[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

it is slaved to the commander's panoramic thermals

Is it?

"Look" at the sight and at the MG.

Let's skip the rest of your post.

If indeed there will be 30mm on Armata

No reason for there to be one, and hopefully there won't be one.

If indeed there will be 30mm on Armata there won't be much need for coax mg.

A 30 mm gun is a very bad substitute for a coax.

sepheronx wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:First official response?....Germany and France to team up to design next generation tank to replace the Leopard and Leclerk

http://news.rambler.ru/30278721/

Will end up way over priced, over developed, and about as good as Armata.

Actually they will be stymied by their attempt to create a spacious crew compartment with the
mandatory spot for a DJ and mirror ball suspended from the ceiling.

Nice to see the western ubermenschen squirm.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

whir wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:From Otvaga:

Perspective is not the same if you resize T-90 image to match background posters you can see that quite clearly.

One reason I posted this was for someone checking to see if they have exactly matched them.


So you think that they haven't applied projective geometry correctly to categorically match the two images?


Of course, you don't need the same perspective. All that needs to be done is, for example, to scale them such that the major axes of the elliptical projected sides of the road wheels to have a ratio of 700 to 760.

I would like to see them explain in detail what geometry transformations they applied. The T-14 is not following the same
track as the T-90 and they have not accounted for that, giving the excessive scale difference. The T-14 weighs
under 50 tons from all the Russian video clips posted on this forum. If it was as big as suggested in the images you
cited, it would be much heavier.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

it is slaved to the commander's panoramic thermals

Is it?

"Look" at the sight and at the MG.

the sight window and the MG do not "look" the same way, So?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Let's skip the rest of your post.

concession accepted

collegeboy16 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

it is slaved to the commander's panoramic thermals

Is it?

"Look" at the sight and at the MG.

the sight window and the MG do not "look" the same way, So?

What do you think the purpose of the quotation marks are?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

it is slaved to the commander's panoramic thermals

Is it?

"Look" at the sight and at the MG.

the sight window and the MG do not "look" the same way, So?

What do you think the purpose of the quotation marks are?

sigh... so you think the gun mount and the sight housing rotate independently of each other and the gun could align coax with the main gun just because they do not look the same way when "fixed". i think thats not very likely, why? well if that were true, then the sight mount would no longer have 360 degrees of freedom to look for next stuff to rekt since the gun mount blocks its sight at a huge arc. whats more likely i think is that thats a sort of low pro position where the radar signature is minimized, the sight then rotates to the left and locks into place when the gun is needed.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

it is slaved to the commander's panoramic thermals

Is it?

"Look" at the sight and at the MG.

the sight window and the MG do not "look" the same way, So?

What do you think the purpose of the quotation marks are?

sigh... so you think the gun mount and the sight housing rotate independently of each other and the gun could align coax with the main gun just because they do not look the same way when "fixed". i think thats not very likely, why? well if that were true, then the sight mount would no longer have 360 degrees of freedom to look for next stuff to rekt since the gun mount blocks its sight at a huge arc. whats more likely i think is that thats a sort of low pro position where the radar signature is minimized, the sight then rotates to the left and locks into place when the gun is needed.

The commander's MG is the commanders MG, it will not be playing the role of the coaxial.
The mounting can move and rotate, it is the same one used on the T-90MS.

OminousSpudd wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:First official response?....Germany and France to team up to design next generation tank to replace the Leopard and Leclerk

http://news.rambler.ru/30278721/

Bahahaha,

If it's anything like the Eurofighter's long and tortured development we might be lucky if we live long enough to see it, and by then the price will be so ludicrous and the maintenance so high the whole of Europe might be able to operate 100 of them. Perhaps a bit cynical, but you get the idea. If they chuck the UK into the arrangement the results will be even more morbid.

The West is losing the race to an opponent that's not even trying.

1.) Hilarious considering it took only 5-6 years to create Armata, and it will take the Euro-wankers 15 years (by 2030) to create a competitor lol! Meanwhile Armata platform (as opposed to being just a MBT) is designed in it's onset to be a modular platform with literally hundreds of combinations while simultaneously maintaining a relatively small logistics tail (compared to Modern heavy armor AFV's), it's also designed to out last its foreign competitors due to it's flexible modularity.

2.) Looking at the direction the EU is going, who's to say they'll be any money for this project by the time it supposed to meet it's 2030 deadline? The EU central bank has now started an 'easy money' quantitative easing program worth trillions of Euros, just to prop up Europe's decrepit and dying financial sector which is 'brain dead' and on life support. If the EU (and by the EU I really mean Germany) is going spend trillions of Euro's to prop up it's banks, how will they allocate money for a brand new MBT program (likely it'll just be a MBT and not a modular platform like Armata)?

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

If indeed there will be 30mm on Armata

No reason for there to be one, and hopefully there won't be one.

If indeed there will be 30mm on Armata there won't be much need for coax mg.

A 30 mm gun is a very bad substitute for a coax.

Your entitled to your opinion, but I really don't understand why you would 'hope' for it not to be there considering that the turret is completely modular, and a 30 mm autocannon could be fitted for one operation and removed from the turret for another operation.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:First official response?....Germany and France to team up to design next generation tank to replace the Leopard and Leclerk

http://news.rambler.ru/30278721/

Bahahaha,

If it's anything like the Eurofighter's long and tortured development we might be lucky if we live long enough to see it, and by then the price will be so ludicrous and the maintenance so high the whole of Europe might be able to operate 100 of them. Perhaps a bit cynical, but you get the idea. If they chuck the UK into the arrangement the results will be even more morbid.

The West is losing the race to an opponent that's not even trying.

1.) Hilarious considering it took only 5-6 years to create Armata, and it will take the Euro-wankers 15 years (by 2030) to create a competitor lol! Meanwhile Armata platform (as opposed to being just a MBT) is designed in it's onset to be a modular platform with literally hundreds of combinations while simultaneously maintaining a relatively small logistics tail (compared to Modern heavy armor AFV's), it's also designed to out last its foreign competitors due to it's flexible modularity.

2.) Looking at the direction the EU is going, who's to say they'll be any money for this project by the time it supposed to meet it's 2030 deadline? The EU central bank has now started an 'easy money' quantitative easing program worth trillions of Euros, just to prop up Europe's decrepit and dying financial sector which is 'brain dead' and on life support. If the EU (and by the EU I really mean Germany) is going spend trillions of Euro's to prop up it's banks, how will they allocate money for a brand new MBT program (likely it'll just be a MBT and not a modular platform like Armata)?

Well to be fair all the previous work on obj 187,188,640,195 are all counted as the basic work for 148 so they did had a fair amount of time with several interuptions due financial reasons.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

1.) Hilarious considering it took only 5-6 years to create Armata, and it will take the Euro-wankers 15 years (by 2030) to create a competitor lol! Meanwhile Armata platform (as opposed to being just a MBT) is designed in it's onset to be a modular platform with literally hundreds of combinations while simultaneously maintaining a relatively small logistics tail (compared to Modern heavy armor AFV's), it's also designed to out last its foreign competitors due to it's flexible modularity.

2.) Looking at the direction the EU is going, who's to say they'll be any money for this project by the time it supposed to meet it's 2030 deadline? The EU central bank has now started an 'easy money' quantitative easing program worth trillions of Euros, just to prop up Europe's decrepit and dying financial sector which is 'brain dead' and on life support. If the EU (and by the EU I really mean Germany) is going spend trillions of Euro's to prop up it's banks, how will they allocate money for a brand new MBT program (likely it'll just be a MBT and not a modular platform like Armata)?

As for time I cannot agree that it took 5-6 years to Armata. Object 195 wasn´t evaluation of concept and technologies later used and perfected in Armata? So 15years can be more less correct time If...

I mean EU might not exist then but surely not with current number of countries and budget. EU countries have already huge internal tensions and this is only start of saving phase, They are slowing down increasing debts. Debts´ payments is way to open civil unrest.
Unless transatlantic values let them formally become  totalitarian state.

Werewolf wrote:
Well to be fair all the previous work on obj 187,188,640,195 are all counted as the basic work for 148 so they did had a fair amount of time with several interruptions due financial reasons.

Damn you voiced this better than me Wrt to EU Armatéé - after 15yrs they will meet Armata T-34

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
Well to be fair all the previous work on obj 187,188,640,195 are all counted as the basic work for 148 so they did had a fair amount of time with several interruptions due financial reasons.

Damn you voiced this better than me Wrt to EU Armatéé - after 15yrs they will meet Armata T-34

IF WW3 does not happen under Hillary the insane and it takes more than two decades they maybe even consider naming a new tank something like T-34 as further demotivator for the enemy.

Werewolf wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
Well to be fair all the previous work on obj 187,188,640,195 are all counted as the basic work for 148 so they did had a fair amount of time with several interruptions due financial reasons.

Damn you voiced this better than me Wrt to EU Armatéé - after 15yrs they will meet Armata T-34

IF WW3 does not happen under Hillary the insane and it takes more than two decades they maybe even consider naming a new tank something like T-34 as further demotivator for the enemy.

well again evil dictator H. wants to annihilate Russia because democracy needs more Lebensraum? so Russia needs to field Armata T-34-152 or T-34-Рельсотрон

IMHO as long as Wests golden billion elites are in range or Rubezhs´and Sarmats no war is gonna happen.

Mindstorm wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:any news about Armata with badass looking turret with 30mm gun and something like 4 barrel Yak 12,7mm gun?

Not precisely , but old VIM -alias Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky one of the maximum expert in the Sector and editor in chief of "Арсенал Отечества"  - has revealed in Форум «Отвага» some details (surely with deeply reasoned "placet" by part of MoD   ) about Armata MBT's turrett weapon suit among which the 30 mm gun with brand new type of ammunitions.

Other details concern the confirmation that the new medium caliber of choice for Armata, Kurganet-25 and Boomerang with Эпоху"station, in their production iteration, will be 57 mm while 45 mm is in the middle term development plan.

Wow thank you for interesting news. So badass version is ye to rise with machines
This fundamentally new ammo is as far as I understand telescopic caseless.


BTW this version also had a 4barrel machine gun like Yak-B hope to see this add on as well

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:T-14 doesn't seem to have a coaxial MG. I think here are some of the possible rationals.

Those are some pretty shitty rationales that aren't grounded in reality or any past war experience.
Let's hope today's russian engineers haven't fallen to this level of design lazyness.

When designing an AFV  the word "enough" shouldn't exist, every AFV should BE CRAMMED THE LARGEST FIREPOWER TECHNOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE until there's a threat of degrading performance in other categories.

1- The remotely controlled MG has probably enough stowage of ammunition to perform the role of a coax. Especially that it's controllable by any of the crew-members and also automatically. It can even follow the main gun if it is so wished. I think this is the primary explanation.

What if an AMR destroys the RWS? WHat if the circuitry malfunctions? Do you truly think its a great idea to waste precious tank rounds for something an MG can do? What if the TC is wounded and can't operate the RWS? What if the RWS jams? Why do russian engineers suddenly start hating backups?
Also an RWS has far less ammo load than a coaxial MG. While this doesn't mean the RWS shouldn't exist, this proves the coax  also can make a huge difference and is, has been and will be the deadliest and most indispensable MG mount for a massive variety of combat situations. The RWS, like the hull MG will always have an assisting or equal role no matter how many gadgets you cram it with.

This also explains the choice of a 7.62 mm MG over a 12.7 mm one.

The 12,7 will forever be more useful than a rifle calibre gun for an RWS because:
Can completely pierce body armor

Has far better range

Can penetrate light armored vehicles or act far better as a last resort AA weapon when wasting an expensive ATGM isn't worth it

Can penetrate cover, exponentially increaing urban combat

2- The various main gun rounds that have anti-personnel capabilities, in conjunction with remote fusing and sensor fusing, also in conjunction to the main gun's large ammunition stowage, can cover a lot of the coax roles.

Why waste an HE-FRAG shell when an enemy can be killed by exponentially cheaper 7,62mm burst? WHat if there are civilians around the enemy than can be minced as well?

3- The tank's various defensive subsystems can also have general and specialized anti-personnel capabilities that can satisfy part of the requirements for a coax.

And what exactly are those subsystems. And since when did APS or ECM systems= machine guns?

Guys over at social network group at vkontakte.com. Probably the closest to truth so far...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40zz3I_Kuxc

Some screenshots:





.

whir wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:From Otvaga:

Perspective is not the same if you resize T-90 image to match background posters you can see that quite clearly.

I think the size of the stars on the tanks in the two photos also demonstrates this.

alexZam wrote:Guys over at social network group at vkontakte.com. Probably the closest to truth so far...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40zz3I_Kuxc

.

I don't see the point of the protruding box at the back of the turret if these guesses have any validity. Just
to make the turret look "cool"?

I also don't think the outer shell is decorative. If it was just a hull it wouldn't be assembled from individual
heavy plates such as it is. You can see the metal loops to attach hooks for hoisting in many of them.
The outer skin is much more than just a skin and I think it is part of the defense of the turret.

From one of the videos a company representative was discussing ERA in the turret. So the turret shell is composed
of ERA elements. We also do not know what it is covering and I doubt it is empty space with a few parts as
rendered in the video.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1314003.html

The picture says it all.

kvs wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

whir wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:From Otvaga:

Perspective is not the same if you resize T-90 image to match background posters you can see that quite clearly.

One reason I posted this was for someone checking to see if they have exactly matched them.


So you think that they haven't applied projective geometry correctly to categorically match the two images?


Of course, you don't need the same perspective. All that needs to be done is, for example, to scale them such that the major axes of the elliptical projected sides of the road wheels to have a ratio of 700 to 760.

I would like to see them explain in detail what geometry transformations they applied.   The T-14 is not following the same
track as the T-90 and they have not accounted for that, giving the excessive scale difference.   The T-14 weighs
under 50 tons from all the Russian video clips posted on this forum.   If it was as big as suggested in the images you
cited, it would be much heavier.

Well, from memory, I can remember we calculated the weigh as being around 49 tonnes.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1314003.html

The picture says it all.

Can't be, surely! It's freaking huge!

We will know when the turret is finished and it goes into production in 2 years.

mack8 wrote:

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1314003.html

The picture says it all.

Can't be, surely! It's freaking huge!

Well the T-90 was "freaking small" by today's standards.... A small tank in comparison with a decently-large one is going to make the latter seem much bigger than it really is. 

T-14 vs. MK-IV or A2 would be interesting.