[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

Nakidka in my point is not very usefull.

It would be everything.

It makes Javelin less useful than Metis-M1... it hides the IR signature of the tank... without a decent IR signature to lock on to Javelin is NOT fire and forget... it is command to line of sight guided like TOW and Milan.... which means optical dazzlers will render it totally ineffective.... all that money and it wont be hitting anything but the ground...

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.

Anyone who has seen the heat plume behind a gas turbine powered tank will think a diesel runs on jelly beans and chocolate...

There are no such things like "trap shots", this isn't WW2 where big bullets have been fired against each other. All current AT weapons will not be ricochet from the surface but will detonate regardless of the angle. APFSDS will dive into the armor, HEAT will be set off, either by contact fuze or via electro magnetic field armor.

Could also be considered a good argument against heavy armour on the turret... if that angled plate is heavy armour it will deflect a rifle round into the optics... if it is just sheet metal with nothing at all behind it the round will punch straight through and miss the gunners optics completely...  

If charly guestimates are correct.. then the pink hardware in the tank is active protection
and it directly one of them pointing upwards to hit anything the sensors capture over the tank..with what could be a shotgun round of projectiles.. So there is something there pointing

Nice find.... I would say those blue unknown sensors are the AESA radars for the APS... there are four and one would suspect they could scan horizontally 90 degrees each... so one would suppose they could also scan 90 degrees vertically too and as they are angled up at about 45 degrees that means they should cover from ground level to well past vertical allowing them to be used against attacks from any direction except land mines.

Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality?

Very roughly:

T-90S is 46.5 t (tonne weight—metric) in its standard configuration. Of course, T-90S is slightly overweight. If we assume each of the 14 road wheels of T-14 has only as much weight-carrying capability as each of the 12 road wheels on T-90S, then

(Armata's weight) ≈ 46.5×14/12 ≈ 54 t

Another method would involve taking the track footprint of Armata and multiplying it by its ground pressure. The overweight T-90S, in its standard configuration, has a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2, which is high by the Russian standards. For Armata, the Russian's would use a fresh, lower ground pressure than that for T-90S, preferably as low as 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality?

Very roughly:

T-90S is 46.5 t (tonne weight—metric) in its standard configuration. Of course, T-90S is slightly overweight. If we assume each of the 14 road wheels of T-14 has only as much weight-carrying capability as each of the 12 road wheels on T-90S, then

(Armata's weight) ≈ 46.5×14/12 ≈ 54 t

Another method would involve taking the track footprint of Armata and multiplying it by its ground pressure. The overweight T-90S, in its standard configuration, has a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2, which is high by the Russian standards. For Armata, the Russian's would use a fresh, lower ground pressure than that for T-90S, preferably as low as 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.

thats assuming the T-14 follows a similar mass distribution to T-90, which is far from the truth.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality?

Very roughly:

T-90S is 46.5 t (tonne weight—metric) in its standard configuration. Of course, T-90S is slightly overweight. If we assume each of the 14 road wheels of T-14 has only as much weight-carrying capability as each of the 12 road wheels on T-90S, then

(Armata's weight) ≈ 46.5×14/12 ≈ 54 t

Another method would involve taking the track footprint of Armata and multiplying it by its ground pressure. The overweight T-90S, in its standard configuration, has a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2, which is high by the Russian standards. For Armata, the Russian's would use a fresh, lower ground pressure than that for T-90S, preferably as low as 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.

thats assuming the T-14 follows a similar mass distribution to T-90, which is far from the truth.

Can you elaborate in exact terms. Also once you have defined a "mass distribution" that is widely different, can you do some calculations to show how the estimates based of that "mass distribution" would be.

Also how can the relative mass distribution per suspension member be different for two non-junk tanks?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Can you elaborate in exact terms. Also once you have defined a "mass distribution" that is widely different, can you do some calculations to show how the estimates based of that "mass distribution" would be.

like how the t-14 does not have a turret heavy with armor, and the other way around when it comes to the frontal hull, for one. i could do some rough calcs, but i dont have an accurate rendering of the internals- doubt anyone has either.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
Also how can the relative mass distribution per suspension member be different for two non-junk tanks?

whats non-junk? anyway as ive said the different "mass distribution" means that some parts are heavier than others when compared to other tank and vice versa. where the weight is big, you put beefier supports- check out the two front wheels in the armata and the rearmost one.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Can you elaborate in exact terms. Also once you have defined a "mass distribution" that is widely different, can you do some calculations to show how the estimates based of that "mass distribution" would be.

like how the t-14 does not have a turret heavy with armor, and the other way around when it comes to the frontal hull, for one. i could do some rough calcs, but i dont have an accurate rendering of the internals- doubt anyone has either.

You don't need any rendering of the internals, the rendering of the road wheels is the one that matters. They put the road wheels where they need them.

Look at Koalitsiya-SV's road wheels (those at the parade); why are the distances between the road wheels are more for the front ones than for the back ones, and why there are only 12 of them on this version?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.

Did a little scaling in photoshop.

The track width of Armata seems to be in order of 0.486-0.5 m With track pitch (Length of individual track segment) of 0.154m The total length of the track that contact with ground is around 5 meter.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Can you elaborate in exact terms. Also once you have defined a "mass distribution" that is widely different, can you do some calculations to show how the estimates based of that "mass distribution" would be.

like how the t-14 does not have a turret heavy with armor, and the other way around when it comes to the frontal hull, for one. i could do some rough calcs, but i dont have an accurate rendering of the internals- doubt anyone has either.

That's just an assumption and not one justified by anything. What's the point of sacrificing revolutionary survivability just to
shave off a few tons? Clearly small size and weight were not the one and only goal of the T-14 design.

I get the impression that many people think the turret is a 0.25 inch sheet metal box with the external dimension that we
can see. And it's poorly welded and has holes, I guess because hacks designed and built it. Whatever. I will claim that
the turret has multilayered armour (it's like a Matryoshka doll ) and has a type of ERA under a collection of plates which we
can actually see. It is also damned heavy and sabot penetrators will be lost in those layers one after another without doing
any damage to critical parts.

Stealthflanker wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.

Did a little scaling in photoshop.

The track width of Armata seems to be in order of 0.486-0.5 m With track pitch (Length of individual track segment) of 0.154m  The total length of the track that contact with ground is around 5 meter.  

Thanks a lot.

Your numbers indicate a very low weight, around 40 t at a ground pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

T-72, however, has a track width of 580 mm.

Cyberspec wrote:A T-14 stalled during today's rehearsal....oh my, let the fireworks begin

The rest of the story is that they actually did not tow the tank away.  It sat there until the end of the rehearsal and then
left under its own power.

But the circlejerkers had a field day anyway.

https://youtu.be/kKWF6lVQk5Y

http://top.rbc.ru/society/07/05/2015/554b27d39a794786f2a65f11

collegeboy16 wrote:whats non-junk?

I'll explain that later.

anyway as ive said the different "mass distribution" means that some parts are heavier than others when compared to other tank and vice versa. where the weight is big, you put beefier supports- check out the two front wheels in the armata and the rearmost one.

Those additional suspension members on the front 4 and the back 2 road-wheels would probably be only dampers, they would have no static role.

well it looks they had problems to Tow the tank..



Possibly the tracks got stuck?

Update seems the tank reverse works.. it can move in reverse..


Update 2.. lol.. well it looks they fixed the tank in 5 minutes,and no need to tow it..
for sure the happy ending will not be reported by western trolls.. perhaps the driver
of the tank forgot to add fuel to the tank. lol

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
Thanks a lot.

Your numbers indicate a very low weight, around 40 t at a ground pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

T-72, however, has a track width of 580 mm.

your welcome.

Anyway i'll try again with other image.

measuring from photos is kinda difficult, especially when taken from perspective. It really distort the size.

Vann7 wrote:

Possibly the tracks got stuck?

Wrong setting of the transmission perhaps or it's really planned from the start. According to RT news the tank is able to roll by itself 15 minutes later.

http://rt.com/news/256437-armata-stuck-moscow-parade/

But i guess.. the "other side" is already start flame fest.

Stealthflanker wrote:Anyway i'll try again with other image.

That would be much appreciated.

Based on the images available measuring the track width is hard. The length is easy; we have the 700 mm diameter road wheels.

Oh my god can you believe it ?

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-will-unveil-next-generation-armata-t-14-tank-victory-day-328775

There are, however, problems. For all the military might the Armata represents, Russian armored vehicles have a tendency to look better than they fight, says Galeotti. Some on social media have also suggested the Armata tanks that have been seen in public so far are mock-ups, parts of which might even be made of cardboard or a similar material.        It’s possible that the Armatas might not be ready for Saturday’s big parade, which will likely be the last major World War II anniversary in Russia to be celebrated by living veterans of the conflict.

The debut of the Armata tanks shouldn’t worry the U.S.       ; while it will probably be an effective tank and bring Russia closer to parity with the West in terms of its military prowess, it’s not a game changer, says Galeotti.

“There are still questions. The Russians are good at proclaiming new breakthroughs. Almost all of these new weapons systems over the past 10 years have actually come out late,” said Galeotti.

Tanks are also relative dinosaurs in the age of modern warfare. While they look good in a parade and are large and intimidating, spying, drones, well-trained light infantry and cyberwarfare will form the battlefields of the future, says Galeotti.        

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:T-72, however, has a track width of 580 mm.

If we assume a track width of 0.58 m, a track length on the ground of 5 m, and a ground-pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2 (nice low ground pressure for a tank), the total weight would be 46 t.

At a ground pressure of 0.9 kgs/cm^2, the weight would be 52 t.

At a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2 (same as that for T-90S but "unlikely"), the weight would be 55 t.

higurashihougi wrote:Oh my god can you believe it ?

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-will-unveil-next-generation-armata-t-14-tank-victory-day-328775

There are, however, problems. For all the military might the Armata represents, Russian armored vehicles have a tendency to look better than they fight, says Galeotti.     ...............  .................... 

 indeed!!!

Remember this day people, for the first time in recorded history someone said that that Russian armored vehicles look better than they fight.

cracker wrote:still not clear for me: 2A82-M1 and its autoloader, they can use the ammo and the propellant part of the 2A46 or only the ammo part and always use a new pattern bigger propelant part?

The new propellant part is also like the old cardboard combustible or is it a safer design? (maybe a return to full metallic case)

The missile assembly of the 2A46M-5 can be used in the 2A82 or the latter needs a new rear part?

can someone reply?


damn the thing in front of the GUM is... special.

cracker wrote:

cracker wrote:still not clear for me: 2A82-M1 and its autoloader, they can use the ammo and the propellant part of the 2A46 or only the ammo part and always use a new pattern bigger propelant part?

The new propellant part is also like the old cardboard combustible or is it a safer design? (maybe a return to full metallic case)

The missile assembly of the 2A46M-5 can be used in the 2A82 or the latter needs a new rear part?

can someone reply?

Casing alone won't determine propellant safety. Composition also play. and no.. metal casing has been abandoned in practically all tanks around the world. The only thing metal would be the primer stub.


About the Armata though. It must be able to use the old 2A46 round, both the munition part and the 2nd propellant case, and so is the Refleks.

Morpheus wrote:
If we assume a track width of 0.58 m, a track length on the ground of 5 m, and a ground-pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2 (nice low ground pressure for a tank), the total weight would be 46 t. Very Happy

At a ground pressure of 0.9 kgs/cm^2, the weight would be 52 t. Smile

At a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2 (same as that for T-90S but "unlikely"), the weight would be 55 t.

Tried again with this image




This time it gave me track width of 630 mm

PapaDragon wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:Oh my god can you believe it ?

There are, however, problems. For all the military might the Armata represents, Russian armored vehicles have a tendency to look better than they fight, says Galeotti.     ...............  .................... 

 indeed!!!

Remember this day people, for the first time in recorded history someone said that that Russian armored vehicles look better than they fight.

LOL, yes, for real, that is surely a first!

And, having followed most the discussion this far, Armata is either a paradigm-busting leapfrogging of the western douches, or a dismal failure that can be attributed to incompetence and graft. Ve shall see, no?

higurashihougi wrote:Oh my god can you believe it ?

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-will-unveil-next-generation-armata-t-14-tank-victory-day-328775

There are, however, problems. For all the military might the Armata represents, Russian armored vehicles have a tendency to look better than they fight, says Galeotti.     Some on social media have also suggested the Armata tanks that have been seen in public so far are mock-ups, parts of which might even be made of cardboard or a similar material.        It’s possible that the Armatas might not be ready for Saturday’s big parade, which will likely be the last major World War II anniversary in Russia to be celebrated by living veterans of the conflict.

The debut of the Armata tanks shouldn’t worry the U.S.       ; while it will probably be an effective tank and bring Russia closer to parity with the West in terms of its military prowess, it’s not a game changer, says Galeotti.

“There are still questions. The Russians are good at proclaiming new breakthroughs. Almost all of these new weapons systems over the past 10 years have actually come out late,” said Galeotti.

Tanks are also relative dinosaurs in the age of modern warfare. While they look good in a parade and are large and intimidating, spying, drones, well-trained light infantry and cyberwarfare will form the battlefields of the future, says Galeotti.        

Yeah well that's there with my son saying Putin broke his game. Now they need a new Battlefront 5 or what ever it is called. Anyway don't mind Bark Galeotti.

Shell ejection port confirmed

Vympel wrote:Shell ejection port confirmed

Yep and this photo clearly show, that between actual turret and outside shape of turret is empty space, so there is actually nothing to be protected with heavy armor.

Just got from Paralay.



So.. the BREM-1M recovery vehicle cannot "pull" The Armata. I wonder if it can be used as indication that Armata's weight is above 50 metric ton (BREM-1's towing capacity)

(316Кб, 1600x1067)


(1725Кб, 2560x1920)