[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

Wow, they are great. Hardly wait to see them fully uncovered. I wonder if T-15 IFV could swim?

Redboy wrote:https://imgur.com/hBUlVe5

Picture is kinda big, so i use imgur link. So what are your guesses? Some part of active protection system? Because it looks too small for smoke grenades, afterall you can see smoke nads on that picture too and it doesnt look same or if anyone has better idea, then tell us

The big tubes are the APS, the circled piece is likely a directional smoke grenade discharger. Systems like that can accurately put a grenade between the tank and the incoming missiles. Poor old FGM-148.

Redboy wrote:https://imgur.com/hBUlVe5

Picture is kinda big, so i use imgur link. So what are your guesses? Some part of active protection system? Because it looks too small for smoke grenades, afterall you can see smoke nads on that picture too and it doesnt look same or if anyone has better idea, then tell us

I think that small thing is the smoke grenades.

The APS munitions are the larger tubes ahead of it.

Zivo wrote:

Redboy wrote:https://imgur.com/hBUlVe5

Picture is kinda big, so i use imgur link. So what are your guesses? Some part of active protection system? Because it looks too small for smoke grenades, afterall you can see smoke nads on that picture too and it doesnt look same or if anyone has better idea, then tell us

The big tubes are the APS, the circled piece is likely a directional smoke grenade discharger. Systems like that can accurately put a grenade between the tank and the incoming missiles. Poor old FGM-148.

Your probably right, it makes sense for the bigger tubes to be APS because if 'Afghanistan' APS is supposed to work as advertised than it's going need a significant amount of explosive charge to defeat the best NATO APFSDS rounds that they can offer. The question is if 'Afghanistan' is supposed to be capable of defeating top attack munitions is the tarp covering up the vertically pointing APS dispensers?

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Your probably right, it makes sense for the bigger tubes to be APS because if 'Afghanistan' APS is supposed to work as advertised than it's going need a significant amount of explosive charge to defeat the best NATO APFSDS rounds that they can offer. The question is if 'Afghanistan' is supposed to be capable of defeating top attack munitions is the tarp covering up the vertically pointing APS dispensers?

No. The key parameter in "counter APFSDS" APS are miss distance and range not warhead weight.

500 grams of HE exploded 5 cm above the APFSDS could deflect it by 241 cm or over two meter, assuming interception range (Where the APS munition encounter the missile) of 100 m. Flying on top of the APFSDS... The explosion will deflect it straight to the ground thus won't hit the tank at all.

The explosion may also induce severe yaw to the APFSDS.. This is the mechanism employed by Israeli Iron Fist. Thus reducing penetration depth.

Anyway.. i did that calculation based on Journal of Impact engineering paper

_G_Iosilevskii;_N_Farber_--_Effect_of_a_spherical_explosion_upon_the_flight_path_and_spatial_orientation_of_a_projectile-1.pdf]Effects of spherical explosion upon flight path and spatial orientation of a projectile


In order to reach such miss distance, the APS must have high accuracy. This can be achieved by combination of IR and Radar sensor.

Guys....the footprint!
Video grab from the parade rehersal.



Compare the track length of the last T-90 in the above pic to that of Armata MBT in the middle in the below pic.



T-90 and Armata MBT have almost same footprints with T-14 slightly longer. Obvious reference being the concrete.

7 smaller close together wheels vs 6 bigger espaced wheels.

medo wrote:I wonder if T-15 IFV could swim?

The shape of the hull would suggest so, but weight and propulsion also need to be optimized... We'll see.

Redboy wrote:https://imgur.com/hBUlVe5

Picture is kinda big, so i use imgur link. So what are your guesses? Some part of active protection system? Because it looks too small for smoke grenades, afterall you can see smoke nads on that picture too and it doesnt look same or if anyone has better idea, then tell us

I think you have the two mixed up, i.e. solid box is radar, big tubes are kill munitions and the small cluster of tubes is smoke.

Mike E wrote:

medo wrote:I wonder if T-15 IFV could swim?

The shape of the hull would suggest so, but weight and propulsion also need to be optimized... We'll see.

No, tank-based IFV will not be amphibious. It will be interesting to see what, if any, provisions are made for deep-wading.

medo wrote:Wow, they are great. Hardly wait to see them fully uncovered. I wonder if T-15 IFV could swim?

It will swim the same day it will fly .

TR1 wrote:

medo wrote:Wow, they are great. Hardly wait to see them fully uncovered. I wonder if T-15 IFV could swim?

It will swim the same day it will fly .

It should have the ability to snorkle, right?

sepheronx wrote:

TR1 wrote:

medo wrote:Wow, they are great. Hardly wait to see them fully uncovered. I wonder if T-15 IFV could swim?

It will swim the same day it will fly .

It should have the ability to snorkle, right?

Yes, but only if Rogozin is propelling it by blowing hot air out of the vehicles rear.

Rogozin or not, the T-15 is a BEAST ....it looks better armoured than I imagined

not sure about T-15... ok it's great... but, usefulness? imho production should be small, must not waste too much money in that thing, K-25 is much more usefull.

2 urban fighting brigades maybe, for a total of 300 T-15, not more. Offered for export though, it might be very useful for many nations, but that won't be before 2020

cracker wrote:not sure about T-15... ok it's great... but, usefulness? imho production should be small, must not waste too much money in that thing, K-25 is much more usefull.

2 urban fighting brigades maybe, for a  total of 300 T-15, not more. Offered for export though, it might be very useful for many nations, but that won't be before 2020

An APC with the armor of a tank, that can go wherever the T-14 goes and use the same parts, fuel, etc. is less useful than K-25?

You cannot really compare the two, its not just invaluable in urban environments, it can roll right with the tanks on the battlefield and support them with it's own armament.

Remember that these are vehicle families that are meant to be able to meet all task required.

Urban fighting, capturing areas, combat engineering, recon etc.

If a situation requires a vehicle with the armor of a tank, then it makes sense to have your APC's equipped with similar armor specs.

A fighting force is only as strong as its weakest link, and when your weakest link has the same armor as the strongest one, well....

Don't worry, if You see it in flesh it means it has it's place in the system.
Glad to see Russia not sticking to size restrictions no more. APCs, IFVs and tank look huge compared to their predecessors. Kurganets-25 look awesome if You ask me. Side armor is pure sex!

I'm not convinced they are that huge.

BTR-90 was already a giant compared to BTR-80.

More APS tubes.

Seems like T-15 will be more similar to the Terminator rather than the 120mm gun model, isn't ?

higurashihougi wrote:Seems like T-15 will be more similar to the Terminator rather than the 120mm gun model, isn't ?

The T-15 is an IFV. It would need an under turret space free of the vehicles ammo to make way for some passengers, those ammo would then be stored instead in the turret bustle. The turret bustle however is really small compared to the under turret space- you cant have a combat appreciable amount of 120mm mortar rounds just storing them in the bustle. So Epoha with 30mm gun and Kornets it is.

Orocairion wrote:

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.

that's what I noticed too. I wonder if the gunner sits in the turret???

although at the same time the vision block right in the centre of the hull under the gun seems to indicate that the gunner (or commander) sits there...

sheytanelkebir wrote:

Orocairion wrote:

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.

that's what I noticed too. I wonder if the gunner sits in the turret???

although at the same time the vision block right in the centre of the hull under the gun seems to indicate that the gunner (or commander) sits there...

I guess that the turret can be manned, mainly for maintenance, reloading the carousel and and maybe also as blow off panel but i hope the carousel and turret are sperated and the blow off panels direct the cook offs somewhere else to avoid destruction of turret interior, but all crew should sit in the armored capsule.

collegeboy16 wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:Seems like T-15 will be more similar to the Terminator rather than the 120mm gun model, isn't ?

The T-15 is an IFV. It would need an under turret space free of the vehicles ammo to make way for some passengers, those ammo would then be stored instead in the turret bustle. The turret bustle however is really small compared to the under turret space- you cant have a combat appreciable amount of 120mm mortar rounds just storing them in the bustle. So Epoha with 30mm gun and Kornets it is.

Still 30 mm is extremely underwhelming for such a heavy IFV. Is there chance that this unarmored epoha EGT crap is only temporary. The T-15 asking for an armored unmanned 57mm turret right now.