[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

IF this is the IFV/BMP version then there would be little point of introducing a machine-gun-only APC/BTR version alongside it. The troop capacity would be the same and the armament/firepower capability would not significantly differ. In this case it would make more sense to unify the IFV and APC concepts into one vehicle version.. the chassis are now the same anyway.

Therefore the conclusion lends itself to either that the IFV/APC versions have been merged (which we have no indication of), or that what we're seeing is indeed the APC version.

As far as the overhang goes, it might be a design feature thats necessary due to the fact that the Armata IFV/APC wont just have a standard armored capsule crew compartment, but also most likely have a troop compartment with the same armor capsule configuration, likely requiring re-configuring of interior space. The only way to know for sure is to see Armata models (in metal) of the different versions of the platform, compartively between Armata MBT and Armata IFV/APC.

flamming_python wrote:IF this is the IFV/BMP version then there would be little point of introducing a machine-gun-only APC/BTR version alongside it. The troop capacity would be the same and the armament/firepower capability would not significantly differ. In this case it would make more sense to unify the IFV and APC concepts into one vehicle version.. the chassis are now the same anyway.

Therefore the conclusion lends itself to either that the IFV/APC versions have been merged (which we have no indication of), or that what we're seeing is indeed the APC version.

Cost. Those turrets look expensive.

Though I am not sure there will be an APC version of the Armata, probably just Boomerang and Kurganets.
IDK.

BTR armata is wasteful imo, with heavy armor it should be able to get in much closer to the fight, and while its in there might as well be packing BMP grade firepower...

collegeboy16 wrote:BTR armata is wasteful imo, with heavy armor it should be able to get in much closer to the fight, and while its in there might as well be packing BMP grade firepower...

Not at all, on the battlefield despite all the advancements in technology and armor, a well trained soldier is still by a wide margin the most valuable, versatile and lethal element on the battlefield, and they cost a fraction of a dedicated/specialized vehicle. You could have Armata MBTs and APCs fighting side-by-side, and Armata MBT could have the best gun, ammunition, fire control system, sensors, auto-loader in the world, but if dozens upon dozens of 4-5 story buildings are blocking it's path, than it may face trouble trying to destroy enemy armor on the other side of town, however that's not necessarily true with the Armata APC.

If the Armata APC is capable of carrying 10-12 highly trained ATGM soldiers, than they could go up 3 or 4 of those 4-5 story buildings with their ATGM's, and destroy enemy armor from the rooftops without actually needing to cross town, combined with the fact that the enemy armor would be helpless at the fact that their tanks are incapable to elevate their guns and fire at the ATGM teams on the roof tops.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Not at all, on the battlefield despite all the advancements in technology and armor, a well trained soldier is still by a wide margin the most valuable, versatile and lethal element on the battlefield, and they cost a fraction of a dedicated/specialized vehicle. You could have Armata MBTs and APCs fighting side-by-side, and Armata MBT could have the best gun, ammunition, fire control system, sensors, auto-loader in the world, but if dozens upon dozens of 4-5 story buildings are blocking it's path, than it may face trouble trying to destroy enemy armor on the other side of town, however that's not necessarily true with the Armata APC.

If the Armata APC is capable of carrying 10-12 highly trained ATGM soldiers, than they could go up 3 or 4 of those 4-5 story buildings with their ATGM's, and destroy enemy armor from the rooftops without actually needing to cross town, combined with the fact that the enemy armor would be helpless at the fact that their tanks are incapable to elevate their guns and fire at the ATGM teams on the roof tops.

yeah, but why is APC better than IFV in this case? couldnt an IFV do the same - and its not like its a given that the IFV model is gonna have smaller troop size carried, maybe they would go for bustle storage for ammo, keep the troop compartment spacious for 10-12 guys in gear.

plus any other situation in urban environment and IFV is much better. for example, say a couple IFVs gets ambushed grozny style- before they even empty their troops they would opening fire with programmable HE ammo into rooftops, basements and into windows. you could do that with an APC but you lose a lot on the firepower- unless its armed with 30mm which is an anomaly for APCs i think, only the russians employ them heavily, so HMG and maybe a GL(if lucky) it is. and those are gonna be only effective until they hunker down, at which point you are only left with the GL to shoot over cover. but what if you cant do just that, what if they sandbagged their firing hole- here is where a proper autocannon would do wonders.

APC is just an IFV with lighter armament and more focus on carrying more troops.

There is little chance of an IFV on the Armata chassis that is armed with a 57mm gun that could have a non penetrating turret... in other words the turret will take up the space below it in the hull which means less troops. It will have the engine in the front and three crew and then a turret and the troops will be in the rear separated from the ammo and fuel...

Of course an IFV armata with the rear troop compartment removed and extra ammo fitted could be used as a BMPT.

An APC version with a HMG turret with external gun should allow a larger troop option with a RWS.

All just guesses for now of course.

IMO, and this is just IMO - an APC version would be best served by having 2-3 remote machine guns, with perhaps a coaxial grenade launcher linked to the main one.

SO you could have a 12.7mm MG linked with a 40mm automatic grenade launcher, controlled by the APC gunner (we'll assume the APC version will have a crew of two; the gunner and the driver).

Then you could have 1-2 more 7.62mm machine guns remote-controlled by the squad inside - 1 by the squad leader and the other by the squad machine-gunner or perhaps the assistant squad leader. This would also have the benefit of giving the squad-leader good awareness of his surroundings while in the vehicle, so that he knows what to do when he dismounts (I think that squad-leaders inside BMPs/BTRs also had awareness as they commanded the vehicle while they were in it, but a remote turret with sights sounds like a better option).
When the squad-dismounts, the auxillary MGs can be slaved to the main MG controlled by the gunner, so that they will also fire if the angle permits. The squad-leader's auxillary MG could even be linked with a co-axial dual-RPO mount, giving him a little extra firepower, that the gunner could also employ when the squad exits.

The IFV version defo needs to pack a punch though. If 30mm is all it has, I'm thoroughly disappointed. This would also put to bed all the ideas about how IFVs can attain a measure of AA defense by using their 57mm cannons, linked with air-defense radars on other vehicles.

What do you know, we were just talking about the prospective 57mm turret module for Armata, and it looks like UVZ may show what 'might' become the future Armata's 'unmanned' IFV turret. As of now it's only slated for the 'wheeled' 8x8 AFV from EMRATES DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY (UAE) presented at IDEX 2015, so who knows if it will eventually become the unified unmanned turret for Russian IFV's:

At IDEX 2015 UVZ present promising developments

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/336247.html




These pictures down here are over-sized, so I couldn't embed them.

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/344126/344126_original.jpg

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/344542/344542_original.jpg

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/344738/344738_original.jpg

Breathing heavily.

Hmmm, word of mouth on forums is MOD is not interested in this turret however.

Burevestnik's own initiative once again.

TR1 wrote:Hmmm, word of mouth on forums is MOD is not interested in this turret however.

Burevestnik's own initiative once again.

That's the sense that I got, the Russian equivalent will most likely have a longer barrel. As of now it will be slated for export just like the turret for the ATOM vehicle.

Yes, it seems slated for export ala ATOM, which was aimed and countries (UAE) using French APCs but wanting Russian AFV turrets...
Apparently it is being offered thru UAE company, which conveniently bypasses sanctions barring EU links with Russian arms companies...
Lack of missile launchers seems to conflict with Russian tendency, but could be attractive for export markets (and could be added in easily).

collegeboy16 wrote:BTR armata is wasteful imo, with heavy armor it should be able to get in much closer to the fight, and while its in there might as well be packing BMP grade firepower...

The 30mm turret is shown not just on Armata, but also Kurganets, so that isn't the whole story...

IMHO, putting that 30mm turret on ALL APCs seems overkill/expensive/limiting of ammo quantity, but perhaps what is being proposes is a 2nd tier of AFV,
the 57mm will still go forward, but alongside a 30mm AFV in a different role...  
Perhaps one will continue conventional troop transport IFV role, with the turret not (or minimally) protuding into vehicle interior,
while another will reduce the troop capacity to pursue a higher (internal) ammo capacity in more of a BMPT style approach
(or like French vehicles which are of AFV class weaponry but forgo troop transport completely, essentially light wheeled tanks)
...Or the 30mm could just be for export?

EDIT: On the other hand, check this roundup of new 30mm turrets that are very small, mounted on Humvees/MATVs:
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2015/02/oshkosh-atk-demo-30mm-cannon-in-50-cal.html
Maybe you don't need that on EVERY APC, but putting it on more platforms than "dedicated" IFVs can't hurt, can it?
Still seems like a lower calliber gun + 40mm grenades would be more useful though...

magnumcromagnon wrote:

TR1 wrote:Hmmm, word of mouth on forums is MOD is not interested in this turret however.

Burevestnik's own initiative once again.

That's the sense that I got, the Russian equivalent will most likely have a longer barrel. As of now it will be slated for export just like the turret for the ATOM vehicle.

hopefully they are just being cheapskates for now and order something like these turrets in the near future a la Panstir-S1/ Su-30MKI.

From RT with love

Russia’s new Armata tank on Army 2015 shopping list

Viktor wrote:From RT with love  

Russia’s new Armata tank on Army 2015 shopping list

where did they get that "12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.", LOL, a55pull much?

higurashihougi wrote:

Viktor wrote:From RT with love  

Russia’s new Armata tank on Army 2015 shopping list

An Armata with 152mm main gun ?

Remind me the old Obyekt 195 aka T-95.

But it's put on hold in favor of a modernized 125mm gun, and if NATO goes with 80 ton MBT monstrosities (which is very unlikely) than they have the option go much bigger with the 152mm. As of now the 125mm has lots of untapped potential according to the new gun's designers. Personally I hope they never go with the 152mm main gun caliber, which is the brute force approach, but I hope they go with the finesse approach and develop a electro-magnetic main gun powered by magneto batteries, one with the capability to adjust to different caliber diameters.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Viktor wrote:From RT with love  

Russia’s new Armata tank on Army 2015 shopping list

where did they get that "12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.", LOL, a55pull much?

The editors probably got confused. The whole bit about defeating projectiles traveling at 3km/sec may of been actually referring to the Afghanistan APS.

flamming_python wrote:IF this is the IFV/BMP version then there would be little point of introducing a machine-gun-only APC/BTR version alongside it. The troop capacity would be the same and the armament/firepower capability would not significantly differ. In this case it would make more sense to unify the IFV and APC concepts into one vehicle version.. the chassis are now the same anyway.

Therefore the conclusion lends itself to either that the IFV/APC versions have been merged (which we have no indication of), or that what we're seeing is indeed the APC version.

I think that the IFV is a wrong concept; it is not carrying enough soldiers in one hand, and don’t have enough fire power in the other hand.
So IMO, I prefer to separate the IFV to APC and FSV.
As an APC I will like to have the Kamaz 63969. It’s protected all around from 14.5 mm bullets, and protected from 10 kg mine under the body. If we install the GSh-23-2 on the roof, we will get the protection and the fire power we need for APC.
The APCs are not on the front line of fire, so we don’t need to have the Armata’s chassis/protection.

I like the concept for the Armata IFV, as we saw in the picture (T-15). But as the 30mm is under power gun, I will choose the 57 mm gun/turret, as we saw some of his picture lately. As the soldiers will be carrying out on the APC, the IFV (T-15) will not carry dismount soldiers, and it will have enough room for the turret and the ammo.
This vehicle will become FSV and will support the tanks and the APCs.

Funny you should say that because a lot of the speculation about the combat use of the BMP-3 revolved around the heavy firepower it carried and that in some situations you could use them to drop off the troops and then move them to another area to act as light tanks as a mobile reserve.

In most cases the BMP would operate with the troops offering long range views and magnified optics of the target and heavy direct firepower and communications to direct artillery and air support rapidly on enemy forces.

Against 90% of the worlds enemies you probably wouldn't need tanks as they are pretty much optimised to only fight each other anyway...

The situation is muddied however because when we talk about troop transport in future Russian units we now have to add heavy, medium, medium, and light models.

The idea of the tank in most operations is an armoured vehicle with a heavy gun that can take out at long range any enemy armoured vehicle. It is heavy and expensive, but powerful.

the problem is that in the Russian military the BMP will have heavy fire power too and some sort of fire and forget diving top attack ATGM could give it the ability to engage any enemy armour too.

But like the Hind and the Merkava tank each vehicle has a specific role and will perform specific duties in the battlefield and converting an attack helo into a troop transport, or making a troop transport MBT ruins it for both missions.

Point is every model is for different purposes: heavy APC and IVFs are needed during main conflift when probability to engage enemy fire is huge and big protection is needed. After main conflict those carriers would walk in secure land so no more heavy armour is needed but movement for fast covering of the map. Also is there a problem if use more or less soldiers in the APC fuel consumption and manevrability and armour weight being affectet by number of soldiers. More soldiers less machines but heavyer, less soldiers but more machines more engines. Point is where to use them according to enemy capacity. In this a poor armed enemy can be faced even whit APCs/IFVs medium armoured and armed. Whit a organized enemy mixes whit MBTs are necesarry. Point is this troops also need well comunication and map pointing devices. That gives mobility and element of surprise. And is the best to know where is the enemy for not atack in blind. So in my opinion all comes first whit satellites then aviation and only in last place mass ground battle units. And i forgot the rockets and missiles which are quite important. Ground forces are needed for clearing sectors and secure areas.

The Russians have already demonstrated laser based technology that can detect scopes and sights and alert the user to those potential threats. They have also shown microphone arrays that can detect sounds and determine the origin of small arms fire fairly rapidly and accurately.

Unlike in hollywood, it seems to me that in real combat often it is rounds coming in from a general area but no specific source that is the biggest problem... especially when coming from neutral areas.

Organisations like the KLA abused such situations to attack Serbian forces from near villages that would not support them in the hope that an over reaction by the police or army units would result in that village becoming more supportive of their aims.

Being able to tell exactly who was shooting and only shooting back at those doing the shooting would be much more productive in preventing the situation from getting out of hand.

With the fire power at the hands of modern soldiers do we need more soldiers?

A couple of soldier with a small hand launched UAV plus a few ground based systems with a PKM MMG could control larger areas of ground than previously a large number of soldiers could cover...

New sights enabling clean hits from 400-500m should make their fire more effective too.

And do that cheaper. Training, feed and arm 1000 soldiers to control a area wich a uav can do cost more than the uav and his activities

Werewolf wrote:

GarryB wrote:I have read that the most efficient penetrator speed is about 2.5km/s too and that rather than increase velocity it is more energy efficient to increase the penetrator weight.

Ironically it is actually harder to get higher speed than to increase the penetrator weight ... just make the penetrator longer will increase weight...

Well form of penetrator plays a big role and if i remeber right there were some forms of the tip that were not as spiky as we usually see on current APFSDS rounds, which would push away the air in a very effecient way so the body after the Tip did not come to much in contact with the air, like a windshadow like driving on highway behind a big truck, which increased the possible velocity and sustained penetrative capability on larger distances then just 2km like the current APFSDS rounds.

but in this you need powerfull cannon and lighter sabot.... and big cannon mean extra weight for tank so move slower also the turret move slower wich is important. Rate of fire is also affected cause big cannon make big shockwave wich means fewer fires can be made in a minute.also the shockwave make the barrel shake so must wait until stop. Bigger cannon bigger and long time shake.