[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

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.

Sounds complex, considering before Armata a crewman could clear a jam in a few seconds.

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

The armor protecting more than just the crew. A disabled tank is just as useless as one with dead crewmen. There's a lot of sensitive equipment and ammo in the turret the needs to avoid being damaged.

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

It's a trade off, if it's fine for the BMPT version, I don't see why it wouldn't be fine for the MBT version.

Isn't that just a coaxial MG?

Correct, it serves the same purpose. It would use the same mount as the BMPT version, which has no visible coaxial MG on the model. Using the modular mount we see on the BMPT, they could use a PKT, Kord, or maybe even a 30mm as the coaxial weapon on the MBT version.

Obviously I'm speculating here, based mostly on what we've seen on the recent Armata model. There may be a traditional coaxial MG on the MBT version, but honestly I see no point when the mount on the BMPT model would serve the roll perfectly.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/12/blog-post_948.html

Is that a new tank gun? The Russian equivalent of XM360 perhaps?

The image on the bottom left of the screen looks to be the Coalition gun module. The other two may be part of the autoloader, I cant tell.

Sounds complex, considering before Armata a crewman could clear a jam in a few seconds.

Not complex at all... a simple electric motor pulling a cable to drag the cocking handle back and release it like on the AGS-17.

The armor protecting more than just the crew. A disabled tank is just as useless as one with dead crewmen. There's a lot of sensitive equipment and ammo in the turret the needs to avoid being damaged.

The turret will be armoured to stop cannon fire only... if the enemy wants to hit the armatas turret with tank main gun ammo then let them... the worst that could happen is that they disable the main gun... the crew would be perfectly safe and none of the ammo will be above the turret ring, so it will be safe too.

Rule one in tank armour... you can't protect everything.

Rule two in tank armour there is no such thing as invulnerable... if the enemy could hit your tank gun with a lightly armoured turret they could do it with a heavily armour turret too... no matter how heavy your armour is they could always blow off a track and immobilise the vehicle... all tanks have weaknesses. Having thin armour near the main gun does not endanger the crew and that is the number one priority.

BTW if you think that is a weakness the turret bustles on western tanks are enormous targets that are not heavily armoured and contain enormous amounts of propellent and explosive that would destroy the tank with a direct hit.

It's a trade off, if it's fine for the BMPT version, I don't see why it wouldn't be fine for the MBT version.

The original BMPT has three gunners and can use three independent gun stations effectively. The armata BMPT has independent elevation for the 23mm gatling and the 40mm grenade launcher because they require the extra elevation for lobbing HE rounds at targets behind cover...

The MBT model will be designed to carry as much main gun ammo as possible so it wont have as much room in the turret as the BMPT for other weapons.

Correct, it serves the same purpose. It would use the same mount as the BMPT version, which has no visible coaxial MG on the model. Using the modular mount we see on the BMPT, they could use a PKT, Kord, or maybe even a 30mm as the coaxial weapon on the MBT version.

Obviously I'm speculating here, based mostly on what we've seen on the recent Armata model. There may be a traditional coaxial MG on the MBT version, but honestly I see no point when the mount on the BMPT model would serve the roll perfectly.

I don't think you can speculate on the armament of the MBT based on a model of the BMPT, as each vehicle has different roles as you point out. The BMPT is optimised for engaging close in enemy infantry teams rapidly.

Is that a new tank gun? The Russian equivalent of XM360 perhaps?

I doubt it... click on the image and then zoom in and you will see it is a twin barrel weapon with a twin autoloader... I would say the gun in question is for the original Koalition and is likely 152mm in calibre and for naval use.

The way I see it, the turret's armor will be a horizontal plate that spans the turret ring. So the only thing sticking above the glacis plate worth hitting is the mantlet, at least from the frontal arc. On either side of the main gun will be empty space, they will fill this space with accessories like; cameras, APS modules, the commanders sight/weapon station, or extra coaxial weapons. They may add sloped NERA to provide more HEAT protection from steep diving projectiles, it would then resemble the shown BMPT model.

Will it have a traditional coaxial MG? I don't know for sure. I'm honestly surprised the BMPT proposal is lacking one.

Zivo wrote:The way I see it, the turret's armor will be a horizontal plate that spans the turret ring. So the only thing sticking above the glacis plate worth hitting is the mantlet, at least from the frontal arc. On either side of the main gun will be empty space, they will fill this space with accessories like; cameras, APS modules, the commanders sight/weapon station, or extra coaxial weapons. They may add sloped NERA to provide more HEAT protection from steep diving projectiles, it would then resemble the shown BMPT model.

Will it have a traditional coaxial MG? I don't know for sure. I'm honestly surprised the BMPT proposal is lacking one.

Not may but must since direct hits from top attack projectiles on top of the very low turret have a very high chance of setting of the rounds if they did get through and if that ever did happen then the tank would be completely destroyed along with the crew(assuming a high amount of ammo esp. HE ones; though I don't think they would carry much if there would be BMPT Armatas though it would be offset by the increased amounts of propellant as is with APFSDS AND HE in GLATGMs and HEAT rounds.
Regarding the mantlet issue I think that the traditional placement is ok though a roof mounted one with much heavier weapons than an LMG would make for a fearsome and farther hitting secondary weapon.
Anyways having checked the BMPT model I saw this "sight" or maybe Shtora thingy on top of the mantlet like the one in the Challenger 2. If they ever did made such thermal sights small and have them fitted on a mantlet extension like the Challenger 2 I think this would be a good arrangement since it would free up the turret roof for only the CITV and his RWS along with placement sites for the APS system.

Not may but must since direct hits from top attack projectiles on top of the very low turret have a very high chance of setting of the rounds if they did get through and if that ever did happen then the tank would be completely destroyed along with the crew(assuming a high amount of ammo esp. HE ones; though I don't think they would carry much if there would be BMPT Armatas though it would be offset by the increased amounts of propellant as is with APFSDS AND HE in GLATGMs and HEAT rounds.

IMO they will use some sort of spaced armor that spans the turret ring, others think the only thing sticking above the turret ring will be the gun. Both are possible, Armata will have an APS so that may remedy the issue with steep diving projectiles without adding on more weight in armor.

Anyways having checked the BMPT model I saw this "sight" or maybe Shtora thingy on top of the mantlet like the one in the Challenger 2. If they ever did made such thermal sights small and have them fitted on a mantlet extension like the Challenger 2 I think this would be a good arrangement since it would free up the turret roof for only the CITV and his RWS along with placement sites for the APS system.

It's an option, Russian gun sights are not that big as is.

I rather suspect they will retain their existing designs in the sense that there will be hard and soft kill systems (ie decoys/flares/chaff/smoke, plus laser dazzlers, and IR dazzlers (is Shtora) plus an APS system called either Standard or Afghanistan that will physically intercept threats, and in addition to all that they will also have conventional armour, plus ERA and perhaps NERA.

Anything vital... within reason within the turret will be duplicated and the multiple versions and systems will be separated so one hit will not take out a complete system.

Mr. Khlopotov is quoting the Ministry of Defense with a September 2013 Armata reveal.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/01/blog-post_4.html

Sounds like this is the real deal. They must have a few working prototypes either being built or completed, awaiting trial.

Zivo wrote:Mr. Khlopotov is quoting the Ministry of Defense with a September 2013 Armata reveal.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/01/blog-post_4.html

Sounds like this is the real deal. They must have a few working prototypes either being built or completed, awaiting trial.

Sounds like september will be christmas for us then, rather then december, havn`t heard of any delays or problems regarding the Armata-platform and its going pretty much tracks so far, i`m honestly suprised at the speed of this.

Absolutely. I'm very excited at the prospect of seeing the first true next-gen tank. Hopefully UVZ leaks some photos before September.

Zivo wrote:Mr. Khlopotov is quoting the Ministry of Defense with a September 2013 Armata reveal.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/01/blog-post_4.html

Sounds like this is the real deal. They must have a few working prototypes either being built or completed, awaiting trial.

The T-95 turret on an Armata chassis=? Armata MBT.

UVZ will probably propose something similar to Object 195's turret however it wont have a 152mm gun, at least not initially. KBTM will probably make a proposal similar to the BMPT model. The MoD would decide which one better suits their needs.

I think prototypes should be already build, that they could do factory tests before revealing it. I doubt MoD would order 16 pre-serial tanks for next year if there was no prototype around.

Since the Armata would be built with the 152 mm gun in mind, I think that it would be better for it to have a 125 mm 55 calibre length gun version of the gun in T-90MS. Since the turret would be pulled back to the middle then the extra length would be compensated for when maneuvering tight spaces. That should take care of the problem with older and shorter rounds not being able to penetrate modern armor.

The problem of the shorter rounds was largely because of the way the ammo was stored and moved from the horizontal ammo magazine under the floor into the gun breach.

With an unmanned turret they have a much wider range of options for getting the ammo into the gun that wont limit its length.

The main problem with the positioning of the gun will be to allow enough room behind it to recoil during firing, but with no crew they could use a dual feed mechanism to load rounds into the breach so two different ammo types could be kept ready to load and fire at a moments notice.

GarryB wrote:The problem of the shorter rounds was largely because of the way the ammo was stored and moved from the horizontal ammo magazine under the floor into the gun breach.

With an unmanned turret they have a much wider range of options for getting the ammo into the gun that wont limit its length.

The main problem with the positioning of the gun will be to allow enough room behind it to recoil during firing, but with no crew they could use a dual feed mechanism to load rounds into the breach so two different ammo types could be kept ready to load and fire at a moments notice.

IDK much but if the 55 calibre 125 mm gun could give similar or better velocity increase to currently available ammo(mango, to a lesser extent lead) that such calibre did to nato ammo then it would provide a cheaper way to increase lethality and close the gap with western armor developments made over the last 2 decades.(i.e. mango and lead-1 with m829a2 performance, lead-2 with the m829a3 that's the idea)

New ammo also offers potential... new scramjet designs that accelerate as they travel so they are actually travelling faster at 5km than at the muzzle offer new potential... especially when equipped with limited guidance systems. Travelling at near ground level even small control surfaces will have a powerful effect on steering these rounds so they could be very potent.

@ GarryB, it seems that you are right regarding the long rods being stored in the turret bustle. This pic. from wiki(which is very similar to the T-95 pic. though drawn from the side) shows an elongated turret bustle(~1.71m! with about 1.5m usable space for long rods rounds alone )
compare with
Having them in a straight ram autoloader(of Fastloader type) would give about 18~15 rounds available(though max is 18 and 15 is just to be sure you put more blast protection to each round to prevent total loss in case of cook off.)

Do we know for sure the specs of Armada? Remote turret with no crew and 152mm gun?
I have read it will have the 125mm.

"
armament A new version of 125mm smoothbore "

Any new pictures of the prototype which would begin trials in 2013?

Armata will have a 125mm gun on the BMT version.

As of right now, the most up to date image available of Armata is KBTM's BMPT model with the Armata chassis.



There are no images of the prototypes as of now.

As Zivo mentions the MBT will have a 125mm gun to begin with as they feel that the ammo has a lot of scope for development and the expensive introduction of a 15xmm gun is not warranted yet.

Only models have been revealed so far, but it has been pretty much confirmed that the three crew will be in hull positions and separate from the turret, which will be unmanned.

They have stated that there will be two basic versions of the Armata chassis, one with the engine in front and one with the engine in the rear. The front engined model will likely included the IFV and APC models to allow a rear ramp for troop access, while the tank will have rear engine configuration. All the vehicles in a heavy brigade will be armata based so there will be engineer, command, gun and missile air defence, artillery, troop transport, fire support etc etc variants.

INDIAN EXPRESS: Interview with Oleg V. Sienko, CEO, Uralvagonzavod

Some specs of Armata Project reveled link

“By the year 2015 the “Armata” project will be completed. It’s not an armored fighting vehicle in the conventional sense, but rather a cutting edge multipurpose base for infantry fighting vehicles, accident rescue vehicles and others. They will have a modular system and repairing them will take very little time and effort even in field conditions. The damaged item will be easily removed and replaced,” he said.

Are they here yet? Are they here yet? Are they here yet? ...
September seems to be slow in coming, or is it just me? I hope they show everything esp. the MBT. I really hate c**kteasers like the T-95 pics.

Is it 100% certain that the armata's designers made it to have more than 1000mm protection against APFDS ? I wonder if the new M829A4 shell might be able to theoreticaly pierce the armatas frontal armor.