[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

@ GarryB
In an Armata havy brigade, would the commonality of parts esp. the chassis enable turret switching? I mean for ex: in urban combat, you want BMPTs, so you switch some of the tanks' turret with BMPT turrets while in areas that require heavy tank fire you replace BMPTs' turrets with tank turrets.

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

Indeed, looking forward to the other side's reply to these. One-shot disposable railgun, anyone?

They technically could drop in another combat module, but then the crews would have to be trained to use it. It would be more effective to just deploy a heavy Armata-BMP/IFV centric brigade for urban environments.

Remember, before the BMPT and heavy IFV roll was created, commanders were limited in their choices. If they wanted tank level protection, they had to use actual tanks which have limited gun elevation. So rooftop RPG teams become very problematic. Now Russian commanders can use heavy IFV's, roll in with solid RPG protection and drop off troops to do the house to house fighting. If they need to level an occupied structure, they will have 120mm mortar equipped BMPTs nearby.

They could have some spare combat modules for different roles already, in case if one or more turret housed combat module is way beyond damaged to be repaired. Also, it would be very easy to repair said module by airlifting it to a repair station using quite possibly a medium capacity helo. Besides that, the commanders can easily adapt their forces to whatever the situation calls for. For example: IFV heavy armata brigade storms a city, after a few hours of fighting the enemy rushes to the countryside and are covered by heavy vehicles, instead of pushing through with a force that is relatively undergunned for the purpose, he transforms most of the IFVs into tanks and even heavy artillery.
@Zivo training wouldn't be that much of an issue. I mean you have the driver- he wouldn't need much training with a new combat module, only a slight change of tactics. Same goes with the commander, more or less. With the gunner, radar operator, comms. crew etc. however, it becomes more specialized. You just train them in their primary role, then train them in the basics of the replacement roles- which is for emergency. Besides, the Armata brigade has to fight 24/7 in case, so crew replacements are a must.

In an Armata havy brigade, would the commonality of parts esp. the chassis enable turret switching? I mean for ex: in urban combat, you want BMPTs, so you switch some of the tanks' turret with BMPT turrets while in areas that require heavy tank fire you replace BMPTs' turrets with tank turrets.

Very hard to say.

There are actually two different armata chassis... one with the engine at the front for vehicles that need rear hull access like the APC and IFV models with ramp rear doors, or the artillery vehicles as a front mounted engine would allow loading ammo directly into the rear hull.
Each different armata will have an electronics and sensor suite that will be standardised so for instance the electronics and sensors of an armata MBT will be the same or very similar to the electronics and sensors of the Kurganets MBT... though their might be differences in armament.

It really depends on the sensor and electronic layout... if they can build them in fully modular form for instance, the crew stations could be standardised and the different turrets could also be standardised so all the required electronics and sensors in the turret can be plugged in to a chassis in a plug and play type of way.

Of course with the two chassis there will be standard base engines with different power ratings... so an APC with a hull and rear troop compartment and a HMG in a remote weapon system would likely be the lightest vehicle... except possibly the command vehicle which will have lots of radios but nothing too heavy and these will be fitted with the least powerful models of the engine... say 1,400hp, while the 152mm Koalition with its enormous turret will likely be the heaviest member of the family at probably about 60-65 tons (the original twin barrel model might have been 65 tons so the new single barrel model might be 5 tons lighter) so it might have an uprated engine of perhaps 1,800 or even 2,000 hp.

Most of the weapons and sensors will be in the turrets, but the APC will have a tiny turret so I suspect most of its sensors and electronics will be in the hull.

What I am basically saying is that everything would have to be very modular to allow a swap and in most cases I don't think they would chop and change in action.

They might be able to convert otherwise unneeded vehicles like the Pantsir-S1 vehicle into a troop carrier (APC) if there is no air threat for example, but I don't know what level of repair yard you would have to send it to to make the conversion.

Indeed, looking forward to the other side's reply to these. One-shot disposable railgun, anyone?

Normally the best counter for a system is to look at its strengths and weaknesses and go for a weakness. Just off the top of my head how does it detect the threat? Radar or optics? Radar... jammers and chaff..., optics = laser dazzler... the longer they can keep the details of the system secret the more effective it will be.

Of course when developing such a system the first thing you ask yourself is can this be cheaply and easily defeated?

There is no point in spending millions only to find that a cheap jammer can render it useless.

They could have some spare combat modules for different roles already, in case if one or more turret housed combat module is way beyond damaged to be repaired.

Certainly from a logistics point of view it is ideal, and indeed for future upgrades it is good because the old modular armour can be taken off and new generation stuff bolted on for a new level of protection without having to re-manufacture all your vehicles. Keep in mind an old Tank Brigade might have had about 48 tanks in total but the number of other vehicles is probably 2-3 times that including all the engineering and air defence and artillery and of course the troop carriers, so upgrading the armour in a heavy tank brigade now means upgrading the modular armour on every single vehicle.

For example: IFV heavy armata brigade storms a city, after a few hours of fighting the enemy rushes to the countryside and are covered by heavy vehicles, instead of pushing through with a force that is relatively undergunned for the purpose, he transforms most of the IFVs into tanks and even heavy artillery.

No, that wouldn't really work. The brigade structure has tanks and IFVs... a tank brigade generally has 3 tank platoons with about 10 tanks per platoon, plus an infantry platoon with about 10 IFVs or APCs. A motor rifle brigade generally has about 3 platoons of IFVs and/or APCs with about 10 IFV/APCs in each platoon plus a platoon of tanks.

In a situation where the enemy has Zero armour or very little like in the 1980s in Afghanistan then it would make a lot of sense to swap out those MBTs for BMPTs, which have no troop carrying capacity, but have heavy firepower.

If the enemy is rapidly retreating I would deliver some SMERCH rockets on their heads with HE Frag bomblets, and another volley of Smerch rockets with anti armour submunitions on his covering armour.

Keep in mind that even an Armata IFV has the armour of a MBT even if it doesn't have the high velocity gun of one it will most likely be armed with a high velocity 45mm gun and probably Kornet-EM missiles, so fighting some third world countries tanks shouldn't be an issue. Of course calling in a few Havocs to clean up the retreating forces would likely be done too.

The real question is... what is the objective... to displace the enemy and recapture ground, or to kill as many enemy forces as possible... if the Georgian forces leave South Ossetia there is no need to chase them to Tiblisi... well not the first time anyway. If it happens again or it is Chechen separatists then the tactics would be more "active" to eliminate the enemy actors... cause if you don't get them now they will just be a pain in the... later.

I very much doubt they will be transformable in the field, and I don't think it would be very useful for them to be.

Armata brigades will have enormous firepower, and more likely on call in the form of airpower... both rotary and fixed wing, as well as any extra artillery they might want, and the new C4IR system will make it much more responsive and powerful and accurate.

Any info. when they would show next year the Armata tank prototype? What particular event will I need to look out for?

Next year, may 9th, leading a column of T-90's.

It's really anyone's guess though.

Zivo wrote:Next year, may 9th, leading a column of T-90's.

It's really anyone's guess though.

Gur Khan expressed doubt that date would be met.

TR1 wrote:

Zivo wrote:Next year, may 9th, leading a column of T-90's.

It's really anyone's guess though.

Gur Khan expressed doubt that date would be met.

It's an optimistic wish.

But realistically, it'll probably be sometime in the last quarter of 2013.

Hmm, Khlopotov is guessing a September showing for Armata. Fingers crossed.

Zivo wrote:Hmm, Khlopotov is guessing a September showing for Armata. Fingers crossed.

I'm holding my breath, until I saw this...

Lots of design bureaus will be putting forward design models for all the potential vehicles.

Which ones get chosen has probably not even been decided yet...

Hmm, since the MBT and/or possibly the BMPT Armatas have been discussed, and for the sake of variety, I would like to divert some of the attention to the APC and IFV Armatas. Also, I have a few questions regarding the mentioned vehicles:
1. How many could an APC and an IFV accomodate?
2. Would it necessitate a modification of the chassis itself? a raised roof in the compartment perhaps?
3. Would it include side doors?
4. Would it have gun ports?
*Anything solid about the Armata's engine? I dug out a couple of interviews that state hybrid-electric drive is possible which would mean gas turbine engine. Hell, even Altay would have hybrid electric drive in the future.

info. for Electrothermal-chemical tech. along with other future tech.:http://www.orbitalvector.com/Tactical%20Weapons/ETC%20WEAPONS.htm

1. How many could an APC and an IFV accomodate?

Hard to say, though the IFV will require a larger turret which will leave less space for troops.

I would guess they will try to keep the platoons the same size so 5-7 for the IFV and possibly 7-8 for the APC. With the APC the third crewman might dismount and form part of the troop.

2. Would it necessitate a modification of the chassis itself? a raised roof in the compartment perhaps?

Like the BMO-T... yes... possibly.

3. Would it include side doors?
4. Would it have gun ports?

I was thinking side doors would be useful on the wheeled model (ie Boomerang) but looking at the models it is not implimented.
Gun ports would be unlikely IMHO as it would create weak points in the armour and gun ports are not really that effective except as general suppressive fire.

*Anything solid about the Armata's engine? I dug out a couple of interviews that state hybrid-electric drive is possible which would mean gas turbine engine.

From what we have uncovered the armatas engine family is a new design that is a diesel with a power rating from 1,400hp up to about 2,400hp depending on the family model and expected service life. Power of the standard models is expected to start at the low end but gradually move to the higher end with new design improvements and new materials.

Now all this Armata MBT needs is CVT.
BTW, WTF?

The Type 10 is a good MBT, one of my personal favorites.

Regarding the CVT, Object 195 supposedly had one. It might also have been tested with electric drives, which has the same performance as a hydraulic CVT with less moving parts. Armata probably won't have a conventional transmission based on what we know about 195.

UVZ doesn't just make tanks, in its spare time it also make trains, and its experience in diesel electric trains with very powerful electric motors will probably be very useful for them in the near future... I don't think Armata will be electric drive, but I suspect it wont be long before we see such a vehicle... perhaps a light recon vehicle at first because of the low noise capacity.

@ GarrB
Do you think that the main battle tank Armata would have similar tower/turret with the tank support model that we have seen(I read from another site that the models are from Omsk and the chassis are speculation by them). IMO it may or may not(greater chance) look like that considering UVZ surely has done a considerable amount of work on the T-95 turret and they would want to use as much of what they learned from that project. So in this case it would be very similar to what is seen on Andrei Khlopotov's site.
Also, do you think special reloading vehicles would be created esp. for vehicles with unmanned turrets and seperately compartmentalized ammo storage?

I would think the BMPT design model with the gatling and grenade launcher and high elevation 120mm rifled gun/mortar could be a representative of what the armata MBT might look like, though such weapons would not be appropriate for such a vehicle.

I would suspect a 125mm smoothbore main gun in a high elevation mount might be useful, plus a coaxial MG, but I suspect an independent remote weapon system for the commander that allows him to scan for targets independently yet immediately fire on a target would be useful. A Kord or 40mm grenade launcher would be useful alternative options for such a mount.

With the ammo loaded into the turret and stored below the turret ring I suspect automated loading vehicles might be options in some cases.

For instance in the case of the Boomerang and Kurganets which don't have rear engine mounted models with the engines at the front and the crew under the frontal armour and the unmanned turret behind the rear hull could contain an automated ammo rack for the MBT, for the artillery/Mortar carrier, and for the BMPT models... the latter could simply be an IFV model with the troop compartment replaced with a pallet loaded extra ammo storage and automated handling system.
Especially if 45mm guns or 120mm mortar shells are involved.

Looking at the layout of the new BMPT, I have a feeling coaxial MG's mounted alongside the gun may be disappearing.

There's no point in having them there anymore as the turret is unmanned, and it only weakens the mantlet. It's better to just have a roof mounted MG slaved to the main gun, like what's seen on the BMPT model. The commander would have a secondary Kord/40mm to work with.

Zivo wrote:Looking at the layout of the new BMPT, I have a feeling coaxial MG's mounted alongside the gun may be disappearing.

There's no point in having them there anymore as the turret is unmanned, and it only weakens the mantlet. It's better to just have a roof mounted MG slaved to the main gun, like what's seen on the BMPT model. The commander would have a secondary Kord/40mm to work with.

With the Gunner's primary sight in a small barbette extension of the mantlet above the gun like the challenger 2.

Zivo wrote:Looking at the layout of the new BMPT, I have a feeling coaxial MG's mounted alongside the gun may be disappearing.

There's no point in having them there anymore as the turret is unmanned, and it only weakens the mantlet. It's better to just have a roof mounted MG slaved to the main gun, like what's seen on the BMPT model. The commander would have a secondary Kord/40mm to work with.

With the Gunner's primary sight in a small barbette extension of the mantlet above the gun like the challenger 2.
Also, I don't think we'll see ERA or NERA bricks, instead they would come in different sizes and curves to better fit on the vehicle and preserve stealth shaping.

There's no point in having them there anymore as the turret is unmanned, and it only weakens the mantlet.

Sorry my friend... I don't understand.

Whether the turret is manned or not is irrelevant.

Weakening the mantlet is also irrelevant.

The purpose of the coaxial gun is to allow the gunner the option of engaging enemy troops at mid to short range without using the main gun. A group of enemy troops appears at 600m from the tank and the commmander sees them and turns the turret to the correct bearing and orders the gunner to engage with machine gun... the gunner uses the coaxial MG to engage the enemy troops and saves the limited main gun ammo supply.

While the gunner is engaging the target the commander is free to look for new targets.

The commanders gun in a remote weapon system is in case infantry is spotted at 600m and includes an ATGM about to fire on the tank... the commander will fire bursts directly at the team and order the driver to move the vehicle to cover.

In the latter case the commander is no longer doing his job looking for targets and threats while the gunner is doing nothing. Without a coaxial MG the gunner either uses up the HE shells or does nothing... not an efficient use of the crew.

Regarding weakening the mantlet... the armour on the turret will not be that strong anyway... the thickest armour is over the hull protecting the crew and the ammo in the turret below the turret ring.

It's better to just have a roof mounted MG slaved to the main gun, like what's seen on the BMPT model.

With weapons like Grenade launchers such an arrangement is necessary because a coaxial weapon with a limited elevation main gun needs to be a high velocity weapon like a 30 cal MG. For a 40mm grenade launcher the coaxial position on a conventional tank lacks elevation which would limit range. The mounts for the weapons on the BMPT allow for high elevation indirect fire with HE rounds... which is pretty meaningless for a 30cal MG or even a 50 cal MG.

Coaxial MGs on MBTs will remain because they are useful and can share the stabilisation and aiming systems of the main gun.

I suspect the MBT will have a small mini turret based on a MG and or grenade launcher with optics fitted for the commander to have an all round view and ability to immediately shoot at what he sees, though he will be able to turn the turret to what he is looking at with the touch of a button too.

I'm not saying the roll of coaxial machine guns are outdated, I'm just saying there's no point in keeping them set along side the gun anymore, as the crew can no longer access the location in battle. Before, if the machinegun malfunctioned the crew could unjam or reload it.

Having to clear an area for the machine gun barrel means you cannot fit an ERA tile there, as is the case on the t-90. It just widens a gap in the frontal protection on the turret. Stabilization could be argued, but the Armata BMPT model features two independently stabilized auxiliary weapons. Granted, it's just a proposal, but you can see what the designers view as a feasible layout.

IMO, it's better to just have a roof mounted gun, fixed in a forward firing position with the elevation control slaved to the main gun. Exactly like the 23mm on the Armata BMPT model. The Merkava also features a similar setup with the coaxial .50 attached externally to the mantlet.

The co-axial machine gun is also an excellent and cheap ranging device.

I'm not saying the roll of coaxial machine guns are outdated, I'm just saying there's no point in keeping them set along side the gun anymore, as the crew can no longer access the location in battle. Before, if the machinegun malfunctioned the crew could unjam or reload it.

The PKT is a very reliable weapon but even if it did jam you could mount a mechanism to cock the weapon to clear any rounds that might be jammed without much problem.

Having to clear an area for the machine gun barrel means you cannot fit an ERA tile there, as is the case on the t-90. It just widens a gap in the frontal protection on the turret.

And a wider gap in protection in the front of the turret is not a problem when there is no crew in the turret.

Like the main gun of a tank a coaxial machine gun is a direct fire weapon... you point the weapon at the target or a few metres above the target to fire upon it.

This is as opposed to a grenade launcher which has a much lower muzzle velocity and more importantly HE rounds that rely on explosive content for their lethality rather than pure kinetic force. You would never try to lob 30 cal MG rounds into a courtyard though you might need a little elevation to reach targets out to 1.5km you would never fire more than 100m directly above the target... and a target at 1,500m is going to be very small so razing the barrel more than 10 degrees would be fairly unlikely.

The result is that you don't need the complication of an independently elevating mount when the main gun mount is already perfect.

Stabilization could be argued, but the Armata BMPT model features two independently stabilized auxiliary weapons. Granted, it's just a proposal, but you can see what the designers view as a feasible layout.

Both of those weapons need extra elevation capacity because of their relatively low velocity and largely HE payload allowing indirect as well as direct fire options.

Indirect fire options for a MG... even in 50 cal is pointless.

IMO, it's better to just have a roof mounted gun, fixed in a forward firing position with the elevation control slaved to the main gun. Exactly like the 23mm on the Armata BMPT model. The Merkava also features a similar setup with the coaxial .50 attached externally to the mantlet.

Isn't that just a coaxial MG?

The co-axial machine gun is also an excellent and cheap ranging device.

Not to mention a great way to deal with light targets without wasting precious main gun ammo... or firing an enormous main gun that will give away your position.