[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

Captain Nemo wrote:
Is this rectangular hole on the left of the turret, for the mounting of a future coaxial gun, like some believe, or could it be for the ejection of used shell casings?
.

Based on previous models and testbeds this "hole" is there for rearming the tank with new rounds.

This is what is believed to be the core turret model.



You can see the hole on the turret side.

The ejection of shell casings is believed to be this door right under the bustle.

higurashihougi wrote:

max steel wrote:How s.korean and japan tank fare against russsian one ?

These tank are only 55 and 49 tons, but the size of them are roughly similar to Leopard 2 families, so I suspect that these gals have much weaker armour protection, and cannot outcompete even North Korean Pukpoongho.

The armata is roughly the "size" of the T-90. With a larger hull yet lighter turret. The rest of your post makes no sense.

Zivo wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:

Zivo wrote:Some top attack munitions, like guided mortars and independently aimed EFP cluster munitions do come down almost vertically.

If those upward facing grenades on armata's are hardkill, they should be able to intercept these munitions.

Why always hardkill ?

Is providing some cover  to obscure the tank and confusing the seeker not enough ?

It would make sense to use a mix of grenades.

I think all of them are part of the hard kill system. It's make no sense to put smoke grenades on top of the tank, the smoke will not avoid the missile from hitting the target.

AJ-47 wrote:
I think all of them are part of the hard kill system. It's make no sense to put smoke grenades on top of the tank, the smoke will not avoid the missile from hitting the target.

Well the smoke can :

1.Make the missile believe it's the real target while the tank move away.
2.Provide extremely high extinction coefficient against laser beam, thus make difficult for laser seeker to find its target.

Werewolf wrote:

Captain Nemo wrote:
Is this rectangular hole on the left of the turret, for the mounting of a future coaxial gun, like some believe, or could it be for the ejection of used shell casings?
.

Based on previous models and testbeds this "hole" is there for rearming the tank with new rounds.

What?

This is what is believed to be the core turret model.

Speculated and logical, but also possibly entirely wrong.  This "fan art" was based on very old leaked concept art, which obviously deviates from the actual products in substantial ways.

The ejection of shell casings is believed to be this door right under the bustle.

Believed by you? Terrible location for ejection port, and anyways its not a door.  It's a bolted shut plate.

I love this forum because one post of idle speculation instantly becomes established fact and then gets repeated ad infinitum.

akd wrote:What?

I already explained that well enough. That hole is a hatch so one crew can hand over tank rounds to the another tank crew member sitting in the turret and laying the rounds into the autoloader to reload the carousel.

akd wrote:
Speculated and logical, but also possibly entirely wrong.  This "fan art" was based on very old leaked concept art, which obviously deviates from the actual products in substantial ways.

The probability that this is the case is very high.

akd wrote:Believed by you? Terrible location for ejection port, and anyways its not a door.  It's a bolted shut plate.

No not believed by me, but every hole/hatch has its purpose otherwise it wouldn't be there. There is no case ejection hatch on top of the turret and it must be somewhere, the side gap is unlikely to be the case.

akd wrote:I love this forum because one post of idle speculation instantly becomes established fact and then gets repeated ad infinitum.

Those speculations are rather convincing based on previous testbeds, they do not come out of thin air but based on all test objects from 640, T-95 and testbeds for specific systems.

*drumroll*

This won't be sold to anyone.

T-90 Tagil ? maybe.

This ? Nope.

also, 2300 pieces seems very naive for just 5 years to come. I'd expect around 700 - 900 of these tanks to be constructed and operational by 2025 or so.

2300 Armata Plattforms, not tanks and the number is to high for 5 years, but they did have already quite a few right now.

TheGeorgian wrote:This won't be sold to anyone.

T-90 Tagil ? maybe.

This ? Nope.

also, 2300 pieces seems very naive for just 5 years to come. I'd expect around 700 - 900 of these tanks to be constructed and operational by 2025 or so.

Somewhere in media was said the company production of armata capacity is 500 tanks per year.
If the information is correct ,then in 5 years Russia should be able to produce 2,500 armata units.
from light infantry vehicles to tanks.


Im still curious why no interviews to defense minister or Rogozin about Arma and when
the lift of information will be released for people to know officially how it works and its capabilities.

What about some estimate about the barrel length?


Korochenko: Tank "Armata" a breakthrough in the world tank manufacturing

The interviewee noted that the tank "is including the network-centric warfare" - with the help of sensors and sensor "Armata" vserakursny receives information from 360 degrees on the situation on the battlefield, share these data with a group of tanks and with higher levels of government for standing closed channels

Radar thing again - I think we have not seen the last of T-14 armaments if true

The machine is equipped with a unique radar station, which can simultaneously control up to 40 terrestrial and 25 aerial targets within a radius of 100 kilometers

So there was some talk a good 6 months back about that 'stealth' was seriously taken in to consideration in to Armata T-14 MBT's design (outside of Nakidka camouflage) so is that the reason why T-14's turret looks like a menagerie of various polygons? Stealth shaping perhaps?

...If so then it makes a lot of sense considering that the most dangerous asymmetrical threat towards an armored column is in fact a combination of rocket artillery + ground surveillance/artillery radar for guiding munitions. Just check out photos of Debaltsevo for how devastatingly effective rocket artillery can become!!!

It can protect against Javelin ?

Magnum, Ok, I find You well spoken person, but what the hell?
Rocket artillery in asymmetrical warfare is very unlikely. Potential Russian adversaries are behind Russia when it comes to artillery and radiolocation systems so their presence even in asymmetric battlefield would be short. Artillery strike on Armata systems wont be devastating compared to other tanks. You will need direct hit to cause substantial damage to Armata platform. Ground radars are easy to detect, Russia has very good surface to surface ARM too. Just my thought, but big formation of tanks no matter how stealthy they are will show up in radar. Various uavs, spotters can do the same thing without too much hastle too. I'm glad Armata is didn't go for stealth trend, even stealth in fighter jets is overhyped thing imho

indochina wrote:It can protect against Javelin ?

Yes soft and hardkill against top attack weapons.

Regular wrote:Magnum, Ok, I find You well spoken person, but what the hell?
Rocket artillery in asymmetrical warfare is very unlikely. Potential Russian adversaries are behind Russia when it comes to artillery and radiolocation systems so their presence even in asymmetric battlefield would be short. Artillery strike on Armata systems wont be devastating compared to other tanks. You will need direct hit to cause substantial damage to Armata platform. Ground radars are easy to detect, Russia has very good surface to surface ARM too. Just my thought, but big formation of tanks no matter how stealthy they are will show up in radar. Various uavs, spotters can do the same thing without too much hastle too. I'm glad Armata is didn't go for stealth trend, even stealth in fighter jets is overhyped thing imho

Is not about having one size fits all defense, it's all about layering defense. We've seen plenty asymmetrical use of rocket artillery in Eastern Ukraine. Stealth shaping in the turret combined with Nakidka camouflage should be very useful against artillery radar.

indochina wrote:It can protect against Javelin ?

Not sure about protection, we won't truly know, but one thing can be deducted, that Javelin won't kill the tank. In most likely scenario it will damage or knock out something in the turret. Tank will be alive, Jav crew, well let's say they wilk have less chance to survive

still convinced there is no coaxial MG. That tiny slit 15cm on the left of the gun can't be that, it obviously is too short for a fully depressed slaved PKT to shoot through.

And i just want them to make a KPVT coax, why nobody in UVZ thinks about it? It's really the best choice for a MBT.

magnumcromagnon wrote:So there was some talk a good 6 months back about that 'stealth' was seriously taken in to consideration in to Armata T-14 MBT's design (outside of Nakidka camouflage) so is that the reason why T-14's turret looks like a menagerie of various polygons? Stealth shaping perhaps?

Tarasenko (aka Andrei-bt - aka Harkonen), UVZ's arch rival, seems to think so....with qualifications ofcourse

Everyone certainly has their own tastes and aesthetic preferences, but I like the architecture of the product.
Clearly much has been done to ensure the reduction of visibility in the radar range, which, however, more than offset by a wonderful exhaust both sides, making the tanks very visible in the infrared wavelength range.

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/355499.html

According to experts, presented at the Victory Parade models of equipment are likely pre-production prototypes that have completed or are completing factory tests.

"This is a pilot batches of samples, which this year, as a last resort - next year - will take to the stage of state tests.

According to Andrei Tarasenko, revolutionary design of the new tank, as well as conceptually new to the Russian infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in the middle track ("Kurganets") and the wheel ("Boomerang") require a serious improvement for several years - in his words, it is inevitable for such machines in any country.

And these are the T-14 design shortcomings as he sees them

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/356485.html