[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

TheGeorgian wrote:Can't help it.

The hull is just beast, the gun is beast.

But the turret front looks really ugly. Couldn't they have at least angled it up a bit more ? it would also provide better protection because it doesn't look like the turrent was designed to withstand too many direct hits ....

It's that bad taste it leaves when you expected too much.

Love the T-15 would be my first choice for IFV. Boomerang as good as I expected.

To protect what? The turret is actually only a gun with its mechanisms, which is protected in armored capsule. All around the gun is an empty space. There is nothing to be protected, so no need to place heavy armor for nothing. There is no crew in turret, which need strong armor protection.

medo wrote:

To protect what?

What do you mean "to protect what?" .... ? the actual turret itself .... the gun mechanism with all the electronics surrounding it. The gun is not the issue here. The gun is allways exposed.
I do not know what armor that is, I haven't designed that thing but the angles are completly off and it doesn't look like it would withstand several sabot rounds. Either we see a new kind of composite armor orthey didn't quite think it through. Whatever it is, they should change the armor shape in either case.

The turret is unmanned. Meaning it won't be hollow inside

It's also fairly large

Just what do you geniuses think takes up all that space? Multiple redundancies and armour no doubt, what else. There is little need to coat the whole turret in ERA bricks; only certain parts of it would be sensitive; and the armour can be on the inside, not the outside. They can use whatever configuration they wish.
The turret should be reasonably survivable. A Sabot round will go right through it and only damage/destroy the components it directly passes through. A HEAT round; more or less the same.

TheGeorgian wrote:

medo wrote:
To protect what?

What do you mean "to protect what?" .... ? the actual turret itself .... the gun mechanism with all the electronics surrounding it. The gun is not the issue here. The gun is allways exposed.
I do not know what armor that is, I haven't designed that thing but the angles are completly off and it doesn't look like it would withstand several sabot rounds. Either we see a new kind of composite armor orthey didn't quite think it through. Whatever it is, they should change the armor shape in either case.

What makes you think that electronics and gun mechanism are not already protected?

Which tank today can withstand several sabot rounds? (even one is major accomplishment)

What makes people think that turret armor is not as tough as armor on the rest of the tank? (minus the capsule)

Why do people think that there are no APS installed? (Just because you can't see all of them doesn't mean that they are not there.)  

And since when does physical appearance have any effect on how weapon system performs?  

If that were the case then Mi-24, A-10 and AK-47 would be by far the worst weapons ever designed...

TheGeorgian wrote:

medo wrote:

To protect what?

What do you mean "to protect what?" .... ? the actual turret itself .... the gun mechanism with all the electronics surrounding it. The gun is not the issue here. The gun is allways exposed.
I do not know what armor that is, I haven't designed that thing but the angles are completly off and it doesn't look like it would withstand several sabot rounds. Either we see a new kind of composite armor orthey didn't quite think it through. Whatever it is, they should change the armor shape in either case.

The actual turret is well protected with armor. Actual outside turret is far smaller than the turret you see outside. Actual turret outside is only a gun with mechanism and optics, which are protected in armored capsule, all the rest is under the gun inside the vehicle. All the rest of the outside turret is empty space, nothing to protect. You could take all this off and turret is still operational. Do you think those hits in empty boxes will bring the turret down? No, because you will not hit anything vital. Turret without crew is actually quite small and well protected, because you don't need a big volume inside for the crew and protect it with heavy armor. They save a lot of weight with this turret and place that saved armor on other places to give better protection for vital parts.

sepheronx wrote:

Strizh wrote:The whole APS system is a big disappointment no top attack cover, no re loadable launchers, very vulnerable against even a couple of missiles and so on.  
Well can't say that I expected more.

Are you the engineer? Are you the tank driver/gunner/commander of this tank?, is this the final product that will be produced as is?

Stop speculating, you're worst than those economists and their speculations.

Yes I am an engineer and things must be admitted how they are.
Tank driver/gunner/commanders and military personal at all have almost never any competence and knowledge about more than how to drive/shot/command a vehicle.

Huehuehue I'm reading some amazing shit regarding the T-14 according to Xoxolistanis.

http://by24.org/2015/05/05/new_rusian_tanks_are_really_made_from_paper/

This is hilarious...1.4 million for a M1 Abramz. I mean Jesus, moar salo.

kvs wrote:

Strizh wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Strizh wrote:The whole APS system is a big disappointment no top attack cover, no re loadable launchers, very vulnerable against even a couple of missiles and so on.  
Well can't say that I expected more.

Are you the engineer? Are you the tank driver/gunner/commander of this tank?, is this the final product that will be produced as is?

Stop speculating, you're worst than those economists and their speculations.

Yes I am an engineer and things must be admitted how they are.

You don't know what is under those obvious metal plates covering the turret.   No idea whatsoever.   I will give Russian
tank designers (engineering and researchers) more intellectual credit than some facile one-look analysis from internet
"experts".   Sorry, no offense, but people are just too absolutist in their aesthetic and technical evaluations.

It doesn't matter how good your development is, actually I am pretty sure almost everything can be developed in Russia.
It's not about the limitation of any kind of "engineering", but about the decision makers who have chosen that they "don't need this kind of APS" because "xy" or simply robbed the money for the development and presented this APS as a "great achievement".

[quote="PapaDragon"]

TheGeorgian wrote:

medo wrote:
To protect what?

What do you mean "to protect what?" .... ? the actual turret itself .... the gun mechanism with all the electronics surrounding it. The gun is not the issue here. The gun is allways exposed.
I do not know what armor that is, I haven't designed that thing but the angles are completly off and it doesn't look like it would withstand several sabot rounds. Either we see a new kind of composite armor orthey didn't quite think it through. Whatever it is, they should change the armor shape in either case.

What makes you think that electronics and gun mechanism are not already protected?

Which tank today can withstand several sabot rounds? (even one is major accomplishment)

Exactly what i asked which tank can withstand one sabot round from another modern tank and continue operating,and there is no answer beacuse there is no such tank,some people still don't understand the concept of unmanned turret.Turret is protected but not as much as crew capsule

The Armata turret isn't finished and UVZ was hurried to field Armatas for 9th May, so the turret won't stay as it is.

Greetings...

Not to fight for a turret unfinished, it is clear that this is only a prototype, and the turret and we will see the final system from 2018. This reminds me of the Pak-Fa, presented a prototype and gradually it has been polishing

Everything will change and the test trials next year will set bars and requirements while shortcomings are revealed and after that reinforced, normal process.

A-10(Mi-24A) compared to Mi-24V/P
V-80(Ka-50) vs Ka-50/N
V-82 (Ka-52) vs Ka-52 now
T-72 vs T-72B3,BA, or T-90 to T-90A not to mention T-90SM/AM

They brought the T-14 just it is on military parade in crucial times when the west is seeking for war with russia it necessary to show strength.

Given that our current "top attack" munitions are using either IIR, laser or TV Guidance.

What you guys think of Armata's upward facing smoke grenade launcher ?

I suspect it also contain IR and other form of obscurant material to help "decoy" or confuse inbound top attack munition. Making it a "softkill" system. Leaving the larger "tubes" around the turret for other threats.

TheGeorgian wrote:I haven't designed that thing but the angles are completly off and it doesn't look like it would withstand several sabot rounds.

Doesn't look ?.....I believe that the "first glance feeling" at the sight of a "standard MBT should be reset to comply with the design of similarly totally authomatized turrett



Question : How much LOS of armor can boast a similar unmanned turrett





in comparison to the LOS of armor of a similar (Leo 2A6) manned turrett ?






Someone can easily realize the enormous difference in empty internal volume between a manned and an unmanned turrett.


If any someone could accuse T-14's designers of the exact opposite of what sustained here

Strizh wrote:Yes I am an engineer and things must be admitted how they are.
Tank driver/gunner/commanders and military personal at all have almost never any competence and knowledge about more than how to drive/shot/command a vehicle.

Have you ever served and been to war? I find your observations about military personnel quite interesting.

I think having a looking at the cannon setup would be a good idea.



The Armata turret armour mainly needs to protect this section and the turret basket from getting breached from top and that would have been their primary focus. And I think they would have done it properly. Consider rest of what we see as add-ons to that basic shape.

You can see the attachment points to lift the turret. Those are on the outermost edge of the actual turret armor.

auslander wrote:

Strizh wrote:Yes I am an engineer and things must be admitted how they are.
Tank driver/gunner/commanders and military personal at all have almost never any competence and knowledge about more than how to drive/shot/command a vehicle.

Have you ever served and been to war? I find your observations about military personnel quite interesting.

Worked with some and almost all my friends served/went to war and still no idea beside how to drive/shot/command.
That's not their work, why should they know anything better beside how to drive/shot/command?

Strizh wrote:

auslander wrote:

Strizh wrote:Yes I am an engineer and things must be admitted how they are.
Tank driver/gunner/commanders and military personal at all have almost never any competence and knowledge about more than how to drive/shot/command a vehicle.

Have you ever served and been to war? I find your observations about military personnel quite interesting.

Worked with some and almost all my friends served/went to war and still no idea beside how to drive/shot/command.
That's not their work, why should they know anything better beside how to drive/shot/command?

Because it is in a tank crews interest to know how tanks work, where to fire, how to deploy tactics to ensure the advantage. Knowledge is power.

sepheronx wrote:

Strizh wrote:

auslander wrote:

Strizh wrote:Yes I am an engineer and things must be admitted how they are.
Tank driver/gunner/commanders and military personal at all have almost never any competence and knowledge about more than how to drive/shot/command a vehicle.

Have you ever served and been to war? I find your observations about military personnel quite interesting.

Worked with some and almost all my friends served/went to war and still no idea beside how to drive/shot/command.
That's not their work, why should they know anything better beside how to drive/shot/command?

And not everyone is illiterate and incapable of learning. Some of the best knowledge I learned about equipment are from those who used it.

Besides that point, even in computer engineering, a engineering sample is only part of the final product and does change by the time of its release. As mentioned before, like other tanks, aircrafts, etc. M1 orriginaly had a smaller gun, 105mm or so. Now it. 120. T-72 had no active protection when first released, now it does.

I am sure that they are able to come up with a modern APS, no doubt. It's not like that they didn't know about top attack missiles but that they simply didn't give a fuck about it...