[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

Lol... The PL01 is the greatest joke of recent military developpements. "STEALTH TONK, INVISIBLE TONK, POLAND CAN INTO SPACE!" A light tank as heavy as a MBT and as useless as tits on a fish... but well, it's drak grey, looks futuristic, so, it must be kewl and better than shitty russian machines.



The turret looks really weird...... no obvious gun anywhere










Who can say which is better gets a cookie.

[quote="cracker"

The turret looks really weird...... no obvious gun anywhere



[/quote]


Not only the turret ..but the body too..  probably is not final the design.

IF they leave the sides uncovered ,then it will be a nightmare to do mainteinnance
to the tank.. dust and dirt will get inside the tank protection in the not covered zones.. It have to be just a demo and not the final armor ,. hopefully.

The K2 panther gets my vote for the most elaborated design.  

The turret looks really weird...... no obvious gun anywhere  

It's Epoha-lite, the 2A42 is recessed a bit. You can see the muzzle poking the tarp just above the commander's head.

IF they leave the sides uncovered ,then it will be a nightmare to do mainteinnance
to the tank.. dust and dirt will get inside the tank protection in the not covered zones.. It have to be just a demo and not the final armor ,. hopefully.

You can clearly see the mounting brackets. Those heavy skirts will run all the way to the front once they're delivered and installed.

What's so elaborated about the K2 tank vs the T-14? the skirts look like basic sheet metal.

kvs wrote:

xeno wrote:

The wheels look to be the same size, i.e. 700 mm.   So the T-14 is large.

Absolutely not.

All the photos so far make it very evident the Koalition has standard T-72/90 sized wheels, while the Armata's are suspiciously identical looking to the T-80.

I can't read Russian... is this a BMPT or BMP ?

higurashihougi wrote:I can't read Russian... is this a BMPT or BMP ?

"Heavy tracked unified platform" according to the text

TR1 wrote:Goddamit. I had a long response typed out but my browser reloaded.

Suffice it to say, we are going in circles.

The Abrams is safer from insurgency type RPG fire in most scenarios, because of crew isolation from ammo.
That is obvious, and all there is to it.

However, in the interests of the discussion I will retype my response tonight.

Still waiting for your reply to the points that were addressed prior.

Sputniknews in Portuguese publishes full foto of T-14 Armata tanks

Werewolf wrote:

TR1 wrote:Goddamit. I had a long response typed out but my browser reloaded.

Suffice it to say, we are going in circles.

The Abrams is safer from insurgency type RPG fire in most scenarios, because of crew isolation from ammo.
That is obvious, and all there is to it.

However, in the interests of the discussion I will retype my response tonight.

Still waiting for your reply to the points that were addressed prior.

Don't worry, have not forgotten.

T-15 Armata IFV with full side armour:


And one of T-14:

T-14 turret seems to have large frontal panels. I wonder if those are add on armor.

Wow.

T-15 is straight up a mobile bunker.

Serious attention to the engine bay too.

ult wrote:

I got an orgasm.

ult wrote:

Is it just me or are those tarps getting tighter and tighter the closer we get to May 9th? Armata-chan is such a tease.

The tighter, the better. We can judge by its shape to know its turret is not some big and clumsy thing...

So Armata chassis has two crew ? I read it was 3 crew and I dont see the hatch for 3rd crew

kvs wrote:

xeno wrote:

The wheels look to be the same size, i.e. 700 mm.   So the T-14 is large.

T-14 is larger than T-90, but I don't think it could be that much larger and in the size of Abrams. The 7 wheels are generally giving it a feel that its one huge beast than the T-90s and without a proper comparative pic, size could be deceptive. Regarding the wheel arrangement as such, do note that five wheels starting from the rear are of equal spacing where as the front two have slightly larger spacing between them and from the rest five. Similar case can be seen on the T-55MV6 upgrade and it suggests a hull extension to the front hull of Armata MBT for the crew with comparatively limited or smaller (than expected) hull extension at the rear, compared to the T-90, if we take the turret ring as the center reference.

I think if the guys wanted they could have kept a 6-wheel arrangement with larger wheel and filled the wheel bays like the T-90. But I feel they chose the 7-wheel arrangement due to the fact of increased weight and wanted to distribute the weight to an additional torsion bar.  

Also, 2S35 has a different hull from 2S19/M/M2 and it does have a different engine, probably V-92S2F so hull extension at the rear end may not be there. Another thing to factor in is that SPH doesn't have the mobility needs of an MBT and probably the reason it sticks with that 6-wheel setup. JMHT.

^^ Beautiful pictures of the Beast!

Austin wrote:So Armata chassis has two crew ? I read it was 3 crew and I dont see the hatch for 3rd crew

Its has to be 3 crew. Most likely driver and gunner share one hatch. From the pics it looks like driver sits on the left side with his scope in the centre between the two hatches.

Austin wrote:So Armata chassis has two crew ? I read it was 3 crew and I dont see the hatch for 3rd crew

On top of the tarp that covers the turret, there seems to be a hatch, judging by the bit that can be removed on it.

Another T-14 pic: