[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

There's a picture of Kurganets parked next to a Kamaz Typhoon, and they're the same height, ~3m.

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

One of the reasons for going for T-80 style wheels is said to be weight saving. Apparently they're lighter compared to the T-72/T-90 wheels.

tanino wrote: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.

Looks good. It would be nice to share the T-14 one with us when it's ready.

A penetrating
hit on the turret of a T-90 would be fatal but in the case of the T-14 the crew would survive.

It would be only fatal if there are rounds stored in turret otherwise it is safer than most tanks.

It would be only fatal if there are rounds stored in turret otherwise it is safer than most tanks.

I think what he meant is that a hit to the turret on the T-90 could kill either of the two crew men in the turret if it hits them.

With T-14 there are no crew in the turret, so less threat of death or injury to crew...

Viktor wrote:Interesting picture and article from Gur Khan blog -
Im not sure but Kruganets height seems a bit off?!



LINK

Must've been based on this chart. Depicting hit distribution of tank in 1980's.

GarryB wrote:

It would be only fatal if there are rounds stored in turret otherwise it is safer than most tanks.

I think what he meant is that a hit to the turret on the T-90 could kill either of the two crew men in the turret if it hits them.

With T-14 there are no crew in the turret, so less threat of death or injury to crew...

I would think that they would design the whole-thing, so wheb time a round is loaded into the turret; the autoloader and ammo storage below it would be protected from any detonation that happens to occur at that moment, or if the round in the turret is directly hit and itself detonates.

The only scenario a turret-hit would be have a chance at destroying the tank and killing the crew would be a top-down hit or a hit at a high-angle. In which case the height of the tank would be irrelevant.

1st post !

I cant fully understand why, but I am incredibly excited about this new T-14 development, and waiting for May day this year is like waiting for XMas. Really looking forward to seeing the finished product.

Before too much more is known about the tank, here are my casual observations for what they are worth :

Defense :

1) On the defense, this tank is going to be absurdly effective against enemy armour. Fighting from a hull down position, at long range, it is going to be next to impossible to place a hit on the "turrent" (or whatever its appropriate to call in this case). Meanwhile, the Armata offers a stable platform for an auto-loading, BIG calibre, super high velocity, smoothbore, computer controlled monster of a gun. Attacking against dug-in Armatas will be suicide.

2) Attack helicopters have had an edge over armour for a few decades now. Not sure that is as true today. Add a 30mm autocannon + ballistic AA computer to the tanker, and I think its going to be a lot harder for helicopters and GA aircraft to overcome tanks on their own in the future battlefield.

Conclusion: In sufficient numbers, the Armata is an excellent deterrent to stop criminal regimes from encroaching any further on Russia.


In a protracted war :

1) Have to assume that the armata will offer the same excellent cross country performance and long range as the existing T-90. With this platform, you can do deep attacks in force, without the absurd logistics tail that NATO equipped forces need.

2) The IFV variant (which is all bundled in the design of the new platform), means that a shock group can be organised with the appropriate mix of tank, infantry and indirect fire support without compromising on armour protection. The ability to feed armoured infantry into the fight, right at the front line, is an important part of the Armata concept.

3) Love the engine ! A simple, no bullshit big bore diesel with a simple supercharger, compact design and interchangeable between platforms.

4) Firepower - nothing over the top, but more than good enough to get the job done, for a mix of different roles. Can use existing stockpiles of 125mm ammo.

5) Crew compartment. Hits on attacking Armatas are likely to be on the front hull. Those that penetrate will likely take out the crew capsule, which will contain the blast and save the gun platform, ammo and the engine. The brutal reality is that dropping in a replacement crew capsule gets you back in the fight quicker than trying to fix the gun. This is the pragmatic reality of tank warfare. If it takes 24 hours to put a 'destroyed' Aramta back in the fight with a new crew .... vs .... months of work to replace a Leopard-2 or M1 .... then guess which force is going to overcome the other pretty quickly in a real war ?


The Armata is another simple, rugged, and effective design by people who actually understand the real nature of warfare. The Armata is designed to win real wars.

MilSpec wrote:
The Armata is another simple, rugged, and effective design by people who actually understand the real nature of warfare. The Armata is designed to win real wars.

You got to be kidding me.
Every design is a mix of compromises and t14 is no exception. Of course, pluses of unmanned turret are increased space for ammunition racks, sensor modules. But there are drawbacks as well, larger weight, manual turret operations become impossible. Not to mention that t14 currently costs much more than, say, t90

Ugly as hell.. i really hope is not the way it will look in the end.

Stealthflanker wrote:

Viktor wrote:Interesting picture and article from Gur Khan blog -
Im not sure but Kruganets height seems a bit off?!



LINK

Must've been based on this chart. Depicting hit distribution of tank in 1980's.

This would mean a tank wouls be better low and long even if you spent some more materials. The lower profile would help a lot. Lets say that a penetrating rod has a tolerance of 50 cm so on a low profile tank would mean errors of targeting. Also most barrels of tanks cant move to hit to close ground trajectory. The barrels can move a lot up but not down.

Zivo wrote:

Why the hell will the turret be the bigger than the T-90 when the lack of crew in it was supposed to make it smaller?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Zivo wrote:

Why the hell will the turret be the bigger than  the T-90 when the lack of crew in it was supposed to make it smaller?

Well remember they have a wall between the ammo rack and the crew. In the T-90, the crew sitting on top of the ammo rack saves space.

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.

The wheels look identical to T-80 as far as I am concerned.
2A82 can 100% use back-dated ammo. Otherwise it would be pointless.

Soviet tank wheel sizes don't matter terribly- the suspension differences are more substantial however.
T-80 does seem to drive the smoothest, but it has to do with engine as well.

Brovich wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why the hell will the turret be the bigger than  the T-90 when the lack of crew in it was supposed to make it smaller?

Well remember they have a wall between the ammo rack and the crew. In the T-90, the crew sitting on top of the ammo rack saves space.

I believe that would pertain to the main chassis size, but turret size should not be related to that AFAIK.
Exactly what they need all the space for in this unmanned turret, and more particularly VERTICAL space (as opposed to wider/long but still low profile), I have no idea...
I see arguments why it doesn't matter so much that the turret is tall, etc, but all things considered, it seems an advantage to have as low profile a turret as possible if it isn't impeding any other design goals.

GarryB wrote:

Why the hell will the turret be the bigger than the T-90 when the lack of crew in it was supposed to make it smaller?

Why does it have to be small?

It has been argued that the M60 with its tall commanders cuppola gave the commander an excellent view of the battlefield... though it also exposed the position of the vehicle more readily too making it easier to see and easier to hit.

This vehicle will have no crew in the turret so it really doesn't matter if the turret gets hit. the worst that could happen is the gun is damaged and the vehicle has to retire from the battlefield for repairs. In comparison with a conventional tank where a hit could kill the gunner and commander I think that is acceptable.

It also should be pointed out that modern anti tank weapons are focused totally on penetration, so after effects like explosives are not generally used. APHE is not used because max penetration is needed and you get more penetration with APFSDS rounds. If an APHE round was used a large not very well protected turret could be penetrated and lots of damage to all sorts of bits inside a large turret could lead to serious problems. However with heavier sloped armour, an APFSDS round or a HEAT round will merely punch a hole clean through the turret... perhaps 50mm or 70mm in diameter depending on the weapon. Any object in the turret not in direct line of the penetration will be largely undamaged because there wont be any fuel or ammo in the turret to cause secondary damage.

With proper duplication of systems, and fire walls between important components even multiple hits will not be that much of a problem and all the time the enemy is wasting punching holes in your turret you can be firing back and marking the location of his assets for air and artillery attack.

While most HEAT warheads do little nail holes and rely totally on direct spall effect on crew/ammo to kill the tank, APFSDS on the other hand have monstruous internal damage effects, especially DU ones. That is, if they penetrate heavy armour (vs thin armour it makes a little hole and very few spalling)

cracker wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Why the hell will the turret be the bigger than the T-90 when the lack of crew in it was supposed to make it smaller?

Why does it have to be small?

It has been argued that the M60 with its tall commanders cuppola gave the commander an excellent view of the battlefield... though it also exposed the position of the vehicle more readily too making it easier to see and easier to hit.

This vehicle will have no crew in the turret so it really doesn't matter if the turret gets hit. the worst that could happen is the gun is damaged and the vehicle has to retire from the battlefield for repairs. In comparison with a conventional tank where a hit could kill the gunner and commander I think that is acceptable.

It also should be pointed out that modern anti tank weapons are focused totally on penetration, so after effects like explosives are not generally used. APHE is not used because max penetration is needed and you get more penetration with APFSDS rounds. If an APHE round was used a large not very well protected turret could be penetrated and lots of damage to all sorts of bits inside a large turret could lead to serious problems. However with heavier sloped armour, an APFSDS round or a HEAT round will merely punch a hole clean through the turret... perhaps 50mm or 70mm in diameter depending on the weapon. Any object in the turret not in direct line of the penetration will be largely undamaged because there wont be any fuel or ammo in the turret to cause secondary damage.

With proper duplication of systems, and fire walls between important components even multiple hits will not be that much of a problem and all the time the enemy is wasting punching holes in your turret you can be firing back and marking the location of his assets for air and artillery attack.

While most HEAT warheads do little nail holes and rely totally on direct spall effect on crew/ammo to kill the tank, APFSDS on the other hand have monstruous internal damage effects, especially DU ones. That is, if they penetrate heavy armour (vs thin armour it makes a little hole and very few spalling)

Actually APFSDS rounds spall by themselfs, especially DU rounds which under high pressure and temperature the spalling ignites and is also very toxic and crew will die even days/weeks after inhalation of it.

nothing new on the T-14, photos, anything?

{quote]Anyway, i wonder if Russian have any interest toward adjustable suspension. [/quote]

I seem to remember they talked about active suspension and smart transmissions in the early phase of development...

While most HEAT warheads do little nail holes and rely totally on direct spall effect on crew/ammo to kill the tank, APFSDS on the other hand have monstruous internal damage effects, especially DU ones. That is, if they penetrate heavy armour (vs thin armour it makes a little hole and very few spalling)

The effects are actually rather similar, though with a DU APFSDS round there will be highly genotoxic DU dust that would have serious long term negative reproductive and other health effects on human crew nearby that is not so important for an unmanned turret, though it will have serious implications for the clean up crew.

As I mentioned, both HEAT and APFSDS are optimised to penetrate as much armour as possible and because of this they punch fairly small holes in armour. Spall is basically the shattered armour of the vehicle itself but modern tanks have anti spall liners so the spall will be limited to the armour material penetrated by the penetrator. DU reacts with steel in a similar way to magnesium reacting with oxygen, but how much of the turret armour will be plain steel and how much will be plastic/composite and other materials... and as I said internal components could have their own protection with areas walled off to prevent large areas of damage.

Actually APFSDS rounds spall by themselfs, especially DU rounds which under high pressure and temperature the spalling ignites and is also very toxic and crew will die even days/weeks after inhalation of it.

There was a myth that a HEAT round hit on a tank would super heat the inside of the tank to thousands of degrees and all the crew will be killed because their lungs will be filled with fluid and the huge increase in pressure would kill them all.

In the real world armour penetrations of HEAT and APFSDS rounds that do not hit fuel or ammo tend to make small holes and damage permanently anything they hit. In a US tank with four crew there is a good chance a crewman could get hit and seriously injured but killing the whole crew instantly only happens with secondary explosions of fuel and/or ammo.

Western tanks aren't super armoured... they just separate the fuel and ammo from the crew compartment... which means the anti tank rounds have to actually hit crew to kill or injure them.

Finally a good pic of Burlak.

No one tell Werewofl, those stupid Russians went for a bustle .

Can you compare how Indian T-72/80 faired against Pakistan . I guess they never used abrams against indians .

TR1 wrote:
Finally a good pic of Burlak.

No one tell Werewofl, those stupid Russians went for a bustle .

This is nice.. Thanks.

Anyway is that a full fledged bustle with Autoloader ? Or just like T-90MS Bustle where it only store rounds.


how many ammo it can carry :3 ?

Zivo wrote:

I think Russian will use single piece ammo for Armata.