[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

xeno wrote:

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

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.

Original Die Welt article: http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/wirtschaft/article141573502/Russischer-Super-Panzer-kopiert-deutsche-Ideen.html

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

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

Why? It's just shoulda coulda woulda butthurt.

Germany can put their money were their mouth is, and in 10 years, produce an armata copy.


On the subject, here's some detailed shots of the Abrams TTB mockup. All it needs is some glossy green paint and a bad PS banner of Khomeini behind it and the TTB could pass as being Iran's next gen MBT.

Stealthflanker wrote:
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.

Your estimate?  Where and when did "you" give "your" estimate?

Did you even know what ground pressure was?

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

Of course, to the extent that 49 tonnes is less than 55 tonnes, the publication can not be categorically faulted; however, the article is definitely not being "helpful".

I should mention that, in this field, if someone says the range of a missile is, for example, 30 km, then a range of 300 km or 3000 km would also be covered. I am getting this feeling that some people think that "a weight of less that 55 tonnes" somehow inherently implies a lower bound.

The M1TTB testbed is a tincan and i do not min the turret, i mean the chassis, the armor is very thin and it is further weakened by the 3 crew hatches where one (mid) hatch isn't even reachable when the gun is in forward position. They would need a lot and very thick add on armor and i think the hatches would be impossible to open then at least with this kind of fixing of those hatches.

Werewolf wrote:The M1TTB testbed is a tincan and i do not min the turret, i mean the chassis, the armor is very thin and it is further weakened by the 3 crew hatches where one (mid) hatch isn't even reachable when the gun is in forward position. They would need a lot and very thick add on armor and i think the hatches would be impossible to open then at least with this kind of fixing of those hatches.

its TTB for tank test bed, and its only an M1 hull reworked a bit to accommodate an unmanned turret and the displaced crew. heck, the gunner and driver positions are where the internal fuel tanks should be in the vanilla m1 hull. no surprise tho, they were testing the unmanned turret, not a tank.

higurashihougi wrote:

xeno wrote:

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

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.

Original Die Welt article: http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/wirtschaft/article141573502/Russischer-Super-Panzer-kopiert-deutsche-Ideen.html

You'd better make sure which post I was replying.

My post
"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."
was replying Cyberspec's
"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.."

What the hell does that german thing have anything to do with me?

Read my Post n°938 again...

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

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

I fear that this is more than just butt-hurt pathetic whining. for amny in west since nazi times not much changed in relations with Russia (or general with Slavs). There are enlighten Ubermenschen in west and dirty drunkard Untermenschen in East.

Good news. Few T-14s are being transported somewhere. Probably, directly to regular army tank brigade for state trials. 

Care to explain the ideology behind such a steel? I have no knowledge of today except for that the new "base" steel is 15% more efficient mass/strength wise.

alexZam wrote:Good news. Few T-14s are being transported somewhere. Probably, directly to regular army tank brigade for state trials. 

goddamn the insides of those tanks are gonna smell like clorox after the soldiers play with them.
any ideas of when we shall see it firing soon?

Russia's Mighty T-14 Armata Tank: Should America Be Worried?


http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-mighty-t-14-armata-tank-should-america-be-worried-12999

max steel wrote: Russia's Mighty T-14 Armata Tank: Should America Be Worried?  


http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-mighty-t-14-armata-tank-should-america-be-worried-12999

do I get this wrong or after Germ,an s Israeli claim they are authors of Armata?

This is particularly the case given that the Armata family is, like the Merkava it’s based on,

and here´s where I stopped reading this pind@-cr@p

Russia has plenty of time to work out these problems, but if problems develop with the Armata, then it could begin to look like the PAK FA. A year ago, the PAK FA looked like the most dangerous fighter in the world, tougher than the F-22 and cheaper to boot. Now, Russia is struggling to afford more than a token buy, and the Indian Air Force has grown exceedingly frustrated with production delays and shoddy construction.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

max steel wrote: Russia's Mighty T-14 Armata Tank: Should America Be Worried?  


http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-mighty-t-14-armata-tank-should-america-be-worried-12999

do I get this wrong or after Germ,an s Israeli claim they are authors of Armata?

This is particularly the case given that the Armata family is, like the Merkava it’s based on,

and here´s where I stopped reading this pind@-cr@p

Russia has plenty of time to work out these problems, but if problems develop with the Armata, then it could begin to look like the PAK FA.  A year ago, the PAK FA looked like the most dangerous fighter in the world, tougher than the F-22 and cheaper to boot. Now, Russia is struggling to afford more than a token buy, and the Indian Air Force has grown exceedingly frustrated with production delays and shoddy construction.

Based...on the Merkava?

There are no words.

And the Indians who are frustrated with the FGFA are free to continue on their own, they're bitching because they don't have 1/10th of the design,skill,production, and technological sophistication capability that Russia has, and they clearly expect Sukhoi to do all the work, all the meanwhile insulting the PAK-FA.

And the notion that the PAKFA won't go into production is ridiculous at best. I can't believe people took the news of that order for a 12 plane testing batch as the full scale serial production order.

Mike E wrote:Care to explain the ideology behind such a steel? I have no knowledge of today except for that the new "base" steel is 15% more efficient mass/strength wise.

It means that the new steel ,is 15% more stronger ,thanks to the way is prepared..
So with the new steel ,they can have exactly the same protection in any previous tank..
like T-72 or T-90.. but with 15% less weight.   Or make them with the same weight.. but
15% more armor ,thanks to the stronger steel.

One old trick ,to make stronger steel is its purity.. To heat it at very intense temperatures..
and then remove any material impurity from it.. like residues of Iron or any other substance.

THe other its hybrid steel composites .. mix it with new elements that made it stronger.

So armata is effective  15% more stronger , 15% more protection even using the same weight
of previous T-90 tank.. in real practice should be less than 15% ..because not all things in armata are made of that new enhanced steel ... but not sure.. it could be even a bit better if the
non steel parts ,also have been improved its strengh/weight ratio.

All said the weight of Armata can be misleading.. if compared with previous tanks.. because
ARmata T-14 could be made to have the same weight of a T-90 ,and still have 15% stronger armor protection against kinetic sabot rounds. This is without using reactive defenses or any
external defenses to the core armor of the tank.

So probably the weight of armata should be increase by 15% if you want to compare it with previous tanks.. But it should be more ,because armata also use more armor in the body ,thanks to having a smaller turret.

So if T-90 weight 48 tons.. And officially is said Armata weights 48.. then Armata should be comparable to a 55-58 tons tanks ,if it was using the older steel.

National Interest is not Indian media outlet its a western media outlet probably usa . I just shared their article on T-14 . You can look for more such military articles on National Interest . They have catchy headlines

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

max steel wrote: Russia's Mighty T-14 Armata Tank: Should America Be Worried?  


http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-mighty-t-14-armata-tank-should-america-be-worried-12999

do I get this wrong or after Germ,an s Israeli claim they are authors of Armata?

This is particularly the case given that the Armata family is, like the Merkava it’s based on,

and here´s where I stopped reading this pind@-cr@p

Russia has plenty of time to work out these problems, but if problems develop with the Armata, then it could begin to look like the PAK FA.  A year ago, the PAK FA looked like the most dangerous fighter in the world, tougher than the F-22 and cheaper to boot. Now, Russia is struggling to afford more than a token buy, and the Indian Air Force has grown exceedingly frustrated with production delays and shoddy construction.

NI is OK for a printed toilet paper. As it is virtual, it fails even that one task.

Mike E wrote:Care to explain the ideology behind such a steel? I have no knowledge of today except for that the new "base" steel is 15% more efficient mass/strength wise.

It was developed by NII Stali (Scientific Research Institute of Steel) and is produced by the VMZ Metallurgical Plant in Volgograd.

From the bits and pieces I have read, it's main trick is that its composed of several layers of steel, each at varying angles to each other and to the horizontal plane.

flamming_python wrote:

Mike E wrote:Care to explain the ideology behind such a steel? I have no knowledge of today except for that the new "base" steel is 15% more efficient mass/strength wise.

It was developed by NII Stali (Scientific Research Institute of Steel) and is produced by the VMZ Metallurgical Plant in Volgograd.

From the bits and pieces I have read, it's main trick is that its composed of several layers of steel, each at varying angles to each other and to the horizontal plane.

Essentially what 'kvs' said.

So... 

Is this "composite" that Kvs is describing "15% percent stronger" or is that just the steel variation used in the "composite"?

Sorry for all the questions.

I am back with...more questions... 

The new 2A82 gun and its' freeloader are (finally) able to fire considerably longer KE rounds than the T-72 "style". Would anyone have an estimate of how long they can be? 

The highest-penetration APFSDS round (the M829A3) is close to 800 mm in length, 10 kilos (!) in weight, travels at ~1,550 m/s, and penetrates north of 750 millimeters RHAe at 2000 meters (DM63 penetrates 800 mm RHAe at 2000 meters assuming it is fired at 2000 m/s). Svinets is only ~4.9 kilos and 635 mm in length (flies at ~1700 m/s) yet it still penetrates over 650 mm RHAe at 2000 meters (honestly because 2 kilometers is the regular distance, I'll call it "testing" range or something like that). Knowing this, and the fact that the 2A82 can fire a much longer round...the 1 meter figure may be attainable.

 - Never-mind I figured this out myself... I'll update this post in a second.

"Vacuum-1" (the first long rod developed specifically for the 2A82) is 900 millimeters in length....this may include the round in its' entirety and not just the penetrator, but the rod would be close to that figure nonetheless. 

"Vacuum-2" is the same length, but composed of DU in place of what I can only assume to be Tungsten. Its' penetration would be ~10% superior to that of the "Vacuum-1".

We know the 2A82 is 56 calibers long (7 meters) making it the longest ~120-125 mm barrel used today...combine that with a longer and heavy round and the penetration of one meter does not sound very far fetched.

Mike E wrote:
"Vacuum-1" (the first long rod developed specifically for the 2A82) is 900 millimeters in length....this may include the round in its' entirety and not just the penetrator, but the rod would be close to that figure nonetheless. 

"Vacuum-2" is the same length, but composed of DU in place of what I can only assume to be Tungsten. Its' penetration would be ~10% superior to that of the "Vacuum-1".

We know the 2A82 is 56 calibers long (7 meters) making it the longest ~120-125 mm barrel used today...combine that with a longer and heavy round and the penetration of one meter does not sound very far fetched.

you are mostly right but tiny nitpick:
its the improved 2a82 gun or 2a82-1m which uses the 56 caliber barrel. the current gun we see only uses roughly about the same caliber as the current 125 mm guns. also the velocity gains are mostly due to the added propellant that supposedly makes the propellant mass of the new apfsds comparable to low ballpark of 140mm apfsds.

To be honest I can not tell you the difference between the two guns... The T-14 is equipped with the "2A82-1M" but the "2A82" appears to be the same gun *excluding the difference in length*. Possibly the 1M was developed especially for Armata i.e. no fume extractor or something like that.

New propellants and a higher caliber gun should lead to rather drastic performance increases. If the current guns and ammunition are hitting ~1700 m/s than the 2A82-1M in combination with the "Typhoon" long rods should approach 100-200 m/s higher velocity. Not bad considering the extra length (and therefore weight) brought on by the new ammunition...