[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

The rounded box on the top right of the turret is shaped like the independently aimed smoke launcher on the T-15. I'm certain that's what it is.

Question: a powerfull elsctromagnet coulx deviate a spike projectile? Although i know thsy are made from uranium.

Maibe a sistem like the mouse trap would work against spikes.

victor1985 wrote:Maibe a sistem like the mouse trap would work against spikes.

Lol...no it wouldn't the momentum would break the tank not the APFSDS.

it's sure that the boxes at the rear of T-14 are APU? one of them at least... what is the other one? Rear armour seems very weak, like 50mm steel...

cracker wrote:it's sure that the boxes at the rear of T-14 are APU? one of them at least... what is the other one?  Rear armour seems very weak, like 50mm steel...

This is probably the APU.

The boxes could be fuel, storage, maybe a battery compartment. The left box has a small hatch. There's likely USB ports and other digital connection points to interface with localized infantry and other diagnostics crap. That's my guess.

Zivo wrote:The rounded box on the top right of the turret is shaped like the independently aimed smoke launcher on the T-15. I'm certain that's what it is.

You mean this ?



I think you're right. I would imagine they've got the same systems

Cyberspec wrote:

Zivo wrote:The rounded box on the top right of the turret is shaped like the independently aimed smoke launcher on the T-15. I'm certain that's what it is.

You mean this ?



I think you're right. I would imagine they've got the same systems

Affirmative.

victor1985 wrote:Question: a powerfull elsctromagnet coulx deviate a spike projectile? Although i know thsy are made from uranium.

No so far.

The most practical means available today is using high explosive, detonated on top of the projectile to deflect it to the ground.

I

user interface should be in the visor as augmented reality with short range radio transmitters inside the crew compartment, when crew are outside short range transmitters can still feed the data into their visor. a series of cameras on the outside should give the crews 360 degree visibility, and there should be 2 machine guns / grenade launchers that can be slaved to the sight of a crew member on a need basis for close in fire support.

imagine just looking around inside the tank and see the entire world on the outside. shout "grenade launcher" and the independent grenade launcher is slaved to your head movement and shout fire (or press on a button to get it to shoot at whatever you look at.

That's how it should work! same system can be installed on IFVs for example, and even on UGVs with directional laser control.

I agree, and I suspect... looking at the EO ports on the Ka-52 and Mi-28N that they will also have a virtual external view for the pilot to enable an excellent unobstructed view of around the vehicle...

Remember the three crew positions in all the new vehicles is unified... so one position could be for the gunner, the commander, or the driver... they can actually change roles without changing seats, so full external virtual view for all three crew positions is likely... and that is for all vehicles.

What do You think, why there is a gap there and why it's not filled?

That area... is mostly armour from the side... if you consider the front and top will be 30cm thick or more, there is likely a piece of NERA not yet fitted.

The rounded box on the top right of the turret is shaped like the independently aimed smoke launcher on the T-15. I'm certain that's what it is.

Or it could be the commanders panoramic sight with remote weapons mounts to allow the commander to engage targets rapidly as they appear....

Question: a powerfull elsctromagnet coulx deviate a spike projectile? Although i know thsy are made from uranium.

Likely not rapidly enough to have a serious effect on its performance.

[qote]it's sure that the boxes at the rear of T-14 are APU? one of them at least... what is the other one? Rear armour seems very weak, like 50mm steel...[/quote]

50mm would stop HMG fire... which would make it as strong as the armour fitted to any other MBT.

This is probably the APU.

The engine of the Armata is X shaped and likely has two exhausts...

An APU might use one or both of those exhausts as well of course.

kvs wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Question: a powerfull elsctromagnet coulx deviate a spike projectile? Although i know thsy are made from uranium.

This is the mythical magnetic shield.   The problem is that the magnetic field cannot be configured dynamically to have the
geometry to protect from an incoming metal projectile.   The projectile will develop a strong magnetic field itself so there
will be attraction and not just repulsion for any initial configuration of the defense "magnetic force field".  

This article implies a solution is possible:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7487740/Star-Trek-style-force-field-armour-being-developed-by-military-scientists.html

I will have to see it to believe it.   It will never be as effective as in sci-fi.

I think the Telegraph has heard of one of the Russian electromagnetic or electrical armor technologies and then has characteristically got confused about the technology and has falsely credited their confused version to the "Defence Science and Technology Laboratory".

"andrei_bt" has a lot of information about electromagnetic and electrical armor technologies, by the way.

Is it true the current gun on the shown T-14s is a mockup. If it isn't the gun itself looks quite tiny compared to large size of the platform. However I do hope the 2A82 is actually longer than the 2A46. Being 125/51 like the ZTZ-99 is IMO optimal.

I don't know of it's posted already and I apologise if it is but I found a pretty nice video realistically showing the T-14 component layout piece by piece based on what we know so far. It also shows the armata chassis can hydraulically elevate just like the BMD. Will this offer a significant advantage for a nonairborne vehicle?

Is it true as according to the schematic that the bustle will hold shells for the main gun? If yes then it's dissapointing because it disproves that the T-14 will have an autocannon.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I don't know of it's posted already and I apologise if it is but I found a pretty nice video realistically showing the T-14 component layout piece by piece based on what we know so far. It also shows the armata chassis can hydraulically elevate just like the BMD. Will this offer a significant advantage for a nonairborne vehicle?

Is it true as according to the schematic that the bustle will hold shells for the main gun? If yes then it's dissapointing because it disproves that the T-14 will have an autocannon.

Apprently someone compiled it into video.

You can actually see those images at Otvaga forum. Anyway it's a mere speculations, nothing so far available at T-14's autoloader layout or turret designs.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is it true the current gun on the shown T-14s is a mockup. If it isn't the gun itself looks quite tiny compared to large size of the platform. However I do hope the 2A82 is actually longer than the 2A46. Being 125/51 like the ZTZ-99 is IMO optimal.

except that your vanilla 2a46 is already 125/48. i doubt youd get any noticeable performance increase with addition of mere 3 calibre lengths.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I don't know of it's posted already and I apologise if it is but I found a pretty nice video realistically showing the T-14 component layout piece by piece based on what we know so far. It also shows the armata chassis can hydraulically elevate just like the BMD. Will this offer a significant advantage for a nonairborne vehicle?

i dont see the need for it act like a lowrider - and i think theyd prefer not to indulge in expensive trivialties, or any at all.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Is it true as according to the schematic that the bustle will hold shells for the main gun? If yes then it's dissapointing because it disproves that the T-14 will have an autocannon.

well the turret is still under (literal) wraps so we must take this as just another speculation, same as an autocannon. not to mention it has a lot of wrongs init - namely the 3 hatches.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I don't know of it's posted already and I apologise if it is but I found a pretty nice video realistically showing the T-14 component layout piece by piece based on what we know so far. It also shows the armata chassis can hydraulically elevate just like the BMD. Will this offer a significant advantage for a nonairborne vehicle?

Is it true as according to the schematic that the bustle will hold shells for the main gun? If yes then it's dissapointing because it disproves that the T-14 will have an autocannon.

How does it disprove that the T-14 will have an unmanned turret with self-loading mechanism?

GarryB wrote:

Or it could be the commanders panoramic sight with remote weapons mounts to allow the commander to engage targets rapidly as they appear....

Smoke grenade dispenser in red, RWS in yellow.





There's going to be very few tailor made pieces, it's all going to be mass produced and simply bolted-on.

Maybe...

Did you do that photoshop? Seems like a reasonable guess

Cyberspec wrote:Did you do that photoshop? Seems like a reasonable guess

No, from otvaga. But if I were to make a speculative rendering, it would look similar, but mine would have APS tubes around the turret ring with panoramic cameras just above the tubes.

Werewolf wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Maibe a sistem like the mouse trap would work against spikes.

Lol...no it wouldn't the momentum would break the tank not the APFSDS.

Point was that the apfsds maibe would be deviated. Ofcourse depend of the speedbof mouse trap. Also notice that speed convert to mass so a mouse trap that move whit 1 meter per 0,01 second will deviate the apfsds

Smoke grenade dispenser in red, RWS in yellow.

Is it a coincidence that the smoke grenade dispenser you mark in red seems to be elevated to the same angle as the main gun... could it be a gunners sight that is coaxially mounted with the main gun to allow shots at aerial targets?

I would agree that the yellow marked item is likely a combined pano sight and RWS though.

Is it true as according to the schematic that the bustle will hold shells for the main gun? If yes then it's dissapointing because it disproves that the T-14 will have an autocannon.

If they rejected the Burlak upgrade of the T-90 because turret bustle main gun ammo stored above the turret ring is too vulnerable to enemy fire... why would they store ammo in the armata above the turret ring exposed to enemy fire?

That video proves nothing... I could have made it and put laser cannons on it... Russia Strong

GarryB wrote:

Smoke grenade dispenser in red, RWS in yellow.

Is it a coincidence that the smoke grenade dispenser you mark in red seems to be elevated to the same angle as the main gun... could it be a gunners sight that is coaxially mounted with the main gun to allow shots at aerial targets?

I would agree that the yellow marked item is likely a combined pano sight and RWS though.

Is it true as according to the schematic that the bustle will hold shells for the main gun? If yes then it's dissapointing because it disproves that the T-14 will have an autocannon.

If they rejected the Burlak upgrade of the T-90 because turret bustle main gun ammo stored above the turret ring is too vulnerable to enemy fire... why would they store ammo in the armata above the turret ring exposed to enemy fire?

That video proves nothing... I could have made it and put laser cannons on it... Russia Strong

Because from the little scale models of Armata turret compared to the very slim turret shape and the ammunition/storage bustle on several pictures and videos seems far to slim. So my assumption and some others do, that the ammunition bustle like turret lacks applique armor NERA and ERA similiar to chinese ZTZ-99A2.