[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:ZOMG-RUZZIA-IZ-BANKRUPT!!!1! Is that why Russia has one of the lowest Debt/GDP ratios of the top 10 largest economies in the world?

Black is White and White is Black

18 trln USD debts is best economy on planet while 3.4 trln with one of the lowest debts is a collapsing country.

So Russia still exists?! Obama confirmed economy is dead. I have heard depopulation level is so high that in 2020 Russia has 137mln, i n2025 128 mln, all drunkards or addicts, no industry, army in shambles, export women crude and lumber.


One wonders me so why all the west is sh!!ting pants on country that does not exist anymore?

berhoum wrote:La tourelle du pelées (analysé) T-14 ...

Nice 3d vido the armata

Cyberspec wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Never mind the Diplomat and it's stories....there's new info and some confirmation of previous speculative reports.

From Gur Khan (George posted part of the info on the previous page) regarding some details on the T-14

Combat weight …………….........48 tons  -->  combat operations in a city .................... 53 tons

So the T-14's Urban warfare kit weighs 5 tons

...The chassis is said to be capable of supporting up to 65 tons, so it's possible that if deemed necessary that the T-14 could be beefed up even more than the 53 tons stated...

From what I gather, the 65 ton capacity is in-built taking into account future upgrades....among other things,  possibly a 152mm gun

I am quite certain there will be a 152 mm gun variant in the near future. The Armata platform was designed to create flexibility. During
WWII it was the introduction of the 85 mm gun on the T-34 that made a big difference. One never knows what the situation will be in the
future.

Comparison of top armour (crew section) of T-14 and Abrams....even without ERA

The difference is huge...is T-14's top armor composite or just the base steel?

Mike E wrote:The difference is huge...is T-14's top armor composite or just the base steel?

I infer from certain talk posted here that it is likely a multilayer cross-grained steel alloy composite. So
it would be much stronger than a single sheet of regular steel of the same thickness. But it looks like it is
all steel with no other material used.

Mike E wrote:The difference is huge...is T-14's top armor composite or just the base steel?

It seems like having a small turret saves a lot of material for other places.

That is not the only thickness of the armor.

Look at this picture the hull itself is also layered with armor of composite material probably alloy of the new armor.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:so T-14 has a coax after all! wow 1:03

Not necessarily....there's some speculation from knowledgable posters, that the small slit might be for a back up camera system

Werewolf wrote:That is not the only thickness of the armor.

Look at this picture the hull itself is also layered with armor of composite material probably alloy of the new armor.

Yep, they seem to have taken care to make it imune from artillery 'top attack' cumultative munitions (like the ones fired from MRLS)


_______________

One feature on the T-15 Hv BMP we haven't mentioned is that's apparently equipped with an 'Anti-Sniper" locator system (according to Gur Khan's article)

Features FCS:
- Automatic search of targets simultaneously in different spectral ranges in passive and active mode;
- Search for camouflaged targets with optical locator ("Anti-sniper");
- Simultaneous firing of two goals;
- High-performance anti-aircraft shooting from the cannon within zone of 70 deg from corner of turret
- Combat operation in remote control;
- Work on the external target designation;

Design features:
- Block-modular design;
- Increasing the security of the crew;
- Multi-combat use.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/15.html

Should be this one...

Sniper Detection Scope - "AntiSniper"

http://www.bnti.ru/des.asp?itm=6359&tbl=02.04.&p=1

berhoum wrote:La tourelle du pelées (analysé) T-14 ...

*frantically unzips and drops pants*

whats the text saying on 1:04? please say its a coax slit... better yet, full transl. of the vid. thanks.

collegeboy16 wrote:

berhoum wrote:La tourelle du pelées (analysé) T-14 ...

*frantically unzips and drops pants*

whats the text saying on 1:04? please say its a coax slit... better yet, full transl. of the vid. thanks.

спаренный пулемет =coax mg :-)

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

sepheronx wrote:If anyone missed it, I edited my post to add this:
So once one does the numbers, you will see how ridiculous the claims are.  But of course, it is all BS.

How many tanks per year?  Who knows.  It seems to be on average recently about 300 tanks per year in terms of upgrades/new.  They said they can do 1000 tanks a year tops.  I doubt that really myself and think maybe at least 500-800 per year.  Regardless, I think they will opt for something like 300 per year just by looking at current rates.

They could extend the deadline of it and purchase more upgrades in the mean time, something like getting T-72's to T-90MS levels.

I´d say maybe now 300 per year but in 5years 1500? I would rather ask question about urgency of needs. The more urgent need of new tanks then production capabilities surely can grow steeper.

Is there that much of an urgency? Russia has enough spare tanks to deal with most enemies, even if they are old spares (there are a ridiculous amount of repair plants in Russia so they could upgrade them and modify them in shorter notice if need be) and if they over produce, then what will keep them busy/employed afterwards? Economically, its better for a steady, lower rate of production to help the industry out, while you get what you need. Also, good way to test it out through all trials before it is finished, just incase of problems. I know the 2300 wont be final number for these tanks, as they will probably opt for more afterwards, but how many afterwards? Probably not the same number in shorter amount of years. Probably in next decade+ will see same amount additional. But that is a lot of money, so they will stretch it out to save, as well as keep the company producing.

sepheronx wrote:
Is there that much of an urgency? Russia has enough spare tanks to deal with most enemies, even if they are old spares (there are a ridiculous amount of repair plants in Russia so they could upgrade them and modify them in shorter notice if need be) and if they over produce, then what will keep them busy/employed afterwards? Economically, its better for a steady, lower rate of production to help the industry out, while you get what you need. Also, good way to test it out through all trials before it is finished, just incase of problems. I know the 2300 wont be final number for these tanks, as they will probably opt for more afterwards, but how many afterwards? Probably not the same number in shorter amount of years. Probably in next decade+ will see same amount additional. But that is a lot of money, so they will stretch it out to save, as well as keep the company producing.

Well, urgency is defined by time period till US financial collapse. They just need wars to survive. Other point is IMHO export potential. Today Egypt, maybe Brazil?India?China?Iran? who knows

As for old Soviet tanks still in reserve. Maybe best option would be ¨robo packs¨ -instead or manning tanks better to convert them into drones. With so many drones no NATO army can dream to survive. Give 7-10 drones to every Abrams or LEO. So what? this is just a first line of attack. For remains who survive can prepare for next wave of Armatas to finish the deal

Neutrality wrote:

Khepesh wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Khepesh wrote:Another view. Looks like the OPVT under the rear of the stowage cassette. I presume also mounting brackets for the fuel drums, or maybe the log, how can there be a tank without a log...
Now the canvas is off it raises even more questions...


What is that grating on the back of the bustle about anyhow? And why does everything look so chared below it? Do they dump charcoal into that space or what?
Hmm if I had a guess I'd say it's a mobile Barbaque set for the crew maybe?

Very difficult to say what that is behind the grill. At first look I thought it was spare track links, but not really on the turret on a 21st century tank and on a closer look it is clear they are not track links. But what  Maybe the hole in the left side of the turret is for a drinks and food cooler so we can all make some cool comment like "I'm drinking wine and eating cheese, and catching some rays, you know."

Considering the turret is unmanned, maybe it's some sort of a cooling system for those electronic components or am I thinking too far?

Had anyone ever answered this question about the function of the back of the turret bustle? To me it looks like a gear and winch system to aid tank recovery vehicles, where the screen is there to prevent/minimize flying rocks and twigs from getting jammed in the moving gears.

There is still no explanation how the 7,62 PKT is so superior in performance for an AA MG while 12,7mm such as the modern light kord is such obsolete useless garbage...

KomissarBojanchev wrote:There is still no explanation how the 7,62 PKT is so superior in performance for an AA MG while 12,7mm such as the modern light kord is such obsolete useless garbage...

It isn't....the only thing I can think of is that you can have more ammo for the PKT

Hezbollah has M1's, and in all likelihood Iran as examined them in detail. It wouldn't be beyond belief that Russian and Chinese engineers have also studied the complete Iraqi/Hezbollah samples.

They're Iraqi M1's AFAIK....the people posing with them are most likely the Iraqi branch of Hezbollah but I doubt they have them in their inventory

Book. wrote:Egypt the Tor Pecho2 Buk

Russia it monk model

Monk model

There is still no explanation how the 7,62 PKT is so superior in performance for an AA MG while 12,7mm such as the modern light kord is such obsolete useless garbage...

Just because it is mounted on the roof of the turret of the vehicle does not mean it is an anti aircraft weapon.

Many many decades ago then a 12.7mm HMG would be a useful anti aircraft gun for a tank simply because its fire control systems and ammo weren't up to taking on aircraft of any type at any range and any chance of a hit would be a fluke.

These days with all weather day night optics and advanced fire control systems an attack helo is dead meat within 3-4km, a range band for which a 12.7mm is not so useful.

That means that the roof mounted gun wont be used against enemy attack helos popping up from cover 2km away or less to fire a slow subsonic anti tank missile at you... most of the time it will be used against enemy troops that appear near the vehicle... for which a 7.62mm calibre MG is perfectly adequate... and more importantly you can carry 2,3 or 4,000 rounds of ready to use ammo, compared with the 300-400 rounds of 12.7mm ammo that could fit in the same space.

Of course you have to remember the Armata MBT wont be operating on their own... a nearby IFV version with a 30mm or 45mm cannon would be far better equipped to deal with enemy aircraft... especially if the troops have a Verba MANPADS in the troop compartment...

BTW obviously Monkey downgraded for export model that is not the same as the Russian service model... just like that Abrams...

The headline claims Egypt will be considered for export when domestic demand is met... as mentioned by someone that could be some time... likely after 2025.  By that time they will likely have developed an export model... perhaps with Iraqi parts and components... and weapons optimised for Iraqi needs.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:There is still no explanation how the 7,62 PKT is so superior in performance for an AA MG while 12,7mm such as the modern light kord is such obsolete useless garbage...

In the following, I have reproduced my post from page 54 of this forum. You can find the answer to your question in it. Garry has also directly responded to your question.


It is also important not to call this PKTM an AA MG or a commander's MG just because it is high up there. It is the role and the technology that defines it. By the way, this PKTM has an antimissile (active armor) role also.

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


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.

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


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.


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.

GarryB wrote:

There is still no explanation how the 7,62 PKT is so superior in performance for an AA MG while 12,7mm such as the modern light kord is such obsolete useless garbage...

Just because it is mounted on the roof of the turret of the vehicle does not mean it is an anti aircraft weapon.

Many many decades ago then a 12.7mm HMG would be a useful anti aircraft gun for a tank simply because its fire control systems and ammo weren't up to taking on aircraft of any type at any range and any chance of a hit would be a fluke.

These days with all weather day night optics and advanced fire control systems an attack helo is dead meat within 3-4km, a range band for which a 12.7mm is not so useful.

That means that the roof mounted gun wont be used against enemy attack helos popping up from cover 2km away or less to fire a slow subsonic anti tank missile at you... most of the time it will be used against enemy troops that appear near the vehicle... for which a 7.62mm calibre MG is perfectly adequate... and more importantly you can carry 2,3 or 4,000 rounds of ready to use ammo, compared with the 300-400 rounds of 12.7mm ammo that could fit in the same space.

Of course you have to remember the Armata MBT wont be operating on their own... a nearby IFV version with a 30mm or 45mm cannon would be far better equipped to deal with enemy aircraft... especially if the troops have a Verba MANPADS in the troop compartment...
.

I agree that the commander MG being used as a AA gun is not really of any use today and frankly I think its always been a bit of a stupid idea. Even a few decades ago before modern A-G missile were introduced onto helos, it would taken some luck to get a Helo in a position where the commander could get an accurate shot off.

Though I still believe that the 12.7mm gun is still useful today especially where we are seeing more and more conflicts taking place in urban areas. When you have anti-tank infantry using building as cover a 7.62mm isn't always going to cut it while the 12.7mm has the penetrating power to shot throw I would say 90% of the urban cover that's out there.

That being said I think that the Commander gun will be interchangeable. So I wouldn't worry to much

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote: By the way, this PKTM has an antimissile (active armor) role also.

can you elaborate it a bit please?

Flyboy77 wrote:
I agree that the commander MG being used as a AA gun is not really of any use today and frankly I think its always been a bit of a stupid idea. Even a few decades ago before modern A-G missile were introduced onto helos, it would taken some luck to get a Helo in a position where the commander could get an accurate shot off.

Though I still believe that the 12.7mm gun is still useful today especially where we are seeing more and more conflicts taking place in urban areas. When you have anti-tank infantry using building as cover a 7.62mm isn't always going to cut it  while the 12.7mm has the penetrating power to shot throw I would say 90% of the urban cover that's out there.

That being said I think that the Commander gun will be interchangeable. So I wouldn't worry to much

yup, the people who will operate this would replace that PKT with a proper Kord lickety-split. ammo capacity wont be a problem either, in fact with the PKT's humongous ammo load this becomes a case of too much of a good thing that its bad. see, a commander's MG is very much an "oh shit" weapon, ideally as hunter in hunter-killer team the MG is used to dispose of light and often very time sensitive targets like some dude popping up from a trench to aim an RPG while the main gun is brought to bear. 500 rounds of more effective 12.7mm is what you want/need for those fleeting targets rather 2000 lighter rounds which would likely just outlast the main gun ammo supply and means wasted capacity since you have to return and top up anyways.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:There is still no explanation how the 7,62 PKT is so superior in performance for an AA MG while 12,7mm such as the modern light kord is such obsolete useless garbage...

Kord is superior in all aspects, best hmg in the world. Coax version looks awesome.

Regular wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:There is still no explanation how the 7,62 PKT is so superior in performance for an AA MG while 12,7mm such as the modern light kord is such obsolete useless garbage...

Kord is superior in all aspects, best hmg in the world. Coax version looks awesome.

Where did you see a Kord coax MG on a tank?

Can you post a picture?

Werewolf wrote:

Regular wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:There is still no explanation how the 7,62 PKT is so superior in performance for an AA MG while 12,7mm such as the modern light kord is such obsolete useless garbage...

Kord is superior in all aspects, best hmg in the world. Coax version looks awesome.

Where did you see a Kord coax MG on a tank?

Can you post a picture?

the French Leclerc's have a .50 cal as coax. its the shitty m2 tho. and yeah, a Kord as coax would work too. sharing that very stable main gun mount you can use it as an automatic sniper rifle.

And I answered all your theories, but it looks like nobody read them...

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.

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

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.

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 coaxial 7,62mm burst? WHat if there are civilians around the enemy than can be minced as well?



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 making it easier to take out ATGM operators, snipers or HMG operators

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

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?

PS:These IMO are the best armaments for the finished T-14:
1x125mm 2A82
1x12,7mm commander sights kord
1xPKTM coaxial
1x 57mm AGL

Or:
1x152mm gun
1x12,7mm coaxial kord
1x23mm coaxial AC
1x commander's sights 57mm AGL