+59

chicken

mutantsushi

Strizh

Kyo

Big_Gazza

victor1985

OminousSpudd

AbsoluteZero

GarryB

kvs

Notio

higurashihougi

sepheronx

George1

Werewolf

Vann7

Cpt Caz

Vympel

volna

fragmachine

acatomic

Sujoy

Mike E

Asf

Cyberspec

mack8

magnumcromagnon

Stealthflanker

zg18

russianumber1

etaepsilonk

a89

NickM

AlfaT8

Regular

Neoprime

AJ-47

gaurav

Deep Throat

Viktor

Morpheus Eberhardt

Hachimoto

xeno

runaway

collegeboy16

Pugnax

Russian Patriot

flamming_python

Shadåw

Dima

KomissarBojanchev

Mindstorm

medo

marcellogo

AZZKIKR

Austin

TheArmenian

TR1

Zivo

63 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 18 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 40

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

higurashihougi

higurashihougi: Posts : 3401
Points : 3488
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

Post n°826

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

higurashihougi Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:39 am

@Garry: there is someone who disagree with you about the AA things.

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 34 Bmpt310

Roughly translation into English wrote: BMPT is just a further evolution of BMP. Actually, the BMPs already have the ability to attack tanks, assault fortifications and anti-air capability,... BMP also have armour protection. Now it is just stronger armour and protection.

KomissarBojanchev

KomissarBojanchev: Posts : 1429
Points : 1584
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 27
Location : Varna, Bulgaria

Post n°827

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

KomissarBojanchev Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:07 am

Is there any news on the Armata MBT's gun launched ATGM? In this field having a 152mm gun has it's advantage of making it possible to use a more powerful shaped charge for the missile.

medo

medo: Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°828

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

medo Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:01 pm

higurashihougi wrote:@Garry: there is someone who disagree with you about the AA things.

Roughly translation into English wrote: BMPT is just a further evolution of BMP. Actually, the BMPs already have the ability to attack tanks, assault fortifications and anti-air capability,... BMP also have armour protection. Now it is just stronger armour and protection.

BMPT is not an evolution of BMP. Similarity in name lead to wrong conclusion. Main task for BMP is to bring infantry squad and support it with fire power on the battlefield, so tank base BMP is not the same as BMPT, because BMPT doesn't carry any infantry or support it. BMPT bring a fire power, which tank doesn't have, in the same line with tank. BMPT was developed from Soviet / Russian experiences with AA guns in ground battles from Afghanistan and Chechnya. They have high rate of fire and high elevation, what is excellent in mountainous regions or in urban area, but they luck of armor or protection and a lot of space was taken by expensive electronics and radars. No one now will bring and use Tunguska or Pantsir in ground battles in the same way as ZU-23 on MT-LB and on BTR-D or ZSU-23-4 were used. They are too rare and too expensive.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°829

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:13 pm

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there any news on the Armata MBT's gun launched ATGM? In this field having a 152mm gun has it's advantage of making it possible to use a more powerful shaped charge for the missile.

2A82 is not 152mm.

mutantsushi

mutantsushi: Posts : 283
Points : 305
Join date : 2013-12-11

Post n°830

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

mutantsushi Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:14 pm

medo wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:@Garry: there is someone who disagree with you about the AA things.

Roughly translation into English wrote: BMPT is just a further evolution of BMP. Actually, the BMPs already have the ability to attack tanks, assault fortifications and anti-air capability,... BMP also have armour protection. Now it is just stronger armour and protection.

BMPT is not an evolution of BMP. Similarity in name lead to wrong conclusion. Main task for BMP is to bring infantry squad and support it with fire power on the battlefield, so tank base BMP is not the same as BMPT, because BMPT doesn't carry any infantry or support it.

And further it is based on T-72 tank chassis, with no space for troops, so there is no "heritage" from BMP series, despite the name.
It apparently was renamed because the armament doesn't correspond to MBT type but is calibres normally seen on AFV/APC (but in larger numbers of guns, etc).
That doesn't give it any link to actual BMP series.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40510
Points : 41010
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°831

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

GarryB Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:14 am

BMPT is just a further evolution of BMP. Actually, the BMPs already have the ability to attack tanks, assault fortifications and anti-air capability,... BMP also have armour protection. Now it is just stronger armour and protection.

A BMP is a troop transport vehicle with the fire power to take on battle field targets on its own without tank support including enemy vehicles of equivalent design. It is not designed to take on tanks as a primary function but has a defensive anti tank capability via ATGMs to defend itself if it finds itself in combat with enemy heavy armour.

In the west it is called an IFV.

A BMPT is completely unrelated to the BMP... the BMPT is not designed to transport troops, it is purely a fire power vehicle designed to inflict devastating fire power on enemy troops and troop positions, ambushes, etc etc.

The first BMPTs were BTR-40s with twin 14.5mm HMGs, then Shilkas were used and if called on right now Tunguskas would be used for their high rate of fire small calibre cannon fire.

The problem with these vehicles is that being air defence vehicles they only have protection that will stop small arms fire and shrapnel... even HMGs will penetrate their armour... and of course they have expensive radar and electronics to help detect air targets at long range and track them.

The first custom designed BMPT was based on the T-72 chassis and had twin single barrel 30mm cannon.

the evoution of the BMPT has nothing to do with troop transport and everything to do with the enormous firepower of air defence vehicles, but like the IFV its air defence capability is secondary too.

The BMPT is not designed to take on enemy IFVs... that is what friendly IFVs will do, it is not designed to take on enemy tanks that is what friendly tanks are best at, the BMPT takes out infantry and ground positions before they take out friendly armour.

A few kms away there will be Pantsir-S and TOR batteries that will take down most aircraft... the BMPT will no more be an air defence vehicle than any other IFV who will also likely fire on any aircraft that comes within range.

Is there any news on the Armata MBT's gun launched ATGM? In this field having a 152mm gun has it's advantage of making it possible to use a more powerful shaped charge for the missile.

When it gets a 152mm gun the volume created for electronics and the warhead will be huge, but the Armata MBT and the other MBTs entering service will have 125mm guns to start with.

So to be clear the BMPT despite the BMP in the name is not just a tank based BMPT... in many ways the BMPT is to MBTs what an IFV is to infantry.

The BMP supports and protects its infantry... whether they are mounted or dismounted.

The BMPT protects MBTs from infantry attack... whether it is from long range snipers or ATGM teams...

The BMPT would also be a useful convoy escort vehicle to defend against ambush.

Its heavy armour means it is as well protected as a MBT, yet its firepower is optimised to engage infantry and light targets.

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur

Post n°832

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

collegeboy16 Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:05 am

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there any news on the Armata MBT's gun launched ATGM? In this field having a 152mm gun has it's advantage of making it possible to use a more powerful shaped charge for the missile.

if memmory serves correct- a 10km range new atgm- could be top attack but dontttt quote me on tthis.
also with regards to HEAT shells bigger is indeed better, but not just thicker but also longer, allowing for ttriple, quad and maybe more warheads.

interesting thing to note is that the unmanned turret (provided its as spacious as T-95 turret) should provide an awful lot of space for ammo apart from main gun's. you could see hundred thousands of rounds MG stored- or a few thousands of 40mm caseless grenades. give them to and addon sentinel drone module on top of turret and anyone that so much as looks at it badly will be turned into human confetti before hey can say 'oh fck'

KomissarBojanchev

KomissarBojanchev: Posts : 1429
Points : 1584
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 27
Location : Varna, Bulgaria

Post n°833

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

KomissarBojanchev Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:16 am

Top attack is the last thing a russian gun launched ATGM needs to be. They focus should be made on how to make it as fast and countermeasure resistant as possible and rely on a brute force warhead as big as possible.

collegeboy16

collegeboy16: Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur

Post n°834

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

collegeboy16 Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:57 am

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Top attack is the last thing a russian gun launched ATGM needs to be. They focus should be made on how to make it as fast and countermeasure resistant as possible and rely on a brute force warhead as big as possible.

i think otherwise- they already have one of those- its called Kornet-EM. well not exactly tank gun fired, or the fastest atgm (not that HEAT warheads benefit from speed and you have to be really fast, apfsds fast to go through even basic APS nowadays) but the capability is mostly there anyway.

what they really need imo if they want something for extreme range use is either a top attack, or a scramjet(not likely)/solid rocket boosted KE round.

top attack since the tank can just shoot it a la artillery, extending range and with higher than normal top attack atgm velocity would reach the search area quickly and be really near it- one of the main problems with javelin is that its looking at really distant targets. even an el cheapo radar or thermal seeker should be able to see its target if its basically hurtling at it head on(ofc. this means you cant really blind fire it like arty into some grid, you need more precise location.)

the souped up KEM would benefit greatly from the enormous speed boost and accuracy increase via midcourse correction in flight.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-18
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°835

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Mike E Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:11 pm

collegeboy16 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Top attack is the last thing a russian gun launched ATGM needs to be. They focus should be made on how to make it as fast and countermeasure resistant as possible and rely on a brute force warhead as big as possible.

i think otherwise- they already have one of those- its called Kornet-EM. well not exactly tank gun fired, or the fastest atgm (not that HEAT warheads benefit from speed and you have to be really fast, apfsds fast to go through even basic APS nowadays) but the capability is mostly there anyway.

what they really need imo if they want something for extreme range use is either a top attack, or a scramjet(not likely)/solid rocket boosted KE round.

top attack since the tank can just shoot it a la artillery, extending range and with higher than normal top attack atgm velocity would reach the search area quickly and be really near it- one of the main problems with javelin is that its looking at really distant targets. even an el cheapo radar or thermal seeker should be able to see its target if its basically hurtling at it head on(ofc. this means you cant really blind fire it like arty into some grid, you need more precise location.)

the souped up KEM would benefit greatly from the enormous speed boost and accuracy increase via midcourse correction in flight.

That's exactly what I've been thinking about myself...

Regular

Regular: Posts : 3894
Points : 3868
Join date : 2013-03-10
Location : Ukrolovestan

Post n°836

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Regular Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:30 pm

Well top attack could be shallow dive, it doesn't have to climb up like Javelin.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40510
Points : 41010
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°837

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

GarryB Sat Feb 14, 2015 4:15 am

Top attack is the last thing a russian gun launched ATGM needs to be. They focus should be made on how to make it as fast and countermeasure resistant as possible and rely on a brute force warhead as big as possible.

Against any armoured vehicle top attack is the most efficient way of penetrating the armour... the roof armour in comparison to front or even side armour is very thin and vulnerable.

Just because a top attack flight profile is chosen doesn't mean it will be slow like Javelin... Soviet supersonic anti ship missiles had a variety of tricks including a pop up about 2km before hitting the target followed by a dive into the target at 40-60 degrees to make interception harder.

One anti ship missile actually dived into the water 10-20m short of hitting the ship and actually detonated below the waterline to maximise the damage. (note water does not compress so if you put a large HE warhead under the water next to the hull of the ship the spherical blast is deformed and instead of blasting out in all directions equally the water reflects the blast back into the hull which almost doubles the effect of the blast inside the ship.

With a modern IIR sensor and a datalink back to the tank a modern ATGM could climb and circle to one side or the other and hit the target from an angle where their armour is weak. One advantage of a top attack profile however is that in addition to thinner top armour there is less chance of the missile flying into trees or bushes or other obstacles on the way to the target.

the souped up KEM would benefit greatly from the enormous speed boost and accuracy increase via midcourse correction in flight.

The main problem with KEM rounds is that they use an enormous amount of fuel to accelerate to a useful speed... to be effective the projectile has to be heavy and very hard and very long, which makes it difficult to store in a tank and load and fire through the main gun. On a helo the Vikhr and Hermes missiles are already over 3m long so a high velocity kinetic missile is not that difficult... solid rocket booster and small scramjet engine to take over from the 1km range on to the target after the solid rocket booster burns out and falls away.

Well top attack could be shallow dive, it doesn't have to climb up like Javelin.

A lot of armour protection comes from angled armour... even just coming in at an angle can reduce the effect of the angled plate and greatly reduce the amount of armour needed to be penetrated.

I would suspect the new missiles will be fire and forget and will likely have IIR guidance and a datalink. Whether they also have laser beam riding or radar homing (MMW radar) to make them compatible with helicopter launched missiles is a question, but the problems of IIR guidance and lock on after launch is already being tackled by missile designers of Morfei... once they have cracked it the more widely they use the solution the quicker it will become cheaper and therefore affordable.

Needless to say speculation about a vertical launched top attack ATGM would suggest lock on after launch with at least a manual datalink to find targets, with the possiblity to find the targets itself.

If rifle scopes can determine friend or foe then one would expect their new missiles to do the same...

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°838

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:20 pm

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 34 0_1129c8_8d9dce2e_orig

Essentially what T-15 will look like this year.
Aside from the weird "double" APS creation by the author.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5927
Points : 6116
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°839

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Werewolf Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:45 pm

The T-14 chassis has 7 wheels and this is probably just the kurganetz chassis.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°840

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:58 pm

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 34 JCGXt

It is definitely the Armata chassis.

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°841

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

magnumcromagnon Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:14 pm

TR1 wrote:

It is definitely the Armata chassis.

Armata APC with Ephora turret?

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°842

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:04 pm

Armata IFV with Epoha-lite essentially. Full Epoha will appear later this decade.

2A42 is not exactly cutting edge.

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°843

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

magnumcromagnon Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:00 am

TR1 wrote:Armata IFV with Epoha-lite essentially. Full Epoha will appear later this decade.

2A42 is not exactly cutting edge.

Armata IFV? With a 30mm caliber main weapon? I'm leaning more towards a APC, a 30mm caliber main weapon has no chance in hell of being effective weapon even against modern IFV's that 'don't' have tank level armor. The 30mm caliber would indicate a purely defensive weapon with significant space in the interior for additional troops in the troop compartment, where the 30mm main weapon would act as a tool for suppressive fire for dismounting soldiers.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°844

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:02 am

Gur Khan translates it as T-15 BMP. BMP=IFV.

As for the armament, newer guns are simply not ready.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/02/15.html

From what I have seen, Kurganets and Boomerange "APC" versions will have a machine gun in the turret. At least posters on Otavaga guessed so, based on some modules that were seen in that very revealing Burevestnik video.

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°845

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

magnumcromagnon Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:38 am

TR1 wrote:Gur Khan translates it as T-15 BMP. BMP=IFV.

As for the armament, newer guns are simply not ready.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/02/15.html

From what I have seen, Kurganets and Boomerange "APC" versions will have a machine gun in the turret. At least posters on Otavaga guessed so, based on some modules that were seen in that very revealing Burevestnik video.

I guess they're still testing/developing new 57mm ammunition. BTW checkout the Tarasenko clone in the comment section, it's all about the BMPT-64 an advanced follow up version of the N-64. Very Happy

Zivo

Zivo: Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.

Post n°846

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Zivo Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:11 am

The overhang on the front seems like a strange design choice. Why they did it is apparent, the engine is there and they had to add conformal armor sticking off the front to put more distance between the impact point and the engine. The Merk IV's uses a more recessed design that doesn't pass far in front of the track, granted it has poor frontal armor. In contrast this seems almost too extreme. There has to be a better solution.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°847

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:28 am

Zivo wrote:The overhang on the front seems like a strange design choice. Why they did it is apparent, the engine is there and they had to add conformal armor sticking off the front to put more distance between the impact point and the engine. The Merk IV's uses a more recessed design that doesn't pass far in front of the track, granted it has poor frontal armor. In contrast this seems almost too extreme. There has to be a better solution.

I was thinking the same, and I suspect the model just extenuates it more than the actual vehicle will.

I mean, this thing will be extensively tested, and the kind of overhang on that 3d model would result in mobility problems.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°848

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

TR1 Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:33 am

magnumcromagnon wrote:

TR1 wrote:Gur Khan translates it as T-15 BMP. BMP=IFV.

As for the armament, newer guns are simply not ready.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/02/15.html

From what I have seen, Kurganets and Boomerange "APC" versions will have a machine gun in the turret. At least posters on Otavaga guessed so, based on some modules that were seen in that very revealing Burevestnik video.

I guess they're still testing/developing new 57mm ammunition. BTW checkout the Tarasenko clone in the comment section, it's all about the BMPT-64 an advanced follow up version of the N-64.

Yeah that was just poor trolling, BMPT-64 is a crude pile of crap. Might as well say BTR-T is better than the T-15.

I am not too sure Epoha turret can contain a 57mm gun...just by visuals IMO it would be too much. Maybe they will stick to just 30mm for the near future...hopefully with very modern rounds at least.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40510
Points : 41010
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°849

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

GarryB Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:58 am

The 30mm offers good and bad features... first its bad features... the main gun of an IFV is supposed to be able to defeat an enemy IFV, so this turret relies on ATGMs for that capability.

The good feature is that this turret likely does not penetrate into the hull so more space for troops.

I suspect this is actually the APC turret and the IFV turret is yet to come....

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5927
Points : 6116
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°850

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Werewolf Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:22 am

magnumcromagnon wrote:

TR1 wrote:Armata IFV with Epoha-lite essentially. Full Epoha will appear later this decade.

2A42 is not exactly cutting edge.

Armata IFV? With a 30mm caliber main weapon? I'm leaning more towards a APC, a 30mm caliber main weapon has no chance in hell of being effective weapon even against modern IFV's that 'don't' have tank level armor. The 30mm caliber would indicate a purely defensive weapon with significant space in the interior for additional troops in the troop compartment, where the 30mm main weapon would act as a tool for suppressive fire for dismounting soldiers.

Since they introduce the new ammunition ZUBR-11 APFSDS rounds for 2A42 guns i would say it has quite good performance to penetrate IFV's from front, but the problem here would be the range which would be significantly outgunned by ATGM's which quite a few foreign IFV's have, meaning it would stil rely on ATGM's to keep itself safe.

Russia Defence Forum

[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Similar topics

Similar topics