[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

I'm disappointed they didn't find a way to make the turret smaller.

Making it smaller just means everything inside it would be packed closer together so a penetrating hit would be more likely to take out several systems.

Nevertheless the NSVT is too weak to be put on any modern vehicle other than an MRAP or jeep. Why the hell would they do that instead of making a RWS with the equally combat proven and far more powerful KPVT?

I suspect it will be Kord rather than NSVT... and for many targets 12.7mm is good enough with a lighter weapon with less recoil.

Even better it would've been to put a low velocity 23mm EGT, something completely feasible given the size of both the bumarang and kurganets.

They are showing it with Kord at the moment, but it is possible they might convert to a different calibre later on...

You might tell me that zany gadgets and automations will counteract the NSVT's lack of firepower but that doesn't adress range and armor piercing capability, something only imprved with a bigger gun.

Against many battlefield targets 12.7 is already over kill.

But it's still a bittersweet moment knowing that most of the weapons equpped are weaker than they should've been...

Just consider them an indication... over the life span of the vehicles there will be armament changes.. even just from 125mm to 152mm eventually and of course 30mm to 45mm...

The exciting thing is that it seems to be a modular add-on. So perhaps an autocannon could be attached, or a gatling gun, array of RPO missiles, MANPAD fitting, or whatever else might be called for.

Or a 57mm belt fed grenade launcher...

EDIT: That might explain early public "premiere". Not all parts are there yet.

Or it is the exciting and erotic strip tease of the removal of canvas and then the attachment of the wooden leg and glass eye...

Is obvious that for the Russians aesthetics means shit for them..

German WWII uniforms were widely considered some of the best looking... in Stalingrad however soldiers found kit designed for looks rather than function could be lethal to the user.

The barbeque Grill extended on the sides ,looks cheap as hell..and it even fails in ergonomics because people caught in a small arm fire ,that seeks cover from the tank will have to be really careful to not be impaled by the vent grill if the tank in motion.. Honestly i will have fired the designers team of armata.. Is not a disaster ,but it

Only a fuckwit would seek cover beside an operational tank. A driver generally has pathetic vision very close to the tank and could decide at any time to turn or move forward or backwards... getting caught on the grill will be the least of your worries when 57 tons of tank crushes you into a sloppy red paste.

Even if it doesn't move if it turns its main gun to the side and fires a round at a distant threat you will likely get barbecued faster than a sole fillet on a hot grill.

that tiny turret with holes doesn't look like will survive a direct hit of any M1a2 tank.. with so few armor ..

What do you mean survive? an APFSDS round and a HEAT round will both punch a neat little 60mm hole through the turret... in one side and out the other. there is no ammo or fuel or crewmen to hit... what are you expecting that penetration to achieve?

it give the impression a single sabot hit in the turret is all that it takes to put out of combat the tank..

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

And why do you think making it smaller would make it safer?

Smaller means things crammed closer together... all the things needing to be in there will still be there but cramming them into a smaller turret just increases the chances that lots of things will be hit when the turret is penetrated instead of less things.

How is that better?

overall the tank looks was done by Amateurs and people with not much experience in design.. Russia should have hired a french designed to correct

Brilliant idea... Attention the worlds press... we wanted to show the world our new concept armour designs this year but unfortunately they wont be ready because of sanctions from France... brilliant idea Vann... perhaps Russia should get some ideas on developing new ICBMs from the French too?

They wont f&(*^ing work but everyone will agree they will look pretty and that is what is important.

the fail ergonomics and questionable design of the tank..

WTF does aesthetics have to do with ergonomics?

Notice the side of Leclerc tank.. it follows a fluid design and do not have the barbeque side grill
extended..so people get stuck ,or wounded if tank in motion.

Hahaha... the barbecue grill is on the turret... 2m above the ground... I would think most infantry would not give a fk about the turret and be a bit more worried about those tracks at ground level...

This are very basic things that in
the west Engineering is practiced.. Ergonomics ,for safe interaction of people with machines or technology.. the leclerk was done like a modular tank..

Actually ergonomics is about human machine interaction, so grills are actually a good thing... it is something you can grab and hold onto to prevent being dragged under the vehicles tracks and crushed to death.

will stand a chance to take a direct hit of any sabot round of nato tanks. we will see..

And while NATO tanks are punching 60mm holes in the Armata turret the crew and ammo and fuel are totally unharmed and firing back blowing the fk out of those western super tanks.

If the western tankers are dumb enough to want to shoot holes in the armata tanks turret let them... they can do it all day if they like... it wont effect the mobility of the armata and it probably wont effect its ability to fire back and will be zero risk to the crew.

I hope the Armata performance is far better than its amateurish design.

Clearly the opinion of a man who doesn't understand the reasoning behind the concept of the unmanned turret...

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?

Will be gunners sight behind armoured doors.

That's a Nagmachon (APC based on the Centurion hull) with an armored OT.

That turret looks like something you'd see on Lord of the Rings on the back of a giant elephant...

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

Indeed... all enormous turrets with strong frontal armour but fairly weak side and rear armour and hollow cavities inside with vulnerable crewmen to kill and maim... yeah that is much better...

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 .

Of course... you have worked out their secret... it is made completely out of sheet metal... they left the canvas covers on for so long so they could remove the Mecano logos off all the bits...

When fitted with Nakidka-2 there wont be any gaps or IR signature for Javelin to track.

So if i had to choose one..ill prefer they make a more stronger turret.. like western latest tanks.

Why? To protect what? The odds on getting a direct hit on the main gun is tiny so why bother?

If western tanks can just take out Russian tanks by blowing up their guns why can't Russian tanks do the same? You do realise the gun barrel and gun mantlet on all tanks world wide are weak points no matter the paper thickness of the turret front armour?

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.

Why wouldn't it survive direct hits? what can a direct hit do to stop it even if it penetrates there is no ammo or fuel or crew there...

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.

Well how about I play the devils advocate... the Abrams is crap... It doesn't look pretty. All that armour protecting the crew and the ammo but such weak armour around the rear of the turret and engine. No armour protecting the tracks. Even just a 14.5mm HMG burst will take a track completely off and the Abrams is a sitting duck... shoot off both tracks and then causally wander around the rear and shoot into the engine bay with that 14.5mm gun with AP and incendary rounds and the engine will soon be on fire and the whole vehicle will burn out... with just 14.5mm ammo... that is worse than a WWII tank. The Americans need to get tank design advice from the Swiss... they know how to make a nice kettle and could give those Americans a lot of good advice on how to make their tanks at least HMG proof.

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?

A pulsed battle laser in the 40 megawatt range...

So does it have blow off panels for carousel loaded ammunition?

Hard to say... with no crew in that section they might have an aggressive fire suppression system...

So turret has a hatch, a

Likely for maintainence and loading ammo.

but if your turret gets penetrated at each engagement, leading to loss of operational capability (IE you can't fight back), the result is the same as you losing the crew to a penetration.

Duplication of critical components with localised armour... ie firewalls separating items so a penetration will only damage what has actually been penetrated.

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

So if it is so easy to fit... why not wait until May 9th to fit it?

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.

Old ERA was a threat to infantry... newer stuff is not. When they adapted it to work on APFSDS rounds they also reduced the HE content so the ERA brick remains intact and does not even set off nearby bricks... another important feature of newer ERA.

I'm really starting to think that the "smoke launchers" might be dual-loaded with smoke and hard-kill APS shells.

They do look like Drozd launchers...

Then is not required that each tank have full 360 coverage . as long there is more than one tank and they are not all looking in same direction.. just 45 angles difference will be enough to cover
more than 180 degrees. If a tank is hit from the rear door.. then indeed they are doing something wrong ,specially when armata reverse speed is the same as forward.

APS coverage was not 360 degree with original ARENA or original DROZD. With it mounted on the turret however it could turn to cover any direction needed.

The more I look at the Armata, the more I see the Israeli attempt to have one platform for all tasks (although the Israelis had many issues, including the cancelling of the Sholef SPG).

A vehicle family designed for a range of tasks reminds you of an attempt by another country to do the same... OK...

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?

Critical internal components will likely be well spaced apart and duplicated, and of course the hatch on top for human access for reloading and maintainence...

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.

That would work, but a laser mounted in the panoramic sight with DIRCMs capabilities would be a longer term lower emission solution to optically guided threats...

and no matter how thick armor is, having proper shape significantly adds to the protection efficiency. That's just basic physics.

Angled armour plate will increase the effective thickness of armour but only full calibre penetrators are deflected by angled plate.

Someone comes up with a new seeker and your entire system is useless!

There is always a race between measure and countermeasure... a new guidance method simply requires a new grenade mix... it is usually cheaper to deploy a grenade than the weapon it is to defend against.

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...

So they go to the expense and trouble to develop four new generations of vehicles with unmanned turrets and armoured capsules to protect the crew and don't bother to fit an APS system that can look up...