[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

Mike E wrote:Vann... My gosh man... 

Tanks are NOT about how they look, at ALL. It is completely un-relevant to how will they perform in battle. 

"Fluidity in design" means nothing.

THe turret also looks really fragile.. is not only looks..  how is the T-14 turret going to survive
a direct hit of a sabot round with such small turret with holes and spaces? it looks like the
turret was not made to survive a tank direct hit..  anyway enough of rant.. just a little disappointed with the design decisions of the tank.

@KoTeMoRe

Indeed the israeli monster looks terrible.. but Russia doesn't need to imitate the worse
but the best.. that is France And South Korea... Russia did it more or less right with their light armored hardware but not sure really what happened with the tank.

Khepesh wrote:

mack8 wrote:Sorry if i missed the discussion if it  happened earlier, but what do you think the large aperture next to the cannon on the left is for? Maybe a coaxial cannon that was not ready yet? Optronics/electronics?

IMO it is gunner's sight as nothing else is visible to be a sight or mounting for a sight, except for commanders panoramic. BUT, I cannot see why such a large hole is made in the front of the turret when it is better for the sight to protude from turret roof. There are a lot of rivets on the front turret roof which also do not make sense, at the moment.

I was wondering the same thing, rivets everywhere. my guess is that like someone else said, potential for a ton of add on armor.

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Vann... My gosh man... 

Tanks are NOT about how they look, at ALL. It is completely un-relevant to how will they perform in battle. 

"Fluidity in design" means nothing.

THe turret also looks really fragile.. is not only looks..  how is the T-14 turret going to survive
a direct hit of a sabot round with such small turret with holes and spaces? it looks like the
turret was not made to survive a tank direct hit..  anyway enough of rant.. just a little disappointed with the design decisions of the tank.

Actually the turret looks very good, it will be up-armored with a full suite of either applique armour or downright ERA array. This is what makes me like this tank, the design is one of prospective combat, drop in turret with several levels of up-armouring. Nevermind this tank is going to evolve, so far it is being a real technology show with Russia mustering they're not behind, at all when it comes to fielding up to date technologies.

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Vann... My gosh man... 

Tanks are NOT about how they look, at ALL. It is completely un-relevant to how will they perform in battle. 

"Fluidity in design" means nothing.

THe turret also looks really fragile.. is not only looks..  how is the T-14 turret going to survive
a direct hit of a sabot round with such small turret with holes and spaces? it looks like the
turret was not made to survive a tank direct hit..  anyway enough of rant.. just a little disappointed with the design decisions of the tank.

@KoTeMoRe

Indeed the israeli monster looks terrible.. but Russia doesn't need to imitate the worse
but the best.. that is France And South Korea... they did it with their light armored hardware
but not sure really what happened with the tank.

The best? Since when has the ROK or France faced and defeated ATGM's like the Kornet. Iz has at least in 4 different cases with its trophy system. The BAZ (Merkava 4 for you heathens) has shown its worth and this tank critically looks like the early Merk 1 in its doctrine. Save the crew at all costs.

Furthermore as I said, the AMX 56 is very compact, a penetrating hit has more chance to hit a critical component hull and turret, while the T-14 so far looks like a really modular concept with a drop in turret with all kinds of toys, 125, 152, Epoha-heavy it really looks like the bizines..

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Vann... My gosh man... 

Tanks are NOT about how they look, at ALL. It is completely un-relevant to how will they perform in battle. 

"Fluidity in design" means nothing.

THe turret also looks really fragile.. is not only looks..  how is the T-14 turret going to survive
a direct hit of a sabot round with such small turret with holes and spaces? it looks like the
turret was not made to survive a tank direct hit..  anyway enough of rant.. just a little disappointed with the design decisions of the tank.

Actually the turret looks very good, it will be up-armored with a full suite of either applique armour or downright ERA array. This is what makes me like this tank, the design is one of prospective combat, drop in turret with several levels of up-armouring. Nevermind this tank is going to evolve, so far it is being a real technology show with Russia mustering they're not behind, at all when it comes to fielding up to date technologies.

The armata tank turret looks good ,yes.. even stealthy ..but also looks very fragile too ,because is tiny ,have holes and spaces and seems like sheet armor covers the turret ,and this is my major complain.. weak turret .

the body looks ok but with very bad ergonomics.. ie.. the extended grill , dangerous for people near when tank in motion. So if i had to choose one..ill prefer they make a more stronger turret.. like western latest tanks.

kvs wrote:

ult wrote:

Some people call the turret ugly.  I have no idea what they have been seeing in any tank since their inception.
Fluidity?  What fluidity and based on which existing tank?   This unmanned turret looks wicked cool.  It is not too
small and not too big.   It puts to shame those oversized monstrosities such as:







They must be party room turrets with a mirror ball hanging from the ceiling.

As for assembly quality, I would hold off on such evaluations.  The turret looks like it is covered in a layer of
plates (start from where the cannon protrudes from the turret).

Yep that's why I think this turret is just for the Parade and at least two other turrets will be available for this tank.

Vann7 wrote:

The armata tank turret looks good ,yes.. even stealthy ..but also looks very fragile too ,because is tiny ,have holes and spaces and seems like sheet armor covers the turret ,and this is my major complain.. weak turret .

the  body looks ok but with very bad ergonomics.. ie.. the extended grill , dangerous for people near when tank in motion.  So if i had to choose one..ill prefer they make a more stronger turret.. like western latest tanks.

The idea was probably to make the turret nearly invisible to the enemy from far away. The body is much bigger compared to the turret and it's also the most reinforced part of the tank, designed to take heavy hits.

Thanks for input guys.

Looking at the high-rez pics, it does indeed seems that the turret is not "complete", f.e the device (radar or something else, i'm afraid i'm not very knowledgeable about all this tank stuff) that has exposed wires around it, surely that's not how it's supposed to be.

Also let's recall that it's been stated they will initially build and use about 100 of these (actually 100 of each new type i think wasn't it?) for field trials, and THEN launch full scale production, so there may well be important changes. Still, exciting times.

Vann7 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Vann... My gosh man... 

Tanks are NOT about how they look, at ALL. It is completely un-relevant to how will they perform in battle. 

"Fluidity in design" means nothing.

THe turret also looks really fragile.. is not only looks..  how is the T-14 turret going to survive
a direct hit of a sabot round with such small turret with holes and spaces? it looks like the
turret was not made to survive a tank direct hit..  anyway enough of rant.. just a little disappointed with the design decisions of the tank.

Actually the turret looks very good, it will be up-armored with a full suite of either applique armour or downright ERA array. This is what makes me like this tank, the design is one of prospective combat, drop in turret with several levels of up-armouring. Nevermind this tank is going to evolve, so far it is being a real technology show with Russia mustering they're not behind, at all when it comes to fielding up to date technologies.

The armata tank turret looks good ,yes.. even stealthy ..but also looks very fragile too ,because is tiny ,have holes and spaces and seems like sheet armor covers the turret ,and this is my major complain.. weak turret .

the  body looks ok but with very bad ergonomics.. ie.. the extended grill , dangerous for people near when tank in motion.  So if i had to choose one..ill prefer they make a more stronger turret.. like western latest tanks.

Armata turret doesn't have crew inside. It have armor around gun, ammunition and vital parts, but why to place armor to protect empty space and increase weight, where it is not needed? Those tinner plates just make a shape of turret and maybe help to reduce thermal and radar picture, but protect nothing.

Vann7 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Vann... My gosh man... 

Tanks are NOT about how they look, at ALL. It is completely un-relevant to how will they perform in battle. 

"Fluidity in design" means nothing.

THe turret also looks really fragile.. is not only looks..  how is the T-14 turret going to survive
a direct hit of a sabot round with such small turret with holes and spaces? it looks like the
turret was not made to survive a tank direct hit..  anyway enough of rant.. just a little disappointed with the design decisions of the tank.

Actually the turret looks very good, it will be up-armored with a full suite of either applique armour or downright ERA array. This is what makes me like this tank, the design is one of prospective combat, drop in turret with several levels of up-armouring. Nevermind this tank is going to evolve, so far it is being a real technology show with Russia mustering they're not behind, at all when it comes to fielding up to date technologies.

The armata tank turret looks good ,yes.. even stealthy ..but also looks very fragile too ,because is tiny ,have holes and spaces and seems like sheet armor covers the turret ,and this is my major complain.. weak turret .

the  body looks ok but with very bad ergonomics.. ie.. the extended grill , dangerous for people near when tank in motion.  So if i had to choose one..ill prefer they make a more stronger turret.. like western latest tanks.

How is that bad ergonomics...I guess Krauss Maffei would like to have a talk with you, as well as the Canadians and Americans.The Slats are a cheap solution to the engine bay and exhaust area issue. There will be no people nearby those Slats when shit will hit the fan. NONE. That would the the task of the T-15, furthermore, we don't know how "weak" the turret is...we just don't. The turret seems to be a technology demonstrator so far. Current western tanks have 'strong' turrets because they serve a purpose, keeping the people INSIDE the turret alive.

Everything else is exposed, leading to a greater risk for the tank itself, you can shoot every optronic bit out of the LEO 2, Abrams and AMX 56 with a simple Autocanon. Then what? You have a very expensive bunker on tracks...

medo wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Vann... My gosh man... 

Tanks are NOT about how they look, at ALL. It is completely un-relevant to how will they perform in battle. 

"Fluidity in design" means nothing.

THe turret also looks really fragile.. is not only looks..  how is the T-14 turret going to survive
a direct hit of a sabot round with such small turret with holes and spaces? it looks like the
turret was not made to survive a tank direct hit..  anyway enough of rant.. just a little disappointed with the design decisions of the tank.

Actually the turret looks very good, it will be up-armored with a full suite of either applique armour or downright ERA array. This is what makes me like this tank, the design is one of prospective combat, drop in turret with several levels of up-armouring. Nevermind this tank is going to evolve, so far it is being a real technology show with Russia mustering they're not behind, at all when it comes to fielding up to date technologies.

The armata tank turret looks good ,yes.. even stealthy ..but also looks very fragile too ,because is tiny ,have holes and spaces and seems like sheet armor covers the turret ,and this is my major complain.. weak turret .

the  body looks ok but with very bad ergonomics.. ie.. the extended grill , dangerous for people near when tank in motion.  So if i had to choose one..ill prefer they make a more stronger turret.. like western latest tanks.

Armata turret doesn't have crew inside. It have armor around gun, ammunition and vital parts, but why to place armor to protect empty space and increase weight, where it is not needed? Those tinner plates just make a shape of turret and maybe help to reduce thermal and radar picture, but protect nothing.

You will need extra armour (roughly 2 more tons) to ensure the frontal arc of the turret isn't butter to a cutter. I agree that for most logical threats (bar Tank on tank engagements) the T-14 has it all, APS, radar etc, but when it will come down to taking out another tank, the goal will be to be able to take a hit and survive.

So there will be a heavier turret, that's for sure.

Neutrality wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

The armata tank turret looks good ,yes.. even stealthy ..but also looks very fragile too ,because is tiny ,have holes and spaces and seems like sheet armor covers the turret ,and this is my major complain.. weak turret .

the  body looks ok but with very bad ergonomics.. ie.. the extended grill , dangerous for people near when tank in motion.  So if i had to choose one..ill prefer they make a more stronger turret.. like western latest tanks.

The idea was probably to make the turret nearly invisible to the enemy from far away. The body is much bigger compared to the turret and it's also the most reinforced part of the tank, designed to take heavy hits.

What i would like to hear from the tank designers.. confirmation that the turret was made to survive direct hits of western Sabot rounds.. That the tank will work and gun continue firing
if hit by one sabot round.. and not depends on APS for its survival.  

that they did not sacrifice the tank turret durability for a stronger body and survival of people.  
That will be an imbalanced tank.. For me tanks needs to be balanced and not only protect people but also the tank too.. because practically speaking people can be easily replaced but
a destroyed tank not.

I know it is an unfair comparison, that technology and the world has moved on, but ever since the 34 we have not had an ugly tank. Any new tank will be compared to what went before in the first instance, then compared against the opposition. Against NATO tanks T-14 looks better, more futuristic, but against the 34 on aesthetic grounds, no.

So what are the final specs of Armata T-14 tanks ? the official numbers in protection and
how it works..everything that there is to know..all those things already released?

Vann7 wrote:THe turret also looks really fragile.. is not only looks..  how is the T-14 turret going to survive
a direct hit of a sabot round with such small turret with holes and spaces? it looks like the
turret was not made to survive a tank direct hit..  anyway enough of rant.. just a little disappointed with the design decisions of the tank.

So what you're saying is.... It looks fragile, and as such it is fragile, but it isn't based off of looks.... What? 

I agree with KoT that it actually looks well armored.... And it is modular.

The best? Since when has the ROK or France faced and defeated ATGM's like the Kornet. Iz has at least in 4 different cases with its trophy system. The BAZ (Merkava 4 for you heathens) has shown its worth and this tank critically looks like the early Merk 1 in its doctrine. Save the crew at all costs.

Furthermore as I said, the AMX 56 is very compact, a penetrating hit has more chance to hit a critical component hull and turret, while the T-14 so far looks like a really modular concept with a drop in turret with all kinds of toys, 125, 152, Epoha-heavy it really looks like the bizines..

Right now i do expect the same like others do, while Kurganetz has 360° covering Radars the Armata right now has not, so i guess they will make it happen later, along that the turret seems like to be upgraded anyway. The job of a tank is to fullfil its duties and an unarmored turret would immidiatley destroy its purpose, so ERA is and i am dead certain we will see it.

I have still one open question, since the turret is pretty small, from top view, there is enough space around the turret for blow off panels against cook offs, because with all that fancy and highly expensive stuff inside the turret you don't want to lose it every time carousel gets penetrated (the chances are already slim on T-90 models) not to mention now with Afghanit and thicker hull armor, but it still a thing of concern, because you can't make side armor thick enough to withstand ATGM's even with Relikt, one blow and it is gone and then it leaves a gap.
So does it have blow off panels for carousel loaded ammunition?

KoTeMoRe wrote:

medo wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Vann... My gosh man... 

Tanks are NOT about how they look, at ALL. It is completely un-relevant to how will they perform in battle. 

"Fluidity in design" means nothing.

THe turret also looks really fragile.. is not only looks..  how is the T-14 turret going to survive
a direct hit of a sabot round with such small turret with holes and spaces? it looks like the
turret was not made to survive a tank direct hit..  anyway enough of rant.. just a little disappointed with the design decisions of the tank.

Actually the turret looks very good, it will be up-armored with a full suite of either applique armour or downright ERA array. This is what makes me like this tank, the design is one of prospective combat, drop in turret with several levels of up-armouring. Nevermind this tank is going to evolve, so far it is being a real technology show with Russia mustering they're not behind, at all when it comes to fielding up to date technologies.

The armata tank turret looks good ,yes.. even stealthy ..but also looks very fragile too ,because is tiny ,have holes and spaces and seems like sheet armor covers the turret ,and this is my major complain.. weak turret .

the  body looks ok but with very bad ergonomics.. ie.. the extended grill , dangerous for people near when tank in motion.  So if i had to choose one..ill prefer they make a more stronger turret.. like western latest tanks.

Armata turret doesn't have crew inside. It have armor around gun, ammunition and vital parts, but why to place armor to protect empty space and increase weight, where it is not needed? Those tinner plates just make a shape of turret and maybe help to reduce thermal and radar picture, but protect nothing.

You will need extra armour (roughly 2 more tons) to ensure the frontal arc of the turret isn't butter to a cutter. I agree that for most logical threats (bar Tank on tank engagements) the T-14 has it all, APS, radar etc, but when it will come down to taking out another tank, the goal will be to be able to take a hit and survive.

So there will be a heavier turret, that's for sure.

Why? Outside turret is only the gun and it have armor around. All other vital components are under gun inside vehicle and protected by vehicles armor. On the sides of the gun is nothing, empty space, because there is no crew in turret. The frontal size of turret against other tanks is very small, only gun. On the sides of the gun are just tin plates and if enemy tank hit those side plates, nothing will happened, because there is nothing behind to be destroyed. This is the point to have a crewless turret.

ANDD we have a nice picture from T-15 top.



And Armata T-14

So turret has a hatch, and those Smokescreen launchers on top are moveable or steady? Or is it Shot gun like APS system against top attack weapons?

This worth reposting here... Thanks to a_andreich (Andrey Kryuchenko):

T-15


T-14

The front of that turret is asymmetrical, interesting. The periscopic sight and the machine gun are independent from eachother, that's weird.

Werewolf wrote:

So turret has a hatch, and those Smokescreen launchers on top are moveable or steady? Or is it Shot gun like APS system against top attack weapons?

Two different types of APS? One with lethal object and the other one (big tubes) with something none lethal for a better protection of the soldiers around?
Just guessing

Btw the tank is missing the gunner sight ?! Or isn't there a gunner at all - 2 man crew?

Do you guys see a coaxial machine gun on the T-14?

Neutrality wrote:The front of that turret is asymmetrical, interesting. The periscopic sight and the machine gun are independent from eachother, that's weird.

I assume that the gun and periscopic sight are connected to each other, whenever the commander looks around and the periscopic sight comes to close to the Gun, the gun starts moving away so it does not block Line of Sight.

Two different types of APS? One with lethal object and the other one (big tubes) with something none lethal for a better protection of the soldiers around?
Just guessing dunno

Btw the tank is missing the gunner sight ?! Or isn't there a gunner at all - 2 man crew

The gunner sight is that hole right at the front turret array.