[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 wrote:http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/08/blog-post_21.html

Armata chassis.

Looks like a T-72

Until I actually see a photo of the actual chassis in real-life; not some render, not some description, not some plastic model - I ain't gonna believe shit

Everything we've seen thus far has been a contradiction to the thing we saw previous to that.
Every rumour or fact seems to be first officially confirmed and subsequently officially denied.
Russian disinformation department is working overdrive. Best to just avoid the whirlwind for now; concentrate on what we definately know for sure.

- 1 wheel more than T-72/80.
- could imply longer hull.
- modular armour on the hull

I will be interesting in few months in Nizny Tagil - expecting lots of info

Viktor wrote:- 1 wheel more than T-72/80.
- could imply longer hull.
- modular armour on the hull

I will be interesting in few months in Nizny Tagil - expecting lots of info

Yes. It looks like the T-72 with one extra wheel. Modular armour on the sides of the hull but that's not really a big deal; you get something like that with many T-series upgrade programs. Can't see any vision slots or optics like those we saw on the previous models; not on the TOS vehicle anyway.

Like I said - let's just stick to what we know.

What is that last picture about? The chassis with the open top with th 9 (rockets pods)?
A mine clearer?

I believe the extra axle was added to balance out the heavily armored capsule in the front.

Anyways, it looks like a cross between a T-72 and 195.

Shematic layout of Armata from Dimi blog and the model from Nizhni Tagil

AZZKIKR wrote:What is that last picture about? The chassis with the open top with th 9 (rockets pods)?
A mine clearer?

It's probably an armored MRLS version of Armata similar to the T-72 variant TOS-1.

Not the tTOS variant, I think nvm , I think it's a mine layer...?

Who are those 2 men sitting behind the main gun/loading mechanism?

flamming_python wrote:Who are those 2 men sitting behind the main gun/loading mechanism?

Obviously Armata will be able to carry 2 Army solders  

Engine is in front of the tank?? I know it might be useful in urban warfare to stop small propellants, but it's weak spot in conventional tank-on-tank battle.

That design was on the Internet for some time, I think detailing the layout for the T-95.

So far, it appears the chassis designs shown here appear to be lower then the boxy hull that was shown on the BMP-T(the 120mm, 23mm auto cannon and 40mm grenade launcher format). Personally I like the lengthened hull, allows for well more internal volume without making the vehicle broader.

flamming_python wrote:Who are those 2 men sitting behind the main gun/loading mechanism?

Rogozin and Victor Cooper.

TheArmenian wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Who are those 2 men sitting behind the main gun/loading mechanism?

Rogozin and Victor Cooper.

Hahahaha!  
Can anyone one comment on these drawings?

That's an old image. I wouldn't even consider it relevant.

I think the bmpt would be a nice way to create demand for older tanks in their inventory, ie a simple cheap upgrade
for T-55s, T-62s and T-72s where the turret is replaced with bmpt armament and the chassis beefed up.

It would be good for countries with large fleets of older vehicles and they could all be upgraded with T-72 turrets and new engines, guns, ammo, sensors etc.

Armata chassis.

Note the bridge laying version, the TOS armata, and what appears to be a heavy transport vehicle seeming to carry some sort of reloads for something.

Who are those 2 men sitting behind the main gun/loading mechanism?

Ignore the drawing... that is very old and AFAIK not actually official.

I think I remember speculation that they were spare crew positions that would not normally be manned but would be used for emergency evac like the spare seats in the avionics bay in the Mi-28N.

Engine is in front of the tank?? I know it might be useful in urban warfare to stop small propellants, but it's weak spot in conventional tank-on-tank battle.

There will be two armata versions, ones with engines at the front for the APC and IFV models and ones with engines at the back for the MBT and other variants.

The extra chassis length will be used mostly to give the frontal armour a much steeper slope to maximise its protection... all vehicles will have the same or similar level of frontal protection.

Can anyone one comment on these drawings?

Very old... from memory they were supposed to be of the T-95 and have clearly been influenced by the Merkava design with the front mounted engine and rear troop compartment.

AZZKIKR wrote:What is that last picture about? The chassis with the open top with th 9 (rockets pods)?
A mine clearer?

Just looking at the lack of armament and the two crew hatches I would say this is a flat bed transport vehicle of some sort. It is hard to say what load it is carrying... 9 pods each with 24 tubes... they could be short range rockets for a mine laying rocket system that uses these modular pods but that is speculation.

I am pretty sure this is just a flat bed transport as there was a similar vehicle offered based on the T-90 chassis for frontline transport of ammo and fuel and I suspect an aramata level version would be needed too.

Some new Armata Model

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?99988-Russian-Photos-%28updated-on-regular-basis%29&p=6843488&viewfull=1#post6843488

Armata

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

More from Mr. Khlopotov. Check his recent posts, he has some more commentary about Armata.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/

Do not bite my head off if this info isn't 100% correct. But from my understanding, the first graphic is official. It shows KBTM's proposal for a BMO type vehicle. The previous BMO-1 was a BMP-2 with half of the back seats replaced with a massive rack of RPO-shmel's. The dismounted infantry would use the rockets to clear buildings. There was also a APC-esque version based on the T-72 called the BMO-T. The version shown by KBTM is called the BMO-2 has 24 ready-to-fire thermobaric rockets attached to the turret, which also features a 30mm autocannon and what looks like a coaxial 7.62 PKT. The chassis is KBTM's proposal for the front-engined Armata.

The second graphic shows Boomerang, Kurganets, and UAZ's front-engined Armata proposal. Notice that all three vehicles share the same turret. Also the Boomerang example is shown with an active protection system, I'm assuming this is "Standard-APS". On the turret, both the gunner and the commander sights are identical for part commonality. The turret's large bustle is worth noting, as ammunition is removed from the hull.

Both KBTM and UAZ's proposals look very tall and very ugly in my opinion. What is filling the space above the tracks?. I want to see these machines driving around. I hate the uncertainty of these models.

But from my understanding, the first graphic is official. It shows KBTM's proposal for a BMO type vehicle. The previous BMO-1 was a BMP-2 with half of the back seats replaced with a massive rack of RPO-shmel's. The dismounted infantry would use the rockets to clear buildings. There was also a APC-esque version based on the T-72 called the BMO-T. The version shown by KBTM is called the BMO-2 has 24 ready-to-fire thermobaric rockets attached to the turret, which also features a 30mm autocannon and what looks like a coaxial 7.62 PKT. The chassis is KBTM's proposal for the front-engined Armata.

The BMO family are engineer vehicles, as is the TOS-1 vehicle, so it would be interesting if they adapted a new vehicle to perform both missions by combining troop capacity plus a large rocket launcher mounted on top.

From the photos above (the one with the three models of the bridge layer, the TOS-1 lookalike, and the flat deck vehicle with the odd shaped pods in the rear) it seems they might not be trying to combine the BMO and the TOS, or they are offering all sorts of alternatives and are letting the military decide.

The second graphic shows Boomerang, Kurganets, and UAZ's front-engined Armata proposal. Notice that all three vehicles share the same turret. Also the Boomerang example is shown with an active protection system, I'm assuming this is "Standard-APS". On the turret, both the gunner and the commander sights are identical for part commonality. The turret's large bustle is worth noting, as ammunition is removed from the hull.

The boomerang model seems to have low angle smoke grenades fitted which suggests it is designed to pop smoke well clear of the vehicle rapidly.

All three vehicles have crew in the hull so I would suspect the ammo for the main armament will be in the turret below the turret ring. I suspect the rear turret bustle likely contains reloads for the ATGMs in a rack designed to reload the external launchers automatically.

I suspect these are the APC models of the vehicle families respectively.

Both KBTM and UAZ's proposals look very tall and very ugly in my opinion. What is filling the space above the tracks?. I want to see these machines driving around. I hate the uncertainty of these models.

Internal volume for troops and their gear plus fairly thick armour and of course fuel and all the other rubbish a modern soldier has to cart around with them.

The frontal armour will offer added protection because of its steep slope.

the rear turret bustle area could also contain munitions for the APS system, which I agree should be Standard on the Kurganets and Boomerang and likely Afghanistan on the Armata.

Zivo wrote:Do not bite my head off if this info isn't 100% correct. But from my understanding, the first graphic is official. It shows KBTM's proposal for a BMO type vehicle. The previous BMO-1 was a BMP-2 with half of the back seats replaced with a massive rack of RPO-shmel's. The dismounted infantry would use the rockets to clear buildings. There was also a APC-esque version based on the T-72 called the BMO-T. The version shown by KBTM is called the BMO-2 has 24 ready-to-fire thermobaric rockets attached to the turret, which also features a 30mm autocannon and what looks like a coaxial 7.62 PKT. The chassis is KBTM's proposal for the front-engined Armata.

The second graphic shows Boomerang, Kurganets, and UAZ's front-engined Armata proposal. Notice that all three vehicles share the same turret. Also the Boomerang example is shown with an active protection system, I'm assuming this is "Standard-APS". On the turret, both the gunner and the commander sights are identical for part commonality. The turret's large bustle is worth noting, as ammunition is removed from the hull.

Both KBTM and UAZ's proposals look very tall and very ugly in my opinion. What is filling the space above the tracks?. I want to see these machines driving around. I hate the uncertainty of these models.

I will bite your head off for something else  
It is UVZ (Ural Vagon Zavod) and not UAZ which is Ulyanovsk Avto Zavod.

Anyways, thanks for the posts. I gave you my vote

GarryB wrote:The BMO family are engineer vehicles, as is the TOS-1 vehicle, so it would be interesting if they adapted a new vehicle to perform both missions by combining troop capacity plus  a large rocket launcher mounted on top.

I don't think that's the case. AFAIK this vehicle is designated as an IFV-transport for special detachments of chemical troops equipped with thermobaric weapons (who should be present in every motor-rifle battalion or brigade; not sure exactly). It fulfills the same role for them as a BMP fulfills for ordinary infantry.

The rocket launcher on top seems to be a direct-fire weapon rather than an indirect-fire MLRS like the TOS-1. Note how its slaved to the turret (which also has other armament appropriate for direct-fire; a 30mm cannon and 7.62mm machine gun). Perhaps a few of its rockets will be anti-armour rather than thermobaric; for those situations where an enemy IFV or tank decides to crash the party.

Basically it will get in there, flame everyone, the troops will dismount and flame even more, while the vehicles continues to liberally flame everyone left with its huge supply of 24 ready to fire flame rockets.
Everyone will be burnt to a crisp.

I don't think that's the case. AFAIK this vehicle is designated as an IFV-transport for special detachments of chemical troops equipped with thermobaric weapons (who should be present in every motor-rifle battalion or brigade; not sure exactly). It fulfills the same role for them as a BMP fulfills for ordinary infantry.

Oops, yes, I meant chemical troops, and when I said the BMO is a vehicle for engineers I meant it was a specialised vehicle for transporting chemical troops and their specialist equipment.

Considering the range of the RPO-M I suspect the new launcher might contain modified versions of this rocket ready to fire from the vehicle.

AFAIK the current version of TOS has extended range rockets with even more potent payloads...