[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

The propaganda damage is done. But who cares, propaganda won't save NATO.

Vann7 wrote:So apparently for what i can understand after google translation ,is that what happened
in victory parade was that the conscript soldier driving armata , by accident pulled the emergency
brakes , and effectively the tank responded as was asked to do ,a full lock of the tank  motion,then he later panics after the tank stop and began to pull any switch he saw in the tank
to try to make it continue running ,and he then turn off the electronics of the tanks , to a manual mode ,and from there it only began to get worse.. The Towing tried to pull the tank with breaks on , which could have damaged the transmission .but then one specialist came later and fix the tank..  But then the RT mediocre report , confuse more ,because it made it look the tank stopped
then restart , but 15 minutes later stop again..  and no more information given as how the tank left the place..  

so thanks to RT mediocre journalist we have now 2 versions..

1)The tank stop ,then restart ,then 15 minutes later stop again..( but what happened next?   )

2)Or the visual version + guessing version of the full video. that is the tank stop for 15 minutes,
 then someone try to tow it and fails , and later specialist from the company get to the tank
 turn it on quickly and the tank leave.  Which is what you see in the video..  

Yet RT report the tanks stop after 15minutes it restart.. but do not provide film evidence of the second stop. So if i had to guess the #2 version is correct.. you can even see in the video the tank was locked its tracks because could not even be towed ,a clear indication of inexperience
of the people operating the tank. So it looks the Conscript soldier was trying to drive the armata
tank with the Emergency breaks on.    This is strongly a possibility because in the video
you see the tank resisting to be pulled by mini truck designed to tow tanks.

So until now it looks like inexperience of the driver of armata the cause of the halt. but is only
the information until now we have. not yet confirmed by any official statement from minister of defense.  

BKP wrote:I'm not sure I'm buying this explanation. But, even if it's true, it still reflects poorly on something. If they're blaming an inexperienced conscript, then whose fault is that really? I say it's the fault of the planners, presumably military, who put him there. Given the importance of the occasion, they should be using experienced tankers, and alternates, who have already received considerable training on the new tank at the factory.

Cyberspec wrote:

BKP wrote:I'm not sure I'm buying this explanation. But, even if it's true, it still reflects poorly on something. If they're blaming an inexperienced conscript, then whose fault is that really? I say it's the fault of the planners, presumably military, who put him there. Given the importance of the occasion, they should be using experienced tankers, and alternates, who have already received considerable training on the new tank at the factory.

Apparently it was Shoigu's decission.....UVZ wanted to use their own crews

flamming_python wrote:Aren't the T-14 and latest T-90 variants capable of firing a new longer type of shell that older T-90s/T-72s/T-80s cannot?

calripson wrote:Same Shells, New Tank

....

More Moscow Times propaganda ? What is this Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, or more to the point, who funds them ???

CAST does not receive any financing from the government, commercial companies or other organizations. All its funding is derived from research and media products, consultation services and other projects. In that sense, CAST is a commercial venture, and its success depends entirely on the quality of the services it offers to customers.

http://www.cast.ru/eng/about/

The Armata may symbolise the Russian military's future, but it makes much wider use of electronics on-board, and Igor Sutyagin says that is a problem.

Up to 80% of the chip-sets for the most critical electronics in the Russian electronics industry are imported - and mainly imported from the West.

Igor Sutyagin agrees. "Russian defence officials openly recognise that 30% of Ukrainian imports to Russia's defence industry cannot be substituted domestically. One-third is large enough, when you bear in mind that one out of every five pieces of Russian military hardware is either Ukrainian or depends upon Ukrainian parts."

BKP wrote:BBC article discusses Armata and the modernization program. Most of it relying on the viewpoint of an "expert" named Keir Giles, with whom I'm not familiar.

A little bit of it is vaguely complimentary, some is slanderous in the typical fashion, and some of it I don't know one way or the other.

Can anyone comment on the value (or lack it) of these assertions?:

The Armata may symbolise the Russian military's future, but it makes much wider use of electronics on-board, and Igor Sutyagin says that is a problem.

Up to 80% of the chip-sets for the most critical electronics in the Russian electronics industry are imported - and mainly imported from the West.

I'm pretty dubious about that one. Don't most Western processor makers actually job out their fabrication to companies located in Taiwan? Similarly, If Russia couldn't do the actual fabrication itself, wouldn't they also contract out the production? I can't image that they would just risk using generic Western-designed chips.

Igor Sutyagin agrees. "Russian defence officials openly recognise that 30% of Ukrainian imports to Russia's defence industry cannot be substituted domestically. One-third is large enough, when you bear in mind that one out of every five pieces of Russian military hardware is either Ukrainian or depends upon Ukrainian parts."

I'm guessing this is way over stated. What could Ukraine possibly produce that Russia eventually could not if if had to?

http: / /w w w .bbc.com/news/world-europe-32622653

"Today, anti-tank weapons attack tanks from the top and it is effectively impossible to improve the protection of a T-64 type. So the Russian army needed a fundamentally different design - that was the promise of Armata."

Even if sanctions are lifted, he thinks a legacy will remain and, as in the Cold War years, there may be significant restrictions on exports to Russia with potential military uses.

Western analysts believe the Russian army may be facing manpower challenges in maintaining forces close to Ukraine. But the conclusion was that Russia might be able "only" to put 90-100,000 men in the field, "which still dwarfs anything Ukraine's Western neighbours might be able to muster to resist Russian pressure", Mr Giles says.

Igor Sutyagin says such talk reflects Russia's awareness of its "inability to compete on equal terms with the West in conventional terms".

Cyberspec wrote:Some details on the T-14 (and a bit on the other new stuff) in the diagram and the VPK article below. The author is Sergei Ptichkin from Rus. Gazeta




Article: http://vpk.name/news/131478_raketyi_sobyut_na_podlete.html


So according to this,

- the shape of the turret is designed to reduce radar/thermal signature and is (or will be) coated with a special coating to assist in that function. The turret is covered on all sides (incl. top) with new generation dynamic protection.

- The Opto-Electronic system is used not only for observation but assists in the guidance of guided rounds. It can also be used for tracking aerial targets.

- The round fired by the 2A82-1M gun can penetrate 1M of armour @2KM

- it does have a 7.62mm co-ax mg and the gun in the remote controlled station is apparently 12.7mm

Mike E wrote:That round....is it HEAT or KE? If KE then wow...

Mike E wrote:That round....is it HEAT or KE? If KE then wow...