[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Equipped with a "Armata" X-shaped diesel engine Chelyabinsk-85 A-3. It has a switching mode power limit from 1200 to HP 1500-1600.

OK, three different engines or one engine with 3 settings that can be electronically switched? This has been discussed before and IIRC the last time it was mentioned it sounded more like there were three separate variants of the engine. Maybe someone can provide a better translation to clarify.

...in its energy and other performance significantly superior to any Western 120-mm gun, including an elongated gun "Rheinmetall". The gun is placed on the so-called master stream and the scheme is high enough. Its capacity is sufficient to defeat any prospective tank.

What?

OK, three different engines or one engine with 3 settings that can be electronically switched? This has been discussed before and IIRC the last time it was mentioned it sounded more like there were three separate variants of the engine. Maybe someone can provide a better translation to clarify.

Keep in mind that armata is not just a tank... it is a range of vehicles and will come in a range of weights due to the different equipment it is fitted with for its role.

This means it will have an engine family that is based on one specific engine, but in some versions it will have a governer or limiter to restrict engine power.

The Artillery armata will be the heaviest in the armata brigade with that huge 152mm gun turret with a dual feed autoloader it will likely be in the 60 ton weight range so its motor will likely operate in the 1550hp range (+-50hp), while the rest of the vehicles will be fitted initially with the same engine but limited to 1200hp.

The advantage is that they all use the same engine with the same parts and spares and fuels and lubricants, while at the same time the heavier vehicles get a bit more power to get their mobility closer to the other vehicles in the unit at the expense of a slight reduction in engine life.

For the longer term the engine is designed to have a max power rating of 2,400hp so it has plenty of growth potential for the future of weight increases.

What?

I suspect what they mean is that the standard widely produced MBTs in armata and also likely Kurganets and Boomerang will have 125mm main guns as standard... though some special units might get a new gun and later on a larger calibre gun might be introduced if required.

It being considered effective enough for its job at the moment... but if that changes there is a larger calibre gun ready for use.

It would be nice if the crew compartment would have its own co2 scrubber , and fully sealed snd pressurized, ive read about thermobarics somewhere here and its very terrifying

It will be fully sealed and have an air conditioning system and filtering system and an overpressure system so that any holes will have air coming out rather than in... that is just standard NBC protection... and also fairly necessary for amphibious use too.

The CO2 scrubbing probably isn't needed as the air will be circulated to prevent CO2 build up.

Thanks Zivo for the pictures.
I have few questions and hope you can answer.
There is a lot of talking about the autoloader that is in the back of the turret, I don't see who they going to fit it there, I think they need more space for that, can you explain who they going to do that?

Is it logic to think that on the side of the turret we will see a GSh-23 like the one on the BMPT? Is the 30mm GSh-30 will be better?

Thanks
AJ

The rear turret bustle auto loader was rejected as too exposed for the Burlak upgrade of the T-90 so they went with the standard underfloor system in the T-90AM modified for longer rounds.

The Armata and other MBT vehicles will most likely have a similar autoloader though the gun mount will likely allow much greater elevation ranges the ammo will still be stored below the turret ring.

Regarding cannon options I would expect that a tank in a tank role would not need the rate of fire of a gatling, but if the BMPT is using a 23mm gatling then for ammo commonality it would make sense to also use a 23mm weapon.

As the 23 x 115mm round is based on the 14.5 x 114mm HMG round and apart from their barrel calibre and minor feeding differences due to the larger calibre projectile you could get away with a KPB 23mm version of the KPV... in fact a change of barrel and ammo feed and tuning of the recoil spring and it would probably already be able to do the job.

The much lower velocity compensated for with a much bigger and more effective HE payload and in face with modern digital ballistic computed aiming you could use separate belts of HE rounds and SLAP type rounds where the SLAP rounds would be very very powerful as the larger calibre barrel should allow more power with more speed and more projectile mass resulting in far more potent anti light armour capability.

Ammo storage wouldn't be a problem as the rounds are a very similar size to the 14.5mm rounds.

GarryB pretty much covered it. Main bustle magazines are too exposed, and offer no real benefit to survivability of the occupants as the crew is way in the front of the hull in Armata.

Regarding the MBT variant of Armata having something like a 23mm or 30mm auxiliary weapon. We will just have to wait and see. I think 12.7 and 7.62 weapons are more likely though. The BMPT should be prevalent in the heavy brigades and will operate in very close proximity to the MBT's. Do not forget that Armata will have an extreme level of automated target and data sharing between vehicles operating as a group. There should be plenty of firepower readily available to deal with whatever threats are out there.

Aerial threats like gunships and UAV's will be handled by Armatas with Pantsir turrets hiding a few kilometers back from the main group. Nearby 57/45mm equipped Armata IFV's could also take down aerial targets better than a 23mm or 30mm weapon could if the need arises.

No single Armata vehicle should have to be burdened as an overly expensive multi-tasker.

I'm not talking on fight in open spaces, but fighting in urban cities, I don’t think that 7.62/12.7 will be good enough, I would use the 6*23 or the 2A42 as they have much better suppress fire.
In this type of fight, it's almost every tank fight for itself and it need all the weapon it can carry. I Wonder what kind of lessons the Russian army learned from the fighting in urban area?

GarryB wrote:The rear turret bustle auto loader was rejected as too exposed for the Burlak upgrade of the T-90 so they went with the standard underfloor system in the T-90AM modified for longer rounds.

The Armata and other MBT vehicles will most likely have a similar autoloader though the gun mount will likely allow much greater elevation ranges the ammo will still be stored below the turret ring.

I guess its mean slower ROF, and if the tank go over a mind it will get very bad. I would think that in the Armata tank, it could work better with 4th crewman as a loader, and ditch the autoloader.
They will get faster ROF, especially as the loader put one shell in the gun, and get anther round from the magazine behind him, and keep it ready in his hands for the next shot.

Regarding cannon options I would expect that a tank in a tank role would not need the rate of fire of a gatling, but if the BMPT is using a 23mm gatling, then for ammo commonality it would make sense to also use a 23mm weapon.

As the 23 x 115mm round is based on the 14.5 x 114mm HMG round and apart from their barrel calibre and minor feeding differences due to the larger calibre projectile you could get away with a KPB 23mm version of the KPV... in fact a change of barrel and ammo feed and tuning of the recoil spring and it would probably already be able to do the job.

The much lower velocity compensated for with a much bigger and more effective HE payload and in face with modern digital ballistic computed aiming you could use separate belts of HE rounds and SLAP type rounds where the SLAP rounds would be very very powerful as the larger calibre barrel should allow more power with more speed and more projectile mass resulting in far more potent anti light armour capability.

Ammo storage wouldn't be a problem as the rounds are a very similar size to the 14.5mm rounds.

If we are not going to gatling gun, I would prefer the 30mm 2A42.

I'm not talking on fight in open spaces, but fighting in urban cities, I don’t think that 7.62/12.7 will be good enough, I would use the 6*23 or the 2A42 as they have much better suppress fire.

The heavy brigades armata is designed for use in urban areas... I suspect 7.62 + 12.7 will still be used as against individuals or groups of individuals they are effective with compact weapons and can carry lots of ready to use ammo in a small area.

I rather suspect 40mm grenade ammo will be used, but the KPB could be used as a powerful coaxial weapon as it is small and compact and its ammo is very compact... for the 200 rounds of 30mm ammo you could carry, you could probably fit 600-800 rounds of 23 x 115mm ammo and the projectile is quite heavy so the HE payload is far greater than any HMG round of similar size.

The 2A42 is probably too big and its ammo too big to be mounted coaxially and a separate mount would take up lots of room.

In terms of effective range I suspect both weapons would be similar in performance out to 2km or so. The 30mm with better AP capability but with new 23mm APFSDS SLAP rounds the difference might not be that huge, but the 23mm rounds can be stored much more easily.

Wonder what kind of lessons the Russian army learned from the fighting in urban area?

The armata family of heavy vehicles comes from experience in urban combat.

I guess its mean slower ROF, and if the tank go over a mind it will get very bad.

Slower than what? It is a mechanical autoloader... I would suspect there will likely be a ready to fire tray behind the gun where rounds can be moved so that when the decision is made to fire the appropriate rounds can be loaded immediately.

If any tank goes over a mine it is in trouble isn't it?

I would think that in the Armata tank, it could work better with 4th crewman as a loader, and ditch the autoloader.

Really? After firing 12 rounds per minute for 3 minutes do you think the human loader will be tired yet? How about while bouncing across country at 30km/h... what sort of performance will that loader manage?

What you are saying is very strange... have you read any of the posts in this thread at all?

You want to add an extra crew man and put him in an unmanned turret surrounded by tank main gun ammo because you think he might be able to load the gun slightly faster... at least initially?

They will get faster ROF, especially as the loader put one shell in the gun, and get anther round from the magazine behind him, and keep it ready in his hands for the next shot.

Until the shot fired has hit the gunner doesn't know what type of round needs to be loaded so I really don't see how that is possible... and if he is wrong he has to put that round back where he got it and find the round they need... again in an unmanned turret... that would be hard.

If we are not going to gatling gun, I would prefer the 30mm 2A42.

In terms of impact on target the 23mm round would be very comparable, while the KPB is far more compact, with less recoil and with ammo occupying much less space in the vehicle or alternatively carrying rather more ammo than with a 30mm weapon.

The time of big tank’s fighting like we saw in Iraq is over for a while. The big fights now are against insurgents armed with ATGMs, RPGs, and IEDs, no tanks, no aircrafts, just good solders that carry the right weapons that fighting in cities, villages, and roads. For this type of fights the main gun of the tank is not the answer. What we have to do, is to upgrade the secondary weapons and use them as the main guns for this type of war.

That’s why I will mount externally gun on the right side of the Armata’s turret, the same way that the 23mm gun and the AGS-57 installed on the BMPT. The gun that I’ll use for that is the 2A42 30 mm. The gun has two RoF: low and high, the low has 300 RPM, and the high has 800 RPM. I have no problem with 23mm, but I don’t know if it has 2 type of RoF like the 30 has. As for coaxial gun to the 125mm gun, I will use the Kord-12.7mm HMG and install with the 30mm gun. The same gun will be in the RWS on the turret.

As for the 4th crew man, the all world still work like this for long time. Tanks are not standing in one place and shoot, they work like artillery “shoot and scout”, you shoot 3 rounds and change your location. You stay in one place you will die. The loader will make the shooting faster. On top of the loading, the 4th man can operate the RWS, and let the commander do his job, or use a different mount for anther HMG.
So the 4th man can be very helpful, even due I understand that his place is in some how dangerous.

AJ-47 wrote:The time of big tank’s fighting like we saw in Iraq is over for a while. The big fights now are against insurgents armed with ATGMs, RPGs, and IEDs, no tanks, no aircrafts, just good solders that carry the right weapons that fighting in cities, villages, and roads. For this type of fights the main gun of the tank is not the answer. What we have to do, is to upgrade the secondary weapons and use them as the main guns for this type of war.

That’s why I will mount externally gun on the right side of the Armata’s turret, the same way that the 23mm gun and the AGS-57 installed on the BMPT. The gun that I’ll use for that is the 2A42 30 mm. The gun has two RoF: low and high, the low has 300 RPM, and the high has 800 RPM. I have no problem with 23mm, but I don’t know if it has 2 type of RoF like the 30 has. As for coaxial gun to the 125mm gun, I will use the Kord-12.7mm HMG and install with the 30mm gun. The same gun will be in the RWS on the turret.

As for the 4th crew man, the all world still work like this for long time. Tanks are not standing in one place and shoot, they work like artillery “shoot and scout”, you shoot 3 rounds and change your location. You stay in one place you will die. The loader will make the shooting faster. On top of the loading, the 4th man can operate the RWS, and let the commander do his job, or use a different mount for anther HMG.
So the 4th man can be very helpful, even due I understand that his place is in some how dangerous.

A 4th man in an Armata is a bit like a 3rd wheel for a bicycle.
There is absolutely no need for him because all the mechanical functions of the vehicle are automated and all the tank's systems are designed to be controlled by 3 people sitting in front of interactive computer panels in a single crew compartment. Each position (commander, driver, gunner) will be assigned different duties to perform and given responsibility for the functionality of different systems. No doubt it optimized so that the workload or operating a tank or other Armata-based vehicle is spread-out over the 3 crew-members and none of them are overburdened.

Thanks for that. I understand all that, I think the 4th man can helpful in the fighting, the maintenance, but I guess the next generation of tanks in the west, will go this way too.

The time of big tank’s fighting like we saw in Iraq is over for a while. The big fights now are against insurgents armed with ATGMs, RPGs, and IEDs, no tanks, no aircrafts, just good solders that carry the right weapons that fighting in cities, villages, and roads. For this type of fights the main gun of the tank is not the answer. What we have to do, is to upgrade the secondary weapons and use them as the main guns for this type of war.

The problem with main guns in the past is that they did not have the elevation required to take out RPG teams and snipers on  the upper floors of buildings. Elevation limitation is one of the problems that was specifically addressed on Object 195 and will be carried over onto Armata's MBT variant.

That’s why I will mount externally gun on the right side of the Armata’s turret, the same way that the 23mm gun and the AGS-57 installed on the BMPT. The gun that I’ll use for that is the 2A42 30 mm. The gun has two RoF: low and high, the low has 300 RPM, and the high has 800 RPM. I have no problem with 23mm, but I don’t know if it has 2 type of RoF like the 30 has. As for coaxial gun to the 125mm gun, I will use the Kord-12.7mm HMG and install with the 30mm gun. The same gun will be in the RWS on the turret.

I personally like KBTM's BMPT turret design, but we haven't seen an MBT version of the turret yet. KBTM also hasn't had much success in getting their radical turret design into production. I would be surprised if the KBTM's turret is chosen over the Terminator's twin 30's which is what UAZ will most likely propose for the Armata BMPT. Don't count on the final design of the Armata MBT to have anything like the KBTM turret.

That being said, Object 195 supposedly had a single 30mm on a forward facing pivoting mount as an auxiliary weapon, not all that different from the 30mm on the Ka-50/52, and it passed state trials but didn't enter production. The most lethal IFV fighting module in production is the BMP-3's which has a coaxial 30mm. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Armata MBT will have something larger than a 12.7mm HMG, I just think it's unlikely.

As for the 4th crew man, the all world still work like this for long time. Tanks are not standing in one place and shoot, they work like artillery “shoot and scout”, you shoot 3 rounds and change your location. You stay in one place you will die. The loader will make the shooting faster. On top of the loading, the 4th man can operate the RWS, and let the commander do his job, or use a different mount for anther HMG.
So the 4th man can be very helpful, even due I understand that his place is in some how dangerous.

Firing on the move means a slower fire rate with a manual loader. Because the crewman bounces around in the rear of the tank and has to manually lock and unlock the stabilizer to load the round. Auto loaders do not have this problem and can maintain a steady fire rate even while traveling rapidly on very rough terrain.

The loader should be loading and the commander should be commanding. If the loader is not loading and is instead using a MMG and showing his head to snipers, something is very wrong with the layout of the tank. Maybe a lack of APERS ammo for the main gun is the problem.

The time of big tank’s fighting like we saw in Iraq is over for a while.

These new tanks will be in service for the next 30-40 years... their modular armour and weapons and sensors will be upgraded several times over that period. In fact later models might be flexible enough that at front line level certain modules can be popped out and replaced in the field.

As long as the enemy has vehicles with tank level armour then a vehicle able to take on and defeat such vehicles will be needed... that is what a MBT is for.

The big fights now are against insurgents armed with ATGMs, RPGs, and IEDs, no tanks, no aircrafts, just good solders that carry the right weapons that fighting in cities, villages, and roads. For this type of fights the main gun of the tank is not the answer.

Yet the US has seen fit to drag their 70 ton MBTs to Iraq and Afghanistan...

The current tank gun has serious limitations due to its very high velocity meaning it really didn't need high elevation mounts means that in an urban area where targets can be in the tops of buildings or their basements means the current gun layout is not suitable.

For all we know the main gun of the Armata might be able to elevate to very low and very high angles. Previously on Soviet and Russian tanks the elevation was seriously limited to keep the turret small to make it the smallest possible target. With no crew in the target the MBT could have a gun mount up high that allows excellent depression and very high elevation... which means the main gun and any coaxial weapons have a much better field of fire.

What we have to do, is to upgrade the secondary weapons and use them as the main guns for this type of war.

The whole purpose of the heavy vehicle family is to operate in urban environments... does the tank really need lots of secondary weapons when all the APCs and IFVs will have tank level armour and lots of support weapons able to deal with infantry... not to mention the BMPT which is a purpose design tank support vehicle...

The gun that I’ll use for that is the 2A42 30 mm. The gun has two RoF: low and high, the low has 300 RPM, and the high has 800 RPM. I have no problem with 23mm, but I don’t know if it has 2 type of RoF like the 30 has.

Mounting a 2A42 will take up a lot of space, as will its ammo... the problem I have with the 2A42, and I mentioned this in the thread about the BMPT based on the T-90 with twin 2A42s is that it lacks the really high rate of fire to engage aerial targets, but probably lacks the ammo capacity to be a good gun based air defence vehicle anyway, while in terms of punch it only had 4 missiles to hit point ground targets. The best compromise in my opinion was for the Terminator to be fitted with an armament more similar to the BMP-3 but have the 2A72 cannon replaced with the 2A38M cannon of the Tunguska... 2,500 rpm would be ideal for use against aircraft and it has lower firing rate settings for ground targets, while the 100mm gun has the HE power for most ground targets and its HE FRAG shells would be more effective exploding amongst enemy troops than a burst of 30mm rounds.

In the case of armata MBT however it will already have HE power with 125mm shells and laser guided 125mm rounds would probably be more effective against aerial targets too, which means as a support gun to deal with enemy troops I think either a small compact cannon or grenade launcher make the most sense... a KPB would share ammo with the BMPT and any Hind units operating nearby, while the 40mm Balkan grenades will be widely used by infantry too and its 2.5km range should be sufficient for most tasks. Either or both in my opinion, though unlike the model of the BMPT armata the 23mm doesn't need the size of a gatling or its rate of fire... save weight and space with a single barrel KPB.
In a 5-10 round burst the target really wont notice the difference except that the gatling will deliver the rounds slightly closer together.

As for the 4th crew man, the all world still work like this for long time. Tanks are not standing in one place and shoot, they work like artillery “shoot and scout”, you shoot 3 rounds and change your location. You stay in one place you will die. The loader will make the shooting faster.

Actually I would say the opposite... the Soviets and Russia dumped the loader decades ago and modern conditions make it even less likely to want him back. new rounds with longer penetrators will be heavier and more difficult to handle in manned turrets let alone unmanned turrets and the vehicles that stop to load and fire are much more likely to be killed. MBTs have been loading and firing on the move for some time now.

Autoloaders don't get tired.

On top of the loading, the 4th man can operate the RWS, and let the commander do his job, or use a different mount for anther HMG.

The commanders job is to look for threats and give driving commands to the driver and target commands to the gunner. Any soft target that appears he can engage himself with RWS, otherwise the gunner can deal with it.

So the 4th man can be very helpful, even due I understand that his place is in some how dangerous.

There is no place for him in armata.

Thanks for that. I understand all that, I think the 4th man can helpful in the fighting, the maintenance, but I guess the next generation of tanks in the west, will go this way too.

A fourth man would be useful for maintainence and to add an extra body for guard rotation so each man does not spend so long on guard duty, but they can be back at depot... they are not needed in the field.

I would be surprised if the KBTM's turret is chosen over the Terminator's twin 30's which is what UAZ will most likely propose for the Armata BMPT. Don't count on the final design of the Armata MBT to have anything like the KBTM turret.

Of course if you think about it for a bit the best armament for the BMPT would be designed to engage infantry and aircraft... a bit like IFV armament... now the main purpose behind the BMPT was that it was a tank based vehicle with tank level armour and mobility that could go with tanks where the lightly armoured IFVs and APCs could not... with the armata concept the IFVs and APCs will have tank level armour... and with an externally mounted main gun there is no reason why the armata MBT couldn't have a gun that elevates like the 30mm on a BMP-3 with a coaxial 23mm cannon or grenade launcher for that matter...

The most lethal IFV fighting module in production is the BMP-3's which has a coaxial 30mm. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Armata MBT will have something larger than a 12.7mm HMG, I just think it's unlikely.

30mm ammo takes up a lot of space... 23 x 115mm ammo is only slightly bigger than 50 cal.

Of course if you think about it for a bit the best armament for the BMPT would be designed to engage infantry and aircraft... a bit like IFV armament... now the main purpose behind the BMPT was that it was a tank based vehicle with tank level armour and mobility that could go with tanks where the lightly armoured IFVs and APCs could not... with the armata concept the IFVs and APCs will have tank level armour... and with an externally mounted main gun there is no reason why the armata MBT couldn't have a gun that elevates like the 30mm on a BMP-3 with a coaxial 23mm cannon or grenade launcher for that matter...

The idea behind the 12.7mm gun on the MBT was to act as a close range anti-air weapon to defend the tank against lightly armored, rocket equipped helicopters. It was effective in the roll until helicopters started getting long range ATGMs. Right now, 12.7mm HMG's are kind of in purgatory. Even the T-90AM doesn't have one and instead opts for a PKT, which can carry more ammunition while still maintaining lethality against personnel. Engineers have shown they're willing to sacrifice raw power for efficiency on new armored vehicles, which is good.

The IFVs needed a light weight weapon that can kill not only other IFVs, but the mechanized infantry that come along with them. That's were the 2A42 came in. The problem is an MBT doesn't need to use an auto-cannon against other IFV's like the BMP-2 and BMP-3 have to. A 125mm main gun is just more practical. This is the #1 reason why I don't think next gen MBT's will have a 30mm auxiliary/coaxial cannon. It isn't necessary.

30mm ammo takes up a lot of space... 23 x 115mm ammo is only slightly bigger than 50 cal.

12.7 x 108mm is used on the Kord, 30 x 165mm is used in the 2A42. The 23 x 115mm round has a large HE payload, but in a smaller package vs the 30mm round. The HE payload will make it significantly more lethal against infantry vs 12.7mm.

If I was calling the shots, I'd phase out the 30mm guns. IFV's are only getting heavier and a 30mm wont be adequate to defeat them, they're also overkill against infantry. What roll would the 30mm continue to have? Produce a single barreled autocannon around the 23 x 115mm round, and use it as a coaxial anti-personnel weapon on future heavy ground vehicles.

APC : 23mm autocannon
IFV : 57mm/45mm main gun, coaxial/auxiliary 23mm autocannon
MBT : 125mm main gun, 23mm coaxial/auxiliary autocannon
BMPT : 120mm main gun/mortar, 23mm gatling gun

All of them on the Armata chassis, one ammo type for all their main anti-personnel weapons. Commander would have a PKT RWS when appropriate.

The idea behind the 12.7mm gun on the MBT was to act as a close range anti-air weapon to defend the tank against lightly armored, rocket equipped helicopters. It was effective in the roll until helicopters started getting long range ATGMs.

It was often called an anti aircraft mount, but mostly it was for use against ground and air targets... if you are firing at a helo with a 50 cal then you are in trouble.

Right now, 12.7mm HMG's are kind of in purgatory. Even the T-90AM doesn't have one and instead opts for a PKT, which can carry more ammunition while still maintaining lethality against personnel. Engineers have shown they're willing to sacrifice raw power for efficiency on new armored vehicles, which is good.

From what I have read the remote gun position is linked to the optics and the PKT was chosen over the Kord to reduce vibration on the optics.

This is the #1 reason why I don't think next gen MBT's will have a 30mm auxiliary/coaxial cannon. It isn't necessary.

Totally agree... against new IFVs it is underpowered and against most other soft battlefield targets it is over powered.

Produce a single barreled autocannon around the 23 x 115mm round, and use it as a coaxial anti-personnel weapon on future heavy ground vehicles.

And also take advantage of the fact that most tanks have very good stabilisation systems and ballistics computers and make that new single barrel gun a dual feed weapon and develop a new SLAP round for the calibre. Carrying 200 rounds of SLAP for firing in single rounds or 2-3 round bursts, and 600-800 rounds of HE would be ideal for an APC armament or with HE only for coaxial on a tank.

All of them on the Armata chassis, one ammo type for all their main anti-personnel weapons. Commander would have a PKT RWS when appropriate.

I totally agree with your armament packages but as the 23mm gun in the short barrel weapons that use it has a fairly low muzzle velocity I would add automatic 40mm grenade launchers based on the Balkan to add a low velocity weapon able to lob shells over frontal cover into target areas up to 2.5km away. It could be mounted on the back of the turret with its own elevation but aligned with the turret main armament which would make the mount simple and cheap.

Why hasn't anyone thought about the armata MBT and BMPT having compact yet powerful 14,5mm MG?

Why hasn't anyone thought about the armata MBT and BMPT having compact yet powerful 14,5mm MG?

Because the 23 x 115mm can carry a larger HE payload, and since it's already being proposed for use on the BMPT why not use it on the MBT also? The 23 x 115mm round was created by taking a 14.5 x 114mm round and necking it up to accept a 23mm bullet.

It was often called an anti aircraft mount, but mostly it was for use against ground and air targets... if you are firing at a helo with a 50 cal then you are in trouble.

Helicopters with unguided rockets or autocannons had to get in pretty close to be accurate. They also had paper thin armor. Today that isn't the case as it was 50 years ago.

From what I have read the remote gun position is linked to the optics and the PKT was chosen over the Kord to reduce vibration on the optics.

The 12.7 is still offered as an upgrade though.

Because the 23 x 115mm can carry a larger HE payload, and since it's already being proposed for use on the BMPT why not use it on the MBT also? The 23 x 115mm round was created by taking a 14.5 x 114mm round and necking it up to accept a 23mm bullet.

Yes, don't get us wrong the 14.5mm round is a very powerful and effective HMG round, but with most ball ammo if you hit you punch a deep hole, but if that hole does not go through something vital then it might not have much effect on the target. With a HE payload however the damage is spread over a much wider area, though the payload capacity of the 14.5mm round is limited.

At the end of WWII the Soviets had the problem of developing a high rate of fire gun for aircraft to hit other aircraft. Powerful rounds meant reduced ammo capacity, heavy recoil and vibration, and reduced rate of fire. Ideally they wanted something that fired a decent heavy shell that carried a good HE payload but that was compact and small and could be carried in large numbers, it didn't need a high velocity because it would be used against targets that were relatively close... rate of fire was the key and the reduced power of the round meant rate of fire could be very high without the need for a big heavy gun.

They created this round by taking the heavy HE projectile from the then standard anti aircraft round 23 x 152mm which was originally the gun from the Il-2 for use as an anti tank round and later used in modified form on the ZU-23 ground mount and ZSU-23-4 SPAAG. This gave it the HE punch to deal with soft targets like aircraft and ground targets but for the propellent case they chose the compact 14.5 s 114mm round as a base... in many ways the Soviets used the 14.5 x 114mm calibre the same way much of the west used 20mm cannon... it had smaller HE capacity but it had a much more effective anti armour round than most 20mm cannon.

Note there is a South African anti material rifle that uses a mild 20mm cannon round as a HE round lobbing device but for anti armour roles it can replace the barrel and some parts and use 14.5mm rounds too. This is a more complicated way to give it HE power and AP power.

With a dual feed mechanism so different ammo can be fired at the flick of a switch and a ballistics computer then the 23mm round could be loaded with SLAP type rounds of very high velocity.

If you just made SLAP rounds and put them in a belt with HE and API rounds then the very high velocity SLAP rounds would impact a great distance away from the HE and API rounds and it would be fairly useless.

With dual feed you can select which ammo to fire and the aim point can adjust accordingly so you get rounds on target.

Helicopters with unguided rockets or autocannons had to get in pretty close to be accurate. They also had paper thin armor. Today that isn't the case as it was 50 years ago.

This is true... and of course before thermal cameras were widely used a well camouflaged tank is not so easy to spot from the air too.

The 12.7 is still offered as an upgrade though.

12.7 would be good for a roof mount but I would like to see an articulated arm that can be raised up several metres that has sensors on it to allow targets to be engaged from behind cover that also allows targets very close to the tank to be engaged, or just to give the crew a birds eye view of the surroundings. Such a mount would likely be better suited to a lighter gun like a PKT.

If the armata MBT wil have a roof weapon of 12,7mm then I hope it'll be the yak-B. The NSVT is too generic and weak nowadays.

I really would hope that the armata designers would put 2 30mm cannons on the armata turret like they did on the Slovak T-72M2.

Actually it had twin 20mm cannons.



There was a version that had a single 30 though.







There's also the Ukrainian T-64E, which uses a Gsh-23L as an auxiliary weapon.

If the armata MBT wil have a roof weapon of 12,7mm then I hope it'll be the yak-B. The NSVT is too generic and weak nowadays.

NSVT is also Ukrainian... if they do retain the 12.7mm HMG it will be Kord.

The four barrel gatling gun widely used on early model Hinds has a high rate of fire specifically for the purpose of hitting ground targets while on the move... the high rate of fire makes it easier.

For a ground based weapon high rate of fire is really only useful against small fast moving targets... ie anti aircraft guns... and against most modern helos the 50 cal just lacks power and range and it rather more likely to be used against ground targets, which makes a 23mm round much more effective.

In the Armata brigade there are more types of fighting vehicles then just tanks, and I didn’t give it enough thought, so allow me to rearrange what I said on the Armata issue.


Picture no’-1

Base on the picture that Zivo upload, (picture no’-1), the only change I'll do is to install the new 45mm gun on externally mount on the right side of the turret, like the artist see it, in picture no’.-2.
For coaxial MG, I'll use the KPV 14.5mm HMG and install it in the same mount with the 45mm gun.

By doing this, we will eliminate the need to give the 125mm gun high elevation, and instead, we will give this capability to the 45mm gun and the HMG. I think it’s better to do that than to elevate the main gun.

On top of the turret I’ll keep the same RWS as we see in picture no’-1, and also on the T-90


Picture no’-2

The tank will use:
1.  The 125mm gun against tank and IFV.
2.  The 45mm gun against APC, light armor vehicles and in urban area fighting.
3.  The HMG against infantry and in urban area.

Fight in urban area will be led by the Armata IFVs and APCs, and not by the tanks. The tanks and the BMPTs will support the assault from the distance.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/08/blog-post_21.html

Armata chassis.