[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

Stealthflanker wrote:Hmmm how superimposing image without any reference of size can help ?

Keep in mind, the Turret could be void of ERA armor that would more than likely make its way onto the tank, extending the length of the turret and increasing the weight. Much like how the side armor is not on either.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Satellite navigation or TERCOM provides accurate guidance, which is, at the same time, inexpensive. This can also make the missile accurate enough for use of conventional warheads on the missile. The INS that is on a Tomahawk isn't accurate enough even for a "thermonuclear" warhead.

Even if you neutrally jam the GPS or the TERCOM on a Tomahawk, it becomes useless irrespective of its warhead type.

jhelb wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Satellite navigation or TERCOM provides accurate guidance, which is, at the same time, inexpensive. This can also make the missile accurate enough for use of conventional warheads on the missile. The INS that is on a Tomahawk isn't accurate enough even for a "thermonuclear" warhead.

Even if you neutrally jam the GPS or the TERCOM on a Tomahawk, it becomes useless irrespective of its warhead type.

Morpheus Eberhardt, you explain things very well in all your posts that I have read so far. My vote and GOD bless you.

Werewolf wrote:
Russia is currently introducing ZUBR-11 30x165mm APFSDS rounds, the prior ZUBR-8 which is still in service has performance of up to 35mm RHAe penetration capability at 500m which is quite astonishing for an APDS round. I don't know how armored the best armored foreign IFV is but i doubt it will have much more than that. I've seen pictures of ScoutSV vehicle actually not thick armor and it also weights up to 42 tones, despite this mass it is less protected than T-55 tank. They are also equipped with ATGM's they will use ATGM's long before they close in with 30mm cannons.

The West has 35mm and 40mm guns on some of there APC/IFV, and even the T-15 will have a problem to stand against it.
Non of those rounds would be capable to even damage Armata, not from front and unlikely from side, not with the thick applique armor.

So better to start now and bring the 57mm to the IFV, learn who it’s work, check who good they are, and when the time come, and there will be a real need for telescopic round, then we have the units ready to do the change.
The 57mm isn't finished yet and they are not in the rush, why waste money now for one kind of turret and rush an unfinished gun on the plattform when there is no hurry but will result only in unnecessary expenses with tight budgets.

AJ-47 wrote:When the tank’s radar/sensors detect the missile, it will automatically get the location of the launcher, point his guns against it and open fire, at the same time the tank should launch smoke grenade/rockets as far as it can from the tank, the smoke will break the laser beam between the launcher and the missile as it pass the smoke, and the missile will get lost. That will buy few seconds for the crew to move the tank from the path of the incoming missile, if the tank will not move it might got hit.

Sorry can't agree with you. The Scout SV has a very good protection and it has 40mm gun that it's much better than any 30mm gun in the West and in the East. All IFV in the West equipped with ATGM.

Zivo wrote:The trend in Russian AFV's is to have four ready to fire ATGM's anyways.

magnumcromagnon wrote:So there's talk on other forums on T-14 Armata MBT's size, questions about "how could the T-14 MBT be of similar size to Leo-2's, M1A2 Abram's, Challenger 2's, Merkava 4's but maintain a weight of 52 tons?" Some measures are obvious and some less obvious.

Here's some rough estimations that I made (nothing concrete by any means, so take my estimates with a grain of salt):

The obvious measure was an autoloader, which obviously decreases the size and volume of the turret, combined with turret being unmanned (adding further reduction in weight and volume), which imo should decrease the weight of the turret by 10 tons. So a manned manual loaded turret on a M1A2 could be 22 tons (I don't know the exact figure), while a unmanned autoloader turret on the T-14 could be 12 tons. Plus the new steel implemented in the Armata platform has similar performance to the old MBT steel, but lighter to the point where it decrease the overall weight of a Armata MBT by 15%.

So hypothetically speaking, if T-14 had a 'manned', 'manual loaded' turret using the older MBT steel, it would likely be 72 tons in absolute weight. But with the new lighter steel, the weight decrease would be 15% of 72 tons, which would be a decrease of 10.8 tons, which reduces the T-14's weight down to 61.2 tons. Next you add the unmanned autoloader turret's volume and weight reduction of 10 tons, the T-14 MBT's absolute weight is reduced down to 51-52 tons.

The other variable here is that if  the 15% weight reduction claim already had the unmanned turret figured in with the T-14 already weighing 61.2 to 62 tons, then the 15% would of respectively reduced the weight down by 9.18 and 9.3 tons respectively, which would leave the absolute weight down to 52.02 and 52.7 tons respectively.

mutantsushi wrote:K2 is essentially the newest, "best of breed" within US/NATO-aligned armor.

Zivo wrote:
The wheels are a known variable. By using the diameter of the wheel as a measuring stick you can approximate the size of the T-14. It's all very scientific.

Stealthflanker wrote:

Zivo wrote:
The wheels are a known variable. By using the diameter of the wheel as a measuring stick you can approximate the size of the T-14. It's all very scientific.

I'm still not sure if the armata's roadwheel is indeed 700 mm.

Zivo wrote:

Which allows the T-14 to shed 10 tons of weight, and reducing ground pressure and maintaining high mobility likely T-90's level of mobility traversing cross-country terrain.

Armata's going to have an insane power/weight ratio. I cannot wait to see them let this thing loose on a range.

victor1985 wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:When the tank’s radar/sensors detect the missile, it will automatically get the location of the launcher, point his guns against it and open fire, at the same time the tank should launch smoke grenade/rockets as far as it can from the tank, the smoke will break the laser beam between the launcher and the missile as it pass the smoke, and the missile will get lost. That will buy few seconds for the crew to move the tank from the path of the incoming missile, if the tank will not move it might got hit.

Unless the smoke has some special components that would reflect back radar or laser beams it will be useless. Radar and laser can go trought smoke. Whit laser might be some problems but whit the radar waves....smoke cant stop it. Maibe if the tank pops up a lot of electrons near the tank to disturb laser beam seeker of missile.

Werewolf wrote:

Sorry can't agree with you. The Scout SV has a very good protection and it has 40mm gun that it's much better than any 30mm gun in the West and in the East. All IFV in the West equipped with ATGM.

The protection of the ScoutSV can be seen here.

It isn't that thick.

Look on the first wheel and see who tick is the protection there.

And not all western IFV's have ATGM's. Marder 2, Puma, Worrior IFV in only some, which has only TOW and is a sitting duck when it uses it, since wire guided ATGM's can't be fired on the move. Like i said, they will deal with anything that is armored with ATGM's before they will risking closing in and trying to find out if they can penetrate it with 30mm or not.

No Sir. All the modern IFVs has ATGM included the IFVs that you mention.
They are not TOW but SPIKE RL that is "fire and forget" missile.
ATGM can be defeated especially if they beam rider or radar guide.
The 30mm will not penetrate the modern front armor of IFVs.
APC don’t need to get into fight against IFVs that is not his job, leave it to IFVs and tanks.

AJ-47 wrote:

It isn't that thick.

Look on the first wheel and see who tick is the protection there.