[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Regular wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:On this edition of MTV Cribs: Armata APC/IFV
]

Looks pretty thin :/
I was expecting something like that

Regular wrote:Would You trust this or a meaty sandwitch armor + era? It might not be design flaw as it is easily fixable, it could be done on purpose to help inf to dismount. But in unconventional warfare You want bit more protection where possible.
I hope final product will have thicker hatch. And better transmission

collegeboy16 wrote:

Regular wrote:Would You trust this or a meaty sandwitch armor + era? It might not be design flaw as it is easily fixable, it could be done on purpose to help inf to dismount. But in unconventional warfare You want bit more protection where possible.
I hope final product will have thicker hatch. And better transmission

well if i was a passenger id prefer a door that i can push open -its you and a handful other guys only viable exit, than a meaty door that is superfluous anyways.  

and remember, there are hardkill interceptors just above it.

Regular wrote:Did i said it was steel or You are using woman logic?

You were sleeping last 20 days?

Trained to use automatic transmission?

What's that have to do with my observations? I said hatch armor looks thin, and it fuken does. Do tell me that slat grill is infused by plasma.

Now does it look like it can take 125mm HEAT up it's arse?
There is reason why front hull is thick, no matter if it's special steel or not, thickness counts. Or You are trying to disaprove this cause I don't know what You are trying to say.

Plus it surprises me as there were plenty of talks about T-15 armor being immune from all sides.

Regular wrote:
I think You are right, but thanks to hydraulic assisted henches You can open even thicker hatches no problem. Still getting hit in the back would be my least concern in conventional warfare. I only wonder if crew capsule is separated from passenger compartament( no access through inner hatches), what do You think?

Regular wrote:Did i said it was steel or You are using woman logic?

You were sleeping last 20 days?

Trained to use automatic transmission?

What's that have to do with my observations? I said hatch armor looks thin, and it fuken does. Do tell me that slat grill is infused by plasma.

Now does it look like it can take 125mm HEAT up it's arse?
There is reason why front hull is thick, no matter if it's special steel or not, thickness counts. Or You are trying to disaprove this cause I don't know what You are trying to say.

Plus it surprises me as there were plenty of talks about T-15 armor being immune from all sides.

Regular wrote:Did i said it was steel or You are using woman logic?

You were sleeping last 20 days?

Trained to use automatic transmission?

What's that have to do with my observations? I said hatch armor looks thin, and it fuken does. Do tell me that slat grill is infused by plasma.

Now does it look like it can take 125mm HEAT up it's arse?
There is reason why front hull is thick, no matter if it's special steel or not, thickness counts. Or You are trying to disaprove this cause I don't know what You are trying to say.

Plus it surprises me as there were plenty of talks about T-15 armor being immune from all sides.

KoTeMoRe wrote:On topic to have such an IFV immune from all sides you'd have to find a solution to the Engine issue. And end up with an UFO-like tank.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:On topic to have such an IFV immune from all sides you'd have to find a solution to the Engine issue. And end up with an UFO-like tank.

Actually from my understanding it comes down to weight restrictions related to ground pressure PSI, and the hindrance to mobility. Even if you have frontal armor on all sides, you'll have a tank that weighs over 100 tons with the mobility of a slug, that could still be annihilated by a PGM with a warhead as small as 30 kg of explosives.

If were going to sacrifice mobility, you might as well create a fortified concrete/rebar-bunker, with 1-meter thick steel plating encasing the personnel quadrants...You'll have just as much mobility as a 100+ ton MBT, but have protection exponentially greater lol!

But that's beside the point because even if the rear had 'frontal protection' there's a portion of the MBT that's significantly larger than the rear in area and has even thinner armor, it's call 'top armor'.

GarryB wrote:

Looking at several pictures of RPG'ed T-64/72 older tanks appareantly do not have the fire suppression system, because the foam and aluminium in those tanks is very distingtive but tanks after 2005 or so should all have it.

There is explosion retardant foam in the fuel tanks which prevents the fuel air mix needed for an actual explosion... in aircraft cooled exhaust fumes are used to purge oxygen from the fuel tanks to prevent explosion too.

The system I was thinking of is for the engine compartment and is basically a rocket motor with a coolant that basically generates enormous amounts of fast moving gas that contains no oxygen... it effectively smothers the fire by rapidly removing oxygen from the engine compartment... a good way to deal with a fuel fire which still needs oxygen to burn...

well, i thought so too - its only prolly limitation of current system and how they made it work, my mistake again(damn, cant get a break these days- must be a quota on mistakes i have to fulfill, school's not doing it do here we are Embarassed ). the one ive read about was for the French FCS, btw, and curiously it appears to not be fully auto- more like just adjusts fine aim.

An IRST is an excellent comparison system... in terms of angular accuracy it is even more accurate than a radar, but it has no way of determining range with any accuracy... it is like the difference between watching a fly and hearing a fly... the precision with which you can track a fly with your eyes is limited when the fly is particularly fast or the room is not well lit, but a groggy fly in the middle of winter in a well lit white room is easier to track with your eyes than with your ears.

With thermal optics you can accurately track targets and if you think about it as long as you keep a laser beam on the target and launch a missile that follows the beam you should be able to hit the target unless the missile runs out of fuel/range.

There's a common misconception about flammable liquids. The liquids themselves aren't responsible for the incendiary effect, it's the fumes that are explosive, and that's largely because the oxygen in the air is a highly flammable accelerant. For all intensive purposes the flammable fumes would be inert in a oxygen deprived environment.

When liquid fuels like Petrol and Diesel are heated to a very specific temperature they will actually detonate like plastic explosive rather than the lovely big orange fire balls you see in hollywood, but you are quite right... it is a fuel vapour/oxygen mix that is detonated in an engine and burns in the open air.

This is almost conditioning or Pawlow reflex, whenever i read "Bharat Rakshak" i have to eye roll, that is truelly an even more ridiculous forum than f-16 or mp net together.

Meh... it doesn't bother me if they want to hate and just remain ignorant... hopefully there will never be a chance to find out whose tank is the best...

If a small laser could melt a little only the tip of incoming missile would be enoughbagainst apfsds.

APFSDS rounds have very hard tips but even if you had a laser powerful enough to just soften it in the very few seconds between being fired and impacting the target... the heat transfer would not be enough and would pale incomparison with the heat transfer at impact with armour plate...

the concept of electric armour AFAIK is usually based on an outer armour plate and an inner armour plate with an enormous electrical differential... when a penetrator hits the target... HEAT or APFSDS, the circuit is closed and an enormously high voltage of electricity is channeled through the penetrator... supposedly resulting in its destruction... The details are not clear however... will someone getting into the vehicle be at risk of being electrocuted and what if liquids... ie rain manage to ground the vehicle...

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:On topic to have such an IFV immune from all sides you'd have to find a solution to the Engine issue. And end up with an UFO-like tank.

Actually from my understanding it comes down to weight restrictions related to ground pressure PSI, and the hindrance to mobility. Even if you have frontal armor on all sides, you'll have a tank that weighs over 100 tons with the mobility of a slug, that could still be annihilated by a PGM with a warhead as small as 30 kg of explosives.

If were going to sacrifice mobility, you might as well create a fortified concrete/rebar-bunker, with 1-meter thick steel plating encasing the personnel quadrants...You'll have just as much mobility as a 100+ ton MBT, but have protection exponentially greater lol!

But that's beside the point because even if the rear had 'frontal protection' there's a portion of the MBT that's significantly larger than the rear in area and has even thinner armor, it's call 'top armor'.

\

Frontal armor extends a bit over the top, I would say that the top armor is better than rear. This is an APC/IFV made to be able to operate effectively in urban combat, of which attacks from rooftop RPGs are commonplace.

max steel wrote:
A company from the United States presented its first remote-controlled drone tanks, an attempt to outdo Russia’s next-generation Armata and win the ‘arms race’.
The great powers – the US and Russia – have started new arms race, both trying to present each other most advanced defense equipment and new military technologies, Stern magazine wrote.

As Russia demonstrated its new Armata T-14 battle tank during the Victory Day Parade, the US took every effort to prove that it is keeping up with the time as well.

Americans released pictures showing a new next generation remote-controlled tank. As in Russia, it is not a full-blown battle tank and not a real armored personnel carrier, but a comparatively compact tracked vehicle.