[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

So wait, they're going to have the capsule "floating" in the hull, with shock absorbers in the narrow spaces between the capsule wall and the main armor?

How effective would a setup like that be against larger IED's?

I suspect the purpose of the extra shock absorbers is to reduce injury from heavy IEDs and will likely be in the floor of the vehicle.

The capsule itself will likely be fitted with modular armour.

It is a bit like having seats attached to the walls of the hull or the roof, because a large explosion under the vehicle leads to the shock wave travelling up through the legs of seats and often damaging the spines of those seated. With wall or roof attached seats the attachments break after supporting briefly the soldier and then the floor rises up, which reduces the impact of the explosion.

In this design I suspect the structure includes very hard shock absorbers that wouldn't move when driving cross country, but in an explosion would absorb some of the energy to reduce the injuries to the crew.

As long as you continue to drive down valleys you will encounter surprises.The military should be making its own roads not following those laid before it!

Most of the time there is no choice in the matter... and any new roads you build can easily be mined later anyway.

Developing anti mine vehicles, with jamming equipment to prevent radio command mines being set off, or setting them off prematurely, and of course sensors that can detect explosives are all very important and useful things to do.

Remote control robotic vehicles would be the only 100% certain solution to not losing soldiers, but how will the local population relate to a side that is both foreign and apparently not even human...

Probably forgot to update his records.

Typhoon and Boomerang are the same thing now, though Boomerang is the official title.

Just this sort of thing...

Albeit with a longer main gun, no miniguns, extensive NERA bricks, APS radar and launchers, and more visible thermals and cameras.

Yeah, pretty much... except this gun is already pretty long.

Technically it's a 120mm mortar, not a gun.

If you want to get technical the it is a gun/howitzer that can fire mortar bombs.

In military-talk a rifle is not a gun, because guns are all artillery, though not all artillery are guns. There is tube or gun artillery and there is rocket artillery... which is of course Rockets.

The 120mm rifled gun/mortar can fire mortar bombs, but it can also fire shells with a propellent bag arrangement which technically also makes it a howitzer.

The rifling is irrelevant because while some mortars are not rifled and some are, howitzers and guns are all rifled.

Some rocket artillery systems use rifling to spin stabilise the rockets, while others use fins.

Generally with guns that use smoothbore barrels like tank guns the stabilisation method is fins on the projectile.

To be clear the difference in olden times between a gun and a howitzer is that a gun had a very long barrel and a large but fixed propellent charge and was generally designed for max range and velocity and generally the barrel could not be elevated to very high angles... usually 30-40 degrees at most, often much less.

The Howitzer on the other hand generally had a short barrel and also could be fired at high elevations above 45 degrees for steep plunging fire. Another feature of the howitzer was its ability to use propellent bags, so for longer range targets extra bags would give extra range, while when engaging close range targets fewer propellent bags were used so the projectiles didn't go as high up in the air and spent much less time travelling to their targets. This makes them much more accurate for hitting close range targets than guns. Mortars can also use extra propellent bags tied around their tails to extend range

The point is that over time the usefulness of howitzers has resulted in most modern guns being a howitzer of some sort... especially in regard to variable charge propellent loads and high elevation platforms.

Since this actually is one of the proposed BMPT variants, the 23mm minigun will probably find a place on the vehicle. The ZSU-23-4, although not purpose-built as a BMPT, was modified during Afghanistan to serve the roll. They removed the radar and added more ammunition. The quad 23mm is significantly more ridiculous than the 23mm minigun shown on the Armata model, and was actually used in combat.

The Shilka was used because they had it there, and by all accounts it was devastatingly effective.

We should be clear that the Shilka is a 23mm cannon based system but the 23 x 152mm shells it uses are vastly more powerful than the 23 x 115mm rounds the 23mm gatling being proposed uses.

The critical thing is that they both use the same projectile, but the 23mm gatling uses much smaller and more compact rounds so more ammo can be carried. Its muzzle velocity is much lower too, but that just means that the 23mm gatling would not be very effective against aerial or long range targets because of the long flight time.

Against ground targets the gatlings rounds will have the same HE power as the Shilkas, which is the most important thing.

More importantly this vehicle will be much harder to knock out than a Shilka, which could be taken down with HMG fire.

In terms of availability the 23 x 115mm round is already being used in the twin barrel 23mm cannon on the new Hinds and a modest barrel change of a KPV HMG would allow most wheeled armoured vehicles (ie BTR) in the Russian military to introduce the calibre too.

When the high velocity KPVs 14.5 x 114mm rounds are not longer effective at penetrating enemy light armour then a minor change to the barrels and feed mechanism would allow them to go to 23 x 115mm with a greatly improved HE capacity which would make them rather more effective against infantry. In fact going for the larger calibre... considering all the new computerised sighting systems and night vision equipment I would expect a dual feed adaptation and you could add SLAP rounds with APFSDS rounds from a separate belt. The ballistic computers will adjust for the different trajectories and armour penetration should actually be better than with 14.5 x 114mm calibre projectiles because the larger diameter barrel should allow more powder and more energy down the barrel for a heavier projectile at a higher velocity.

The gatling is a stroke of genius as it only weighs about 73kgs and is self powered so you don't need an electric motor or anything. Its very high rate of fire (up to 200 shells per second!) can be used in short bursts so the rounds arrive in a cluster like a shotgun blast of 23mm calibre explosive shells... devastating!

The 23 x 115mm rounds are compact and relatively light which maximised the number you can carry in a given space.

At about 710m/s they are fairly flat shooting and would get to target faster than a grenade launcher, so the 40mm grenade launcher compliments it with lower velocity rounds with heavy projectiles that can be dropped on unsuspecting targets who think they are behind cover.

Against harder targets you have 120mm shells and mortar bombs and also 120mm Gran and 122mm Kitolov guided missiles that are compatible with the 120mm rifled gun/mortar of the Vena and presumably also this weapon, though it seems slightly longer and perhaps with better range performance.

The nona weapon system, I believe is actually classified as a hybrid howitzer/mortar. It's intended to serve the roll of a mortar, and uses standard 120mm mortar rounds. However, unlike a conventional mortar, loads from the breach and has an extended barrel.

I quite agree, though actually when mortar barrels get long, then breach loading is the normal and common solution.

Most infantry 120mm mortars have relatively short barrels but if a mortar like that fitted to NONA or VENA was deployed to troops they would use breach loading too simply because the barrel is too long to muzzle load.

Most heavy mortars like the excellent 160mm and 240mm mortars in Soviet and Russian service use breach loading because of barrel length and projectile weight preclude dropping them down the barrel from the muzzle.

What's important is the contrast between the 120 howitzer(gun)/mortar on the BMPT Armata, and 120 guns like the M256, 2A46, L30, etc.

Weapons of that calibre can be called guns, but as you point out these 120mm gun/mortar/howitzers are medium pressure weapons with long barrels to maximise range for a given round, and are rifled to stabilise the rounds they fire because the rounds they fire are full calibre HE shells or mortar bombs.

With main battle tank main guns of 120mm calibre whether they are rifled or smoothbore, their barrel length is often sacrificed for compact design, and the smoothbore design mainly gives away their optimisation for maximum muzzle velocity for maximum penetration. APFSDS rounds are too long and narrow to be stabilised with spin so like a dart they require fins. Of course javelins are even longer and slimmer and rely on their shape to prevent them flying end over end.

HEAT rounds, which are also widely used in tank guns are also used to penetrate armour and also really don't like to be spun with rifling.

The result is that the 120mm rifled gun used in the model of the armata BMPT, is not and cannot be compared with a 120mm rifled gun like that fitted to the Challenger tank as the British gun is a high velocity weapon optimised for penetrating armour, while the Russian weapon is a hybrid that can fire shells or mortar bombs at much lower velocities. The Russian weapon simply doesn't have the barrel strength to operate at MBT tank level pressures and does not have the propellent space to do so anyway.

The reality is, most RPG teams don't stick around long after firing at their target, especially in dense urban environments. If one of these RPG teams engaged the BMPT itself, or another AFV the BMPT is escorting, their active protective system would hopefully defeat the round and automatically rotate the turret towards the location were the projectile originated from. At this point the crew will have mere seconds to identify and engage the targets before they escape to cover.

I agree... and especially with foliage and various types of cover the now retreating enemy unit might be hard to spot 500m or more away so a burst of 0.2 of a second would deliver 40 23mm calibre HE shells in a burst that would arrive rapidly with fragments going everywhere... it would be devastating to unarmoured targets.

A gatling gun is not the most accurate weapon in the world as the barrels movement induces a spin of its own, and of course for area targets each barrel can be slightly offset to further spread the rounds. The point being you don't want a laser beam of shells all hitting a single point... you want to spread the destruction and fragments.

It would be a devastating anti ambush weapon too.

US experience in Vietnam showed them how devastating the 20mm Vulcan was at close range, the 23 x 115mm Russian round is a similar compact size, though the Russian round relies for effect on its heavy HE payload while the US round uses a lighter projectile and higher velocity for use against fleeting aerial targets.

The other difference of course is that the Russian weapon is both lighter and does not require an external power system and has twice the rate of fire on paper, and in practice it is actually even more superior.

The electric powered gatling takes a short period to wind up to full speed... with very short bursts that means they rarely fire at their max rate. The Russian gas powered weapon winds up almost immediately to 12,000 rpm.

In comparison the two 30mm cannon of the T-90 based BMPT have a much lower rate of fire with much more powerful ammo that is much larger but not actually that much more effective.

A comparison shows the 20mm vulcan fires 100 gram projectiles, while the 23mm fires 175-200 gram projectiles while the 30 x 165mm fires 380-400 gram projectiles.

In terms of ground targets the high velocity of the 20mm and 30mm rounds is largely irrelevant, but the heavy HE payload of the 23mm counts in its favour for the role.

Note the Apache uses a low velocity small cased 30mm cannon shell and the new Hinds use the 23 x 115mm calibre twin barrel weapons too.

On what Armata chassis would they put their dedicated AD systems like Pantsir and Tor?

There are only two armata chassis types... one with an engine in the front and one with an engine in the rear.

The rear engine will be for the MBT and likely the air defence models while the front engine models will include the APC and IFV models and probably the artillery model to allow easy rear reloading/easy access for troops.

All its bits and pieces will be state of the art, but I would expect cost would be in the 6-7 million dollar range.

The Armata platform is intended to be the basis for a main battle tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, a combat engineering vehicle, an armored recovery vehicle, a heavy armored personnel carrier, a tank support combat vehicle and several types of self-propelled fighting vehicles.

Seems the BMPT concept is not dead afterall.

Hmm, Don't they already have Kurganets and Boomerang for that? I mean its good for the the crews they're protecting and all but wouldn't it eat too much chassis and other resources from the Armata MBT, BMPT and heavy artillery versions? It wouldn't be a problem if say, they are only planning to create 500 MBTs and a few hundred of the rest but no, since they are going for a full overhaul it would mean over 2000 MBTs, near or equal that number of BMPTS, and a few odd hundreds of heavy artillery. Not to mention if they plan to transfer some ADS to those heavy chassis for improved commonality then they would have to turn some of those APCs and IFVs into ready to use chassis'. Another is that except for the IFV, the tank-like protection the chassis affords is just wasted on it, as troops are meant to dismbark once the vehicle is under heavy fire.

It seems you are not following the concept properly.

Armata is a tank... kurganets-25 is a IFV like a BMP, Boomerang is an APC... but armata is also a BMP and a BTR.

In a heavy brigade ALL of the vehicles within that brigade will be armata based vehicles, so an armata based MBT, an armata based IFV (ie BMP) an armata based engineer vehicle, Air defence vehicle, artillery vehicle etc etc.

Every single vehicle within a heavy brigade... and that is both tank and motor rifle brigades will be based on an armata chassis. This means a heavy brigade will only need spares and support equipment for armata based vehicles.

A heavy brigade is an armata brigade... all the vehicles in a Russian heavy brigade will have MBT level armour and MBT level protection, so you wont be able to pick off the thin vehicles like APCs because they will have the same level of protection as the tanks.

A medium brigade will be either wheeled or tracked, so a medium tracked tank or motor rifle brigade will have ONLY Kurganets based vehicles... the MBT, the IFV, the engineer vehicles, the armoured recovery vehicles, the AD vehicle, the command vehicles in a medium tracked tank or motor rifle brigade will all have kurganets based vehicles.

Medium wheeled tank or motor rifle brigades will be all Boomerang-25 based.

Light tank or motor rifle brigades will have Boomerang-10 based vehicles.

So in each brigade there will be one chassis type, one family of engines.

In terms of weapons and electronics each weight class will have a related suite of systems, so a MBT will have standard sensors and weapons that will be related across the weight classes. The armata MBT might eventually have a 152mm smoothbore main gun, well a 10 ton class Boomerang-10 will never carry that sort of main gun, but it will have all the expensive and effective sensors and optics that the armata has, though it might have a 45mm main gun, while the Kurganets and Boomerang-25 MBTs might both have 125mm guns.

The air defence vehicle in the Armata brigade might be Pantsir-S1 and TOR, while the smaller and lighter Boomerang-10 might have SOSNA-R laser homing supersonic missiles because they are lighter and cheaper.

Another is that except for the IFV, the tank-like protection the chassis affords is just wasted on it, as troops are meant to dismbark once the vehicle is under heavy fire.

The very heavy armour of the armata IFV mean it can move through dangerous areas and deposit its troops very close to the enemy, or to remove them from dangerous places. It will retain the standard function of delivering troops and then moving back a little to provide direct fire support. The APC model will likely just have modest armament like a HMG in a remote weapon station, though with thermal sights and laser range finders so point targets can be effectively engaged.

Anyone have further info. confused regarding the Afghanistan APS? If anything there is about it, is that it supposedly can stop even APFSDS rounds, which could only mean either of these two:

Only the info from Gur Khan's website.

He mentioned two systems I think... Afghanistan and Standard.

No system is perfect, there will be steps taken to defeat it... the game continues... very interesting though.

I'm glad it isn't. I wonder with what armament combination it will be created and what will be its primary tasks. I think infantry, helicopters and UCAVs will be its primary targets.

I am glad too. I think in modern combat tanks are used as heavy mobile gun platforms in situations where the enemy is largely not armoured like in COIN operations... yet the big main guns of tanks are optimised for destroying enemy armour. The result can be a big 70 ton vehicle that just uses its MGs most of the time and might occasionally fire a 120mm gun at a truck or light bunker.

Assuming the armata model, then all of a sudden the 120mm gun/mortar alone gives you a choice of direct fire or indirect fire capability with a very substantial HE capacity. Adding 40mm and 23mm and many targets will be much more effectively engaged faster.