[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

collegeboy16 wrote:
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.

The M2 Browning isn't shitty. It is quite good looking at its performance and looking when it was produced (6 more years and it is 100 years old) It's moderate and no cost effecient HMG have been produced in the west to replace it and that is why it is still in service, surely not the best but better than GPMG.

The 12.7 vs 7.62 pros and cons have been covered. But keep in mind, most handheld anti-tank weapons have < 1km max range, putting them well within the PKTM's envelope. ATGM's have ~5km effective range, well beyond the 12.7mm's envelope. However, there's no law that says you cant launch an ATGM at 1km. The FGM-148 has 2km max range, its envelope extends beyond the 7.62mm PKTM's effective range but still within the Kord's effective range.

IMO, the PKTM is the better choice. Disagree if you want, but beyond 1km the poor commander will practically be sniping at pin sized targets who will immediately start to scatter and disappear in the terrain clutter. The best option is either to go conservative and have high ammo count and cover the < 1km envelope of handheld AT weapons, or go overboard and use a bigger round with a larger HE payload like 23mm, either 23x152B or 23x115mm that can effectively smoke targets at 2km+. 23mm has been kicking ass in Syria and Iraq for a long time now. I'm not even sure what's so appealing about the tiny western-style remote weapon stations, lighten up a freaking ZU-23-2, add a camera and stabilizer, then bolt that 50 year old turd onto the T-14's roof.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Zivo wrote:The 12.7 vs 7.62 pros and cons have been covered. But keep in mind, most handheld anti-tank weapons have < 1km max range, putting them well within the PKTM's envelope. ATGM's have ~5km effective range, well beyond the 12.7mm's envelope. However, there's no law that says you cant launch an ATGM at 1km. The FGM-148 has 2km max range, its envelope extends beyond the 7.62mm PKTM's effective range but still within the Kord's effective range.

IMO, the PKTM is the better choice. Disagree if you want, but beyond 1km the poor commander will practically be sniping at pin sized targets who will immediately start to scatter and disappear in the terrain clutter. The best option is either to go conservative and have high ammo count and cover the < 1km envelope of handheld AT weapons, or go overboard and use a bigger round with a larger HE payload like 23mm, either 23x152B or 23x115mm that can effectively smoke targets at 2km+. 23mm has been kicking ass in Syria and Iraq for a long time now. I'm not even sure what the appeal of having tiny western style RWS is, lighten up a freaking ZU-23-2, add a camera and stabilizer,  than bolt that 50 year old turd onto the T-14's roof.

Well it seems similar to your vision was already proposed as one of T-14 variations in 2012

In regards to commander RWS, not the auxiliary weapons which seem to have been ruled out. One example of using 23x115mm in a non-traditional roll is on the T-64E. Granted, the placement and the RWS design itself is rather terrible, you can see how compact they can be made, the rounds themselves are not much larger than 12.7mm, yet are more effective in the anti-infantry roll. 7.62mm and 12.7mm are NOT the only options available.



I think AFV designers need to start looking outside of the typical conventions. These machines are going to run into a wide array of ever evolving threats and they need flexible weapons. The commander's RWS is a good place to start, as it's a bolt on module that can be easily changed.

Trying to explain the Armata's turret situation, after some back and forth because of a lack of understanding I decided to make this:

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

I had read your response.

But, do you call the following an "answer"?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Those are some pretty shitty rationales that aren't grounded in reality or any past war experience.

———————————————————————————————————————

You obviously think some of your other points are correct. They are not.

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

Even according to this "view", a 12.7 mm MG would not allow for enough ammunition stowage for it to fulfill the coax role. This also answers the assertion made by Regular in his post about Kord.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

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

can you elaborate it a bit please?

I am going to work now. I'll elaborate after coming back from work.

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

I agree... quite often it is far superior to any 7.62 calibre weapon, but often it is overkill.

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?

What makes you think there is no coaxial MG on the Armata?

If the TC is wounded or has a heart attack the gunner and driver share related control stations and could take over.

What if the whole turret jams... should it have two turrets and two main guns... just for backup.

The 12.7 vs 7.62 pros and cons have been covered.

Zivo raises some good points... when the enemy scatters the best round to fire at them is one that explodes... a good 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher would be rather more useful than any type of MG...

In regards to commander RWS, not the auxiliary weapons which seem to have been ruled out. One example of using 23x115mm in a non-traditional roll is on the T-64E. Granted, the placement and the RWS design itself is rather terrible, you can see how compact they can be made, the rounds themselves are not much larger than 12.7mm, yet are more effective in the anti-infantry roll. 7.62mm and 12.7mm are NOT the only options available.

Added that the enormous rate of fire of the twin barrel 23mm cannon means that the rounds arrive on target like a shotgun blast that is impossible to dodge... rather than a string of shots like the 30 x 165mm...

Before somebody raising the matter about many Russian heavy tanks having HMG's as their coaxes, I should mention that the tactical-technical-technological situation is different in those cases and don't apply here.

From memory, some of the examples are T-10M, with 14.5 mm KPVT HMGs both as the coax and as the commander's MG, and T-10A and T-10B, with 12.7 DShKMT HMGs both as the coax and as the commander's MG.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

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

can you elaborate it a bit please?

This PKTM and the other weapons on T-14 are all integrated with the AESAs, optical sensors, and the automatic/autonomous fire control systems on the tank; so the tank's integrated weapon system can use the PKTM to shoot down an ATGW, just as well as that of using the primary APS rounds for this purpose.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

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

can you elaborate it a bit please?

This PKTM and the other weapons on T-14 are all integrated with the AESAs, optical sensors, and the automatic/autonomous fire control systems on the tank; so the tank's integrated weapon system can use the PKTM to shoot down an ATGW, just as well as that of using the primary APS rounds for this purpose.

The PKT would be rather more useful to target the source of fire instead of taking on the ATGM in flight. Most ATGM's being rather slow (200-250 m/s after PoF) the distance traveled would equate usually to at least 4/5 seconds within the PKT envelope. Beyond that timeframe the tank would have the chance to start a manoeuvre, initiate a softkill/hardkill sequence instead of using the PKT for that task. This is how the Trophy APS works. APS defends from incoming M2 enslaved with turret points towards source of fire.

The official expression of the weight of Armata is coming as per Corporate edition of "Uralvagonzavod" journal



The weight of Armata is менее 55
Less than 55(t)

So it is not 48t. It is not 50t
It is between 50t and 55t...

You can download journal here
http://technowars.ru/assets/content/article/174/tw-3-2015-cut.pdf

Zivo wrote:
In regards to commander RWS, not the auxiliary weapons which seem to have been ruled out. One example of using 23x115mm in a non-traditional roll is on the T-64E. Granted, the placement and the RWS design itself is rather terrible, you can see how compact they can be made, the rounds themselves are not much larger than 12.7mm, yet are more effective in the anti-infantry roll. 7.62mm and 12.7mm are NOT the only options available.

I think AFV designers need to start looking outside of the typical conventions. These machines are going to run into a wide array of ever evolving threats and they need flexible weapons. The commander's RWS is a good place to start, as it's a bolt on module that can be easily changed.

that caseless 40mm GL(forgot what its called) is a nice candidate for commander's RWS. healthy amount of explosive filling and very small firing signature, perfect for taking out groups of people.

xeno wrote:The official expression of the weight of Armata is coming as per Corporate edition of "Uralvagonzavod" journal



The weight of Armata is менее 55
Less than 55(t)

So it is not 48t. It is not 50t
It is between 50t and 55t...

You can download journal here
http://technowars.ru/assets/content/article/174/tw-3-2015-cut.pdf

Good find highly appreciated.

Well my last estimate on Armata weight based on T-72A and T-90's NGP (Nominal Ground Pressure) Give range of 46-54 ton.

Half of that weight would be armor.

Armata may require 2 years' crew training

Russia’s newest Armata tank will require crew training for up to two years and conscripts drafted for just one year won’t be able to master the technology, retired Tank Troops Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky said on Thursday.
"The tank has become considerably more complex by its design and the study of its parts, units and electronic equipment requires considerable knowledge and lengthy training," Murakhovsky told Technowars, a corporate journal published by the tank producer, Uralvagonzavod.

Kyo wrote:Armata may require 2 years' crew training

Russia’s newest Armata tank will require crew training for up to two years and conscripts drafted for just one year won’t be able to master the technology, retired Tank Troops Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky said on Thursday.
"The tank has become considerably more complex by its design and the study of its parts, units and electronic equipment requires considerable knowledge and lengthy training," Murakhovsky told Technowars, a corporate journal published by the tank producer, Uralvagonzavod.

Well, so be it.. Armata will be Contract's playthings then.

Conscripts can do with thousands of T-72's or T-90.

So..that doesn't seem to be a problem at all.

How did you go from

xeno wrote:The weight of Armata is Less than 55(t)

to

So it is not 48t. It is not 50t
It is between 50t and 55t...

Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

xeno wrote:The official expression of the weight of Armata is coming as per Corporate edition of "Uralvagonzavod" journal

Khlopotov (Gur Khan) has called this publication a disgrace on Otvaga. He says the authors are part of the UVZ PR department and don't have access to the T-14 specs....he insists his figures published a couple of days ago are accurate

Ivan the Colorado wrote:Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

There you go....Armata is actually a German tank that was never built

Nice

2015Tank "Armata" in the future will be remotely controlled

Cyberspec wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

There you go....Armata is actually a German tank that was never built

It's just like Western media claims about how Soviet's played very little part in defeating the Nazi's, or how Russia doesn't produce or manufacture anything, or how the Afghan Mujahadeen were freedom fighters and not terrorists like the Soviet's claimed...

Viktor wrote:Nice  

2015Tank "Armata" in the future will be remotely controlled

TT-14 Tele-Armata

I don't have the time, seriously can someone counter the agit-prop of this article?

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

Cyberspec wrote:

xeno wrote:The official expression of the weight of Armata is coming as per Corporate edition of "Uralvagonzavod" journal

Khlopotov (Gur Khan) has called this publication a disgrace on Otvaga. He says the authors are part of the UVZ PR department and don't have access to the T-14 specs....he insists his figures published a couple of days ago are accurate

Ivan the Colorado wrote:Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

There you go....Armata is actually a German tank that was never built

At least a PR guy can officially get the specs from the technical department directly and publish them on the journal with the approval of the boss.