warning of the attack than most vehicles would get, but I rather suspect air defence vehicles like the 2S38 and of course the Terminator vehicles on Armata chassis will also be part of the solution for such problems.

The newest Trophy model is being advertised as a "drone killer", and this is a clear path.
Afghanit is already there, and I don't doubt it can do the job easily.
What worries is a limited load of ammunition, while we see the tanks being obliterated with the use of multiple drones. 5-6 are nothing unusual already.

What worries is a limited load of ammunition, while we see the tanks being obliterated with the use of multiple drones. 5-6 are nothing unusual already.

Add jammers. Or a specialized jammer vehicle based on the Armata.

Jammers will be there for sure.
A smaller, less demanding ammunition in bigger amounts will be an option either - drones do not require reaction time and are much easier to destroy even if compared to RPG-7 slow-moving round.
You can pack more dedicated anti-drone smaller ammunition and combine it with "full scale" made to destroy missiles or sabots.

GarryB wrote:
BTW interesting that there is no roof cage armour and that gun above the turret looks rather big... like a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher weapon.

Is that artistic licence or does he know something?

The turret on the T-14 has a carapace that acts as space armor aside from smoothening out the IR/radar sig. An applique cage armor is not needed.

A secondary autocannon has always been expected on the T-14 since its predecessor mounted a 30 mm autocannon. Its less of a requirement for the T-14 on account of the greater ready ammo capacity of the autoloader but it still wouldn't hurt. Especially if the commander's RWS mutates into a dedicated anti-aircraft weapon station to deal with drones and low flying aircraft.

ALAMO wrote:
The newest Trophy model is being advertised as a "drone killer", and this is a clear path.

If there is any truth in Israeli advertising shouldn't it be "drone killed" in combat.
Because in actuality their Merkava 4Ms are getting shut down left and right by RPGs fired point blank - exactly the very known threat that Trophy APS has been advertised to be really, really good at dealing with.    

To be fair RPGs are not really a trivial threat either. Fired up close and personal, just barely clearing the arming distance, and the flight time until impact is actually shorter than with a subcaliber shell fired from typical combat range. They are also stupidly slow compared to blazing fast metal arrows so they are a lot harder to filter out from ground clutter by their relative velocity.

FPVs are even slower and don't even have the massive IR backblast to announce their presence. So call me skeptical if I don't put any stock to Rafael's claims.

ALAMO wrote:
Afghanit is already there, and I don't doubt it can do the job easily.
What worries is a limited load of ammunition, while we see the tanks being obliterated with the use of multiple drones. 5-6 are nothing unusual already.

The hardkill blast mortars are not intended for more vertically inclined threats. For that you have the 4 sets of 12 pack smoke dischargers and the RWS. Both of which have substantially deeper magazines to deal with saturation threats.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:There is no point in sending the T-14 to Ukraine.

They won't be a game changer even if available in huge numbers. T-90M and T-72B3 are enough for the tasks at hand.

While their reputation will be tarnished if they are destroyed.

They don't have the required pool of trained crews to operate the T-14 in combat significant amounts in the first place. The first crews are only graduating this year lol.

I find it hard to believe that cutaway of the T15, surely it would have atleast T72B level composite armour to back up the ERA.

On another note, does anyone know the length of the T14's gun?

surely it would have atleast T72B level composite armour to back up the ERA.

The first two metres of the vehicle are literally armor and engine pack. 

For that you have the 4 sets of 12 pack smoke dischargers

Maybe the smoke grenades can be changed for something more lethal.

Ekhm ...
Technically speaking ...
Tucha grenades are de facto a weapon ...
The older version is chemical and can kill if inhaled too much.
A newer one is an incendiary bomb ...
So you know, it is only semantics
Grenades for the newer Tucha were used at this war exactly as incendiary bombs for drones ...

The-thing-next-door wrote:
I find it hard to believe that cutaway of the T15, surely it would have atleast T72B level composite armour to back up the ERA.

Paralay was probably working with incorrect weight assumptions for the naked T-15 hull.

IMO the T-15 has a composite armor layer right behind the powerpack protecting the crew compartment, like the Object 299.

The-thing-next-door wrote:
On another note, does anyone know the length of the T14's gun?

The 2A82-1M is a 56 caliber gun. 56 x 125mm = 7m.

ALAMO wrote:
Tucha grenades are de facto a weapon ...

Incendiaries, to be more exact. 81mm Red Phosporus grenades.

Yes, this is what I said in line No 5

Especially if the commander's RWS mutates into a dedicated anti-aircraft weapon station to deal with drones and low flying aircraft.

With the new airburst 23mm cannon shells wouldn't it be interesting in 23x152mm calibre.

Of course the twin barrel 23mm 23x115mm cannons could replace high muzzle velocity with enormous rate of fire and more compact ammo for larger ammo capacity.

They both fire the same projectile so both could be loaded with the same airburst shells if required.

Added to that the enormous rate of fire of the twin barrel 23mm cannon means a half second burst of fire could launch 20-25 HE shells in the direction of enemy troops that cover the distance rather faster than 30mm grenade launcher grenades and in a much denser pattern to cover the beaten zone with a dense cloud of fragments.

The newest Trophy model is being advertised as a "drone killer", and this is a clear path.

There was a video with Putin visiting a factory making tanks where it was mentioned that Arena-M was being fitted to new tanks as standard and that it had been modified to deal with drone threats as well as diving top attack threats like Javelin.

In many ways a system designed to stop ATGMs and anti armour rounds should be able to deal with drones too.

A slow flying drone might be difficult to distinguish from a bird in terms of IR or Radar cross section, but not many birds will fly right up to a tank and try to land on its turret... nor would it hover above it trying to lay eggs on its turret hatches.

Incendiaries, to be more exact. 81mm Red Phosporus grenades.

So not just smoke but IR decoys as well.

Many people look at old IR guided missiles seekers that see hot spots only and compare with the much better image of the thermal imager and think Javelin can see as good as we can, but Javelin is just a machine... when we see a thermal image of a tank with men standing next to it we can see the shape of the tank and know what it is and see the men. The Javelins guidance system just sees patterns it might or might not recognise... a moving vehicle is easier to spot because the pattern is moving as a "group" and the group can be identified as a separate thing, but in a built up area when launched up into the air and then diving down on the target a Javelin might see lots of hotspots in its field of view, as well as windows and reflections... any of which could be a tank.

I dare say T-14 will also carry a laser dazzler and EO system to deal with cameras of all types (day or IR). A drone that can't see is unlikely to hit.

One of the solutions applied early in the war was attaching a log behind the tank, with a hanging bin filled with burning wood.
It worked just fine against the "superior smart Javelin".
Well, calling it this way they must have taken a "smartness" level of a regular Murican

The other observation was that Javelin is notorious for targeting gun barrels, being hot after a few shots.

A dazzler in Pilin style will minimize the risk of this type of weaponry for sure.

In regards to the T-15 armour If the powerpack and colling system you could fit in 2m or more of composite on the upper 1/3rd of the hull front, though I would imagine there would also be additional composted crammed into the engine compartment to make it immune to large autocannon and RPG analogues.

In regards to the gun length, I was hoping for longer but atleast it is still longer than the German 130.