[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

Werewolf wrote:Not fitting ERA to AFV/IFV is like a failure... no other defintion to that, passive armor is expensive to repair and expensive to manufactor, damaged passive armor means the tank needs to be repaired, meaning the tank leaves the battlefield and leaves a gap untill it is repaired, money is soaked for repairs, while ERA tiles can be replaced on battlefield for fraction of the costs.

ERA is the king of applique armor, most effective and much less expensive than repairing main armor.

higurashihougi wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Not fitting ERA to AFV/IFV is like a failure... no other defintion to that, passive armor is expensive to repair and expensive to manufactor, damaged passive armor means the tank needs to be repaired, meaning the tank leaves the battlefield and leaves a gap untill it is repaired, money is soaked for repairs, while ERA tiles can be replaced on battlefield for fraction of the costs.

ERA is the king of applique armor, most effective and much less expensive than repairing main armor.

Leopard 2 use spaced armour for the same function, spaced armour has less defense effect than ERA but it does not cause collateral damage to adjacents infantries.

My guess is the current Armata is fitted with spaced armour at the hullside ERA at hullfront. Dunno about the turret though.

Off topic: Leo 2's spaced armour is f*cking big and very angled.

auslander wrote:Hmmm. So the Armata and family are revealed almost 5 days before the parade. Wonder what else, if anything, will appear on Red Square since most have been watching what the right hand has been doing but no one has looked at the left hand.

Austin wrote:In the picture what are those small squarish boxes on top of left and right of turret ?

Also behind the squarish box on the right there is a rectangular box embedded in the turret just besides the tip of gun what are those ?

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/16193/8955119.9/0_9c46f_b6341496_X5L.jpg

Alex555 wrote:According to Paralay’s forum this probably an ERA.


And the real turret under the light armour looks like on this very old picture.

kvs wrote:For an unmanned turret, it is actually rather large.   Perhaps this was due to aesthetic choices.   But if form follows function then
what is taking up the space?  

nobunaga wrote:Crew is the most important part of the tank,and they can't be replaced quickly,unllike the tank itself and somone wrote that T-14 turret can't survive tank round hit... tell me witch tank can survive hit from it's modern counterparts??

PapaDragon wrote:
This type of turret does not need armor. It is unmanned hence there is no crew inside that needs that kind of protection.

Turret on T-14 is just a container for various components that would all have their own smaller protective armored  containers which not only facilitates modularity and ease of maintenance but also keeps the weight down.

This in turn means that even more armor can be added for protection of the crew which is most important and valuable part of the whole system.

Making a new spare part takes several days at most.
Growing a human soldier from scratch takes 18 years and 9 months (in civilized societies) plus training.