[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Kornet could be intercepted if given enough time, it is supersonic. I don't know actually, It would be pretty simple if it was coming straight at you. But I doubt the Armata radar system has enough range to be able to turn the machine gun on it.

Brimstone would not be a problem as it is usually launched from aircraft which means either the aircraft or the munition itself is open to be destroyed, everything from anti-helo mines to Igla-S to S-500.

Ok, so basically you are suggesting that the interception would depend more on the effectiveness of auto tracking than the 12.5mm?

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Would be a cool feature, mini-CIWS on tank.

But then the APS can also intercept incoming HEAT, SABOT rounds or ATGMs?

New images of Armata

jhelb wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Kornet could be intercepted if given enough time, it is supersonic. I don't know actually, It would be pretty simple if it was coming straight at you. But I doubt the Armata radar system has enough range to be able to turn the machine gun on it.

Brimstone would not be a problem as it is usually launched from aircraft which means either the aircraft or the munition itself is open to be destroyed, everything from anti-helo mines to Igla-S to S-500.

Ok, so basically you are suggesting that the interception would depend more on the effectiveness of auto tracking than the 12.5mm?

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Would be a cool feature, mini-CIWS on tank.

But then the APS can also intercept incoming HEAT, SABOT rounds or ATGMs?

What I gathered is that the commanders machine gun can SUPPOSEDLY(it is RT afterall) intercept in-flight munitions.

A 12.7 round could shred the body of a missile, but I doubt it would do much to a tank round.

Overall, yes I would say that the chances of hitting said munition would depend mostly on the sensor and it's autotracking function, as well as the accuracy of the 12.7mm round itself.
But if it is a HEAT or APFSDS round, then forget it, that is what Afghanistan/Standard is for, whichever is mounted on Armata, I forgot.

Zivo wrote:
What I'm having trouble understanding is Armata has three crew, two hatches, and the hatches open different ways. Hatches are a weak spot, so it makes sense to put as few holes in the glacis as possible. Tough luck for the gunner. But why does the driver's hatch open and rotate, but the commanders hatch is just hinged? It seems odd to me.

it seems to me the most forward hatch(driver's hatch) is also for gunner's use- he just needs to shift a bit to the left to use it. now i could be wrong but since it is prolly out of reach of both driver and gunner they decided to make it automatic closing with push of a button, hence the opening and rotating.

jhelb wrote:I was reading this RT article on the Armata MBT http://rt.com/news/234363-armata-tracked-armored-platform/

It states:

A 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.

Can this 12.5 mm HMG take out anti tank missiles like the Kornet, Brimstone or even cruise missiles like the Kh-29?

If I recall correctly, current Afghanis APS figure is 1,700m/s (??), 3,000m/s is proposed objective of next generation APS that shares the same name as a Ukrainian APS(?)

There will only be one 125mm auto tracking gun and that will be the main gun smoothbore.

I rather suspect they have confused the auto tracking 125mm gun with the APS system...

Any HMG will be a 12.7mm weapon... not a 12.5mm which does not exist and would likely offer little advantage over existing 12.7mm weapons.

I think you're all missing the fact that really, the height has effectively stayed the same between the T-14 and previous tank generations.

By that I mean - the height up to which a direct hit can do critical damage to the tank. It's the same.
Whereas for the T-90/T-80/T-72 series; a hit to the turret can destroy the tank completely and/or kill/knockout the crew - the same is true for the T-14 only for a hit to the hull - which in the T-14s case reaches upto a height around about the same as the heights that the T-90/T-80/T-72 turrets reached up to.

A hit to the T-14s turret will at the most, disable the T-14s weapons systems. The crew will still be safe, the tank will still be mobile and operable. It's repair meanwhile would only be a matter of replacing the turret module with a new one, at the worst.

It is true that the larger height and sillhoute increases the chances of a hit, and therefore the chance of some damage or other to the tank - but in terms of potential critical damage, the chances of such a hit are still exactly the same as for the previous generation tanks.

The larger height also means that it would be a little harder for the tank to find cover; as such cover must be higher to be able to protect the tank effectively.

So overall; an increase in the likelyhood of a hit dealing non-critical damage to the tank, and an increase in the difficulty to find cover behind which the tank can take position and fire from.
Really, these aren't such significant trade-offs, when you consider the advantages that the T-14s design has enabled in return.

The US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office : Russian third generation Armata Tank Specifications

Large-scale deliveries of the new tanks and infantry vehicles are possible in 2017-2018. The advanced T-14
tank, a heavy infantry vehicle and an armored evacuation vehicle are being designed on the basis of Armata.

The tank’s main armament is the 2A82 125-mm smoothbore cannon, capable of firing high-powered munitions, including armor-piercing discarding sabot, guided missile, shaped-charge, and other types of munitions.

The composite multilayered passive armor protection of the T-14 tank is built with steel made by electroslag remelting and is combined with new composites to protect the T-14 against the most advanced modern weaponry. The T-14 also has the Afganit active protection complex, capable of intercepting shaped-charged grenades, antitank missiles, and subcaliber projectiles.

The Armata’s active defense deserves special discussion. In fact this is an individual anti-missile and anti-projectile tank defense system. It defends the vehicle from strikes, including those from the air. Thus, even the most modern Apache helicopter will not have a 100 percent chance of destroying a T-14 with its missiles. Active defense is situated along the entire perimeter of the turret at various levels, which ensures complete protection of the tank’s most important elements.

The crew of three men is located in an armored capsule in the forward portion of the hull of the Armata.

According to the specialists, the forward projection has multilayered, combined armor protection which can withstand a direct hit of any type of rounds which exist today, [including] sub-caliber and cumulative rounds. In addition, the forward hemisphere is covered with an active defense system which is also able to intercept any type of antitank munition, including sub-caliber rounds, something previously believed to be impossible in principle.

The central compartment, where the ammunition stores are located, is protected in such a manner that it is not even threatened by grenadiers who have taken cover in basements. The lower side hemispheres around the turret are shielded by counter-missiles.

The engine and the motor and transmission compartment are located in the rear of the hull. The diesel is domestically manufactured and it has a rather unconventional construction. The published power is not less than 1,500 HP.
The hull is extended and it has seven drive wheels, which speaks to the fact that the tank is of an enhanced weight, possibly about 50 tons.

The combat information and control systems are constructed using modern digital technologies and domestically manufactured solid-state basic elements. The probability of hitting the target with the first shot is close to 100 percent. Constant monitoring of the status of vitally important elements is provided. This allows a possible malfunction to be predicted well before it occurs. This, in turn, significantly enhances the reliability and maintainability of the complex armored vehicle. The hull is amply provided with video cameras. They allow the crew to observe the situation all around the tank. If required, zooming can be switched on, and a distant object can be viewed in detail. Heat sensing and infrared viewing capabilities are also available under any weather conditions, day or night.

A video allegedly shows Russia’s brand new T-14 Armata tank. The Armata tank will be officially revealed to the public during the Victory Day parade on May 9.

It has the T-14's seven wheel design and 125mm extended length smoothbore gun.

20 Armata units have been manufactured and issued to troops for practical training.

Armata tanks have been included in Russia's 2015 defence order, with 2,300 to be ultimately deployed over several years.

It's right to say that the armata wheels are direct evolution of T-80 wheels? (or even simply T-80 ones)

By the way, someone can explain me the main difference between T-72/90 wheels, T-64 wheels and T-80 ones? I often read the T-80 has the "best"...


fantastic to see the tank retains the traditional integrated dozer blade!


By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.

cracker wrote:It's right to say that the armata wheels are direct evolution of T-80 wheels? (or even simply T-80 ones)
and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.

The 2A82 is will be "omnivorous". It will be able to use older types of ammunition. That's pretty much half the reason to keep using the 125mm, instead of a bigger gun.

yeah, seems logical, just wasn't sure....

and for my other questions?

cracker wrote:It's right to say that the armata wheels are direct evolution of T-80 wheels? (or even simply T-80 ones)

By the way, someone can explain me the main difference between T-72/90 wheels, T-64 wheels and T-80 ones? I often read the T-80 has the "best"...


fantastic to see the tank retains the traditional integrated dozer blade!


By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.

You may find it ridiculous or not but the decision and design to arm tanks with 23mm gatlins or 30mm high power cannon was made because of tanks piss poor capabilities in urban environments, where big cannons like 100/120 or 125mm have no elevation nor do they have rapid fire capability to engage infantry hiding in tall buildings which are just few meters away from the tank which can rain down RPG fire and destroy the tank where it is the weakest. The harsh environment of urban warfare has on several historical battles and occasions bound militaries to use non armored vehicles to do the dirty jobs like Shilka's or the Afghansky Shilka mod, which was suited with optical targeting system so it could aim at ground targets at close but also in far and burst them, it was later used in Grozny. It does not matter what tanks you use in urban warfare in an asymmetrical warfare be it T-55, M60, Leo1/2, M1, Chally2 or whatever, they are all shit in urban warefare, they lack armament and the necessary protection. The Armata T-14 with additional armament and higher protection than any tank before are good solution to that big problem, because urban warfare how unnecessary and stupid like it seems, there are cities that needs to be held under control otherwise you will lose more than just cities, you will lose the people who will feel left to die, you will lose territory, infrastructure, resources and political power.

cracker wrote:
By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.

a 30mm coax like the T-95's is definitely not senseless or useless. suddenly you now have weapon capable of efficiently defeating softskins and infantry and the need to carry HE shells for the MG just for those targets is alleviated, freeing up space for more anti-armor rounds for example.

but for AA gun/ commander's gun i think a kord is the maximum you can do- it would be slaved to commander's panoramic sight and i dont think a small mount would be able to contain recoil from even bigger weapons.

and yeah, 2a82(-1m?) is definitely backwards compatible.

Top down diagram of the glacis. It looks about right IMO.

Good job Zivo. Certain to have three men on board?

tanino wrote:Good job Zivo. Certain to have three men on board?

Yes, they enter over the commanders hatch.

So..from what's available..the dimension of Armata is as follows :

Length :8.6 m
Width : 3.5-3.78 m
Total Height : 2.5-2.8 m
Hull height from track base : 1.7 m

Are those figures acceptable. Anyway i'm going to make a 3D model of Armata (thus why i need dimensions). looks to be a nice project.

Stealthflanker wrote:So..from what's available..the dimension of Armata is as follows :

Length :8.6 m
Width : 3.5-3.78 m
Total Height : 2.5-2.8 m
Hull height from track base : 1.7 m

Are those figures acceptable. Anyway i'm going to make a 3D model of Armata (thus why i need dimensions). looks to be a nice project.

Well those dimensions are only correct when the 700mm wheels are correct otherwise with the 670mm wheels the dimensions would be.

length: ~ 8m
width no picture to compare
Turret height 810mm
Sensor height 570mm
Chassis height at hatch location 1,62m (but from pictures that is unlikely since all soldiers look almost smaller than the hull)

That would make the Armata 5-10cm taller than T-90's wind sensor height with Armata's TIS.

Werewolf wrote:

cracker wrote:It's right to say that the armata wheels are direct evolution of T-80 wheels? (or even simply T-80 ones)

By the way, someone can explain me the main difference between T-72/90 wheels, T-64 wheels and T-80 ones? I often read the T-80 has the "best"...


fantastic to see the tank retains the traditional integrated dozer blade!


By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.

You may find it ridiculous or not but the decision and design to arm tanks with 23mm gatlins or 30mm high power cannon was made because of tanks piss poor capabilities in urban environments, where big cannons like 100/120 or 125mm have no elevation nor do they have rapid fire capability to engage infantry hiding in tall buildings which are just few meters away from the tank which can rain down RPG fire and destroy the tank where it is the weakest. The harsh environment of urban warfare has on several historical battles and occasions bound militaries to use non armored vehicles to do the dirty jobs like Shilka's or the Afghansky Shilka mod, which was suited with optical targeting system so it could aim at ground targets at close but also in far and burst them, it was later used in Grozny. It does not matter what tanks you use in urban warfare in an asymmetrical warfare be it T-55, M60, Leo1/2, M1, Chally2 or whatever, they are all shit in urban warefare, they lack armament and the necessary protection. The Armata T-14 with additional armament and higher protection than any tank before are good solution to that big problem, because urban warfare how unnecessary and stupid like it seems, there are cities that needs to be held under control otherwise you will lose more than just cities, you will lose the people who will feel left to die, you will lose territory, infrastructure, resources and political power.

Tanks weren't so shit when used correctly in Secon Chechen war in Grozny or when siege of Baghdad. There are better platforms now, but for example Ukraine would be loosing BMPTs like they lost tanks.

cracker wrote:By the way.... what's the secondary armament? I can't believe all the crap about an upper 30mm canon, it would be senseless and useless.... overburdening... Can we say for sure it's a coaxial PKT and a classic top turret PKT? or is the top gun a KORD? I kinda wish they finaly make a 12.7 coax instead of the 7.62

and for the 2A82, and the autoloader... can they accept standard 2A46 ammo??? would be really shitty if not.

Hope you mean the multi-barrel cannon flanking the turret as seen on the model. I personally liked that cannon attachment as I believe such an armament can be used against anti-tank missiles provided there is sufficient devices to detect and track the ATGM.

When I see videos like the ones below of TOW flying towards the Syrian tanks I personally feel probably a multi-barrel cannon with few bursts could have stopped it. Maybe Armata cannon have such a role which could also save the cassettes of APS which then only need to be expended for the much faster moving projectiles.

Werewolf wrote:

Well those dimensions are only correct when the 700mm wheels are correct otherwise with the 670mm wheels the dimensions would be.

length: ~ 8m
width no picture to compare
Turret height 810mm
Sensor height 570mm
Chassis height at hatch location 1,62m (but from pictures that is unlikely since all soldiers look almost smaller than the hull)

That would make the Armata 5-10cm taller than T-90's wind sensor height with Armata's TIS.

In short i'll have to work on it myself. time to dig info on 2A82's gun dimension. I think if the total barrel diameter is known (It's larger than the bore of course) We can use it as better reference

Dima wrote:
Hope you mean the multi-barrel cannon flanking the turret as seen on the model. I personally liked that cannon attachment as I believe such an armament can be used against anti-tank missiles provided there is sufficient devices to detect and track the ATGM.

When I see videos like the ones below of TOW flying towards the Syrian tanks I personally feel probably a multi-barrel cannon with few bursts could have stopped it. Maybe Armata cannon have such a role which could also save the cassettes of APS which then only need to be expended for the much faster moving projectiles.

The incentive of putting autocannon (30 mm and up) To a tank is basically a mean to "save ammo" The punching power of 30mm would be able to knock anything from wall till some IFV's. allowing main gun ammo to deal with much heavier target (say another tank or hardened bunker)

For intercepting missile however, that cannon is not sufficient first it will have limited coverage and second it will running out of ammo very quickly and third.. the 30 mm or less might be too small to house suitable proximity fuze. Anti tank missile is very small target, even smaller than anti ship missile, thus making it very difficult to hit properly with such autocannon.

More suitable weapon is basically another missile/rocket like what Drozd and Drozd II Use or a fragmentation "grenade" Like Arena. That would be able to provide necessary coverage and blast to take down missile attack.

Tanks weren't so shit when used correctly in Secon Chechen war in Grozny or when siege of Baghdad. There are better platforms now, but for example Ukraine would be loosing BMPTs like they lost tanks.

Well i didn't speak about tactics, but it should be clear that two different tanks with exact same tactics in exact same scenario the Armata would have much better chances to fight urban warfare effectively without the need of weakly armored APC/IFV and SPAAG's to enter cities where every building can have dozens of RPG's that must be a nightmare to fight in a tank not to mention when you are sitting in a paper thin IFV because the armor won't do shit when even a WW2 Bazooka hits you from any angle.

New video composition of possible interior of Armata in 3d.. and more..

My job (old infographics style, today ONLY HTM5 INTERACTIVE on WEB) for IVECO DEFENCE.
I'm waiting to collect data and images of the T-14. Then, if you want, I create interactive infographic and publish it on the forum?

https://servimg.com/view/19195865/1

as a collective project!

Ok?

ciao from Italy.

Interesting picture and article from Gur Khan blog - @Mindstorm have you any comments regarding height?

Im not sure but Kruganets height seems a bit off?!



LINK