[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Just re-read your post...

Are you saying the prototypes seen as of now are using the 2A82 and not the improved variant?

I invite you all to troll this guys' YT video on how "crap the T-14 is"....

Ironically enough my comment on Sentinal's site was featured.

Mike E wrote:I invite you all to troll this guys' YT video on how "crap the T-14 is"....

Ironically enough my comment on Sentinal's site was featured.

When did it get a chance to be overrated? The denigration troll army from NATO is fighting this propaganda war
as if there is a flame under their collective asses. The T-14 must have been a bad shock to NATO planners
who have gotten used to the taste of their own propaganda koolaid.

He seems to be the kind of guy that dismisses anything that is not American... At least he is willing to have a conversation with me in the comments.

Seriously any idiot that starts his argumentation about how something is not good by saying "it looks like shit from the 90's"...what kind of argument is that, that is the only tank of the 21st century, there is not a single tank besides T-14 on the most modern standards, hell even T-90A has more advanced technologies then most western tanks. Yes, it is revolutionary because in 10 years it will be the 2nd Teletank in existence not only that it will have automatization beyond capabilities what the west has ever shown. Till this very date there are barely any innovations and inventions the West has brought to the tank, while almost every tank technology used today as a standard on MBT is russian by origin. APFSDS, APS, ERA, Composite Armor, EODS, EMT etc. pp.

Youtube experts are as much worth as F-16.net 14 year olds. Everything russian is always the biggest crap and every failure the US spits out like M60 MG or M16 is glorified gods weapons.

He tank expert no. jsut stopid kid

forgo him

We argued for a bit... He's brainwashed with his own dreams for sure. - I do recommend disliking his video though...

Mike E wrote:We argued for a bit... He's brainwashed with his own dreams for sure. - I do recommend disliking his video though...

He'll just turn it around and say he has been hit by Putin's troll army and therefore must be right. No point talking with or even viewing his video.

You won't give him a view if you don't watch it... Dislike, leave, and you're all good.

Mike E wrote:I invite you all to troll this guys' YT video on how "crap the T-14 is"....

Ironically enough my comment on Sentinal's site was featured.

nice, i was both outraged and keeling from laughter at the end of the video. seriously this sh!t is fcking hilarious and outrageous. best part is:
"the turret is nowhere near as angular as the T-90, which makes it susceptible to any round out there.". OMG, this inbred SOB delivers!!!

i like that there is a buddy commentator to keep the circlejerk going. next time they should add even more mor0ns on skype or something, that should add to the hilarity, tho the iq level would be nowhere north of room temperature.

Try not to waste thread quality with Youtubers that call themselfs experts and throw around some RHAe protection estimations like they are some damn fact...

Werewolf wrote:Try not to waste thread quality with Youtubers that call themselfs experts and throw around some RHAe protection estimations like they are some damn fact...

Sorry about that... I just was so enraged by the fact he actually linked to one of my comments.

Mike E wrote:In that case...it's a possibility. 

IMHO the gun might seem all that long because it seems to be placed pretty far into the turret... I'll check.

no it isnt:

the trunnions are still where they are in the older gun. if the guns are a bit further back they should be a bit further front which they are not.

also, about the T-15 IFV, it looks quite possible the turret bustle could hold spare Kornets instead of 30/45mm rounds. maybe a robotic arm could be rigged that could reload the missiles in the launchers.

Yes, i read the comments he said the "armor RHAe estimations are not just some guesses, they are fact"....everything you need to know about someone who has no crap idea about tanks.

look, those are factual estimations, OK, end of thread...

seriously, is there any substance to this talk of 2A82 vs. 2A82-1m?
would "vanilla" version be used on any other platform? sprut modernization? i read it would use t-90 gun...?

mutantsushi wrote:look, those are factual estimations, OK, end of thread...

seriously, is there any substance to this talk of 2A82 vs. 2A82-1m?
would "vanilla" version be used on any other platform?  sprut modernization? i read it would use t-90 gun...?

only had this badly google translated article. dunno if original article is official.
https://www.facebook.com/Russ.army/posts/849382895083842
much better, but still not official if i understand correctly: http://www.militarists.ru/?p=8109
ok, no explicit mention of 2a82-1m designation. but they mentioned modernization and i just ran with it. m is for modernization right, and the article did mention another planned modernization this time of ETC tech. nature so the 1 makes sense.

maybe, tho it would have to be a barrel with fume extractor and for Sprut's case the gun modified to have longer recoil stroke and some more recoil dampeners.

I've a question.
Can the old 125mm rounds fit in with 2A82 gun?

volna wrote:I've a question.
Can the old 125mm rounds fit in with 2A82 gun?

No reason it couldn't....not the other way around though.

Mike E wrote:

volna wrote:I've a question.
Can the old 125mm rounds fit in with 2A82 gun?

No reason it couldn't....not the other way around though.

both guns can fit all 125mm projectiles, yes that includes the vacuums. its the AL that precludes this from happening. and ofc. the fact that the newer rounds are a lot more powerful. if they dont blow up the gun in the first place they would eat the gun barrel at a prodigious rate.

projectiles are one thing, but 2A46 family shouldn't be able to use at all the 2A82 propelant charges. So, 2A46 could theorically shoot any 2A82 ammo using the less powerful standard propelant pack.

But the only new projectiles in the T-14 are probably APFSDS, i don't see why the standard 125mm HEAT and HE need replacement... And a new ATGM too of course.

it's like the good old 122mm guns, the D-25 family and M-62 family could shoot the exact same shells, but used 2 different propelant cases.

from an Indian blogger

Russia's Armata T-14 Main Battle Tank: A Preliminary Assessment

Austin wrote:from an Indian blogger

Russia's Armata T-14 Main Battle Tank: A Preliminary Assessment

wow, this article is pretty good. dude pretty much hit the nail on the head on most his points.
ill just chime in that in the debate between unmanned turrets with external sensors versus commander on the cupola, its pretty much going to favor the former as technology moves on. and no, pulling yourself up from your seat, twisting your torso, and craning your neck to look around the tank doesnt sound as not cumbersome to me as opposed to toggling the monitor to display different external camera's view of their sector. display screens have also gotten better over the last 15 years, the graphics are now on the level of the ps2 , and jostling around is not really an issue since the suspension is smooth as fck. i also dont get the problem with adding more stuff- complicated does not mean unreliable. look at thermometers, the ones where you point a laser beam at target is orders of magnitude more accurate than those glass thingies with mercury in them. same with additional sensors, electronics, and mechanicals; in fact those are hardened in the first place, not to mention you can duplicate them, add a layer of redundancy to each system. it could even be argued that if you lose your fancy sensors, electronics and mechanicals and are down to manual you are as good as mission killed anyway- your combat potential is down to single digit percentages of what it was before and best option is to fall back.

Not bad article, have two things to address tho.

The author of the article does not seperate specifically the point about ammunition storage in older soviet/russian tanks. He overall generalizes it as being flawed, the only flawed thing is the scattered around ammunition in the turret, not the ammunition in the carousel itself. The T-90A when leaving out the ammunition out of the turret has better survival chances then most tanks which leave their ammunition unprotected next to tank drivers, since the T-90 carousel is armored, so spalling and hot fragments can not ignite the ammunition. Ammunition in hard casings (metal) are also not directly affected from hot fragments however with fuel stored inside as "spaced armor" this significantly endangerous the unprotected ammunition storage on most western tanks.


The other point is the APS system. The author gives the notion that it is vastly unliked in the west because it can harm infantry nearby, fact is it is the opposite, the west is trying since years to acquire APS complex. In war soldiers are valued less than armor, not to mention majority of engagements against tanks are very rarely with infantry taking cover around the tank itself. We have seen enough footage of different wars, iraq, lybia, syria, ukraine, georgia. Infantrymen tend not to stand that close to tanks, most of the time they do actualy what they are suppossed to do, Cover the tank while providing cover for the tank from inside buildings, so they can regain parts of cities and that is actually the only location were infantrymen are anywhere near a tank in Urban warfare.

Other than that the article is not bad.


Edit: One little point to add. The author is right, that the commanders coupla is important and very important to look around from time to time for himself without relying on time consuming electronics, but he misses a single point is that T-14 has Autotrack and autolockon capability which in normal eases his workload for searching for targets and that point also covers this so called "flaw" of GLATGM being Laser Beam Rider. The commander can guide the missile after the gunner has shot it and move on for searching for new targets if they don't have already one.

Werewolf wrote:Not bad article, have two things to address tho.

The author of the article does not seperate specifically the point about ammunition storage in older soviet/russian tanks. He overall generalizes it as being flawed, the only flawed thing is the scattered around ammunition in the turret, not the ammunition in the carousel itself. The T-90A when leaving out the ammunition out of the turret has better survival chances then most tanks which leave their ammunition unprotected next to tank drivers, since the T-90 carousel is armored, so spalling and hot fragments can not ignite the ammunition. Ammunition in hard casings (metal) are also not directly affected from hot fragments however with fuel stored inside as "spaced armor" this significantly endangerous the unprotected ammunition storage on most western tanks.

but he did stress that point. in fact he mentioned the armored top cover of the carousel AL;that rounds stored here are safe from sparks and spall and the real danger are the rounds placed everywhere in the tank.

Werewolf wrote:
The other point is the APS system. The author gives the notion that it is vastly unliked in the west because it can harm infantry nearby, fact is it is the opposite, the west is trying since years to acquire APS complex. In war soldiers are valued less than armor, not to mention majority of engagements against tanks are very rarely with infantry taking cover around the tank itself. We have seen enough footage of different wars, iraq, lybia, syria, ukraine, georgia. Infantrymen tend not to stand that close to tanks, most of the time they do actualy what they are suppossed to do, Cover the tank while providing cover for the tank from inside buildings, so they can regain parts of cities and that is actually the only location were infantrymen are anywhere near a tank in Urban warfare.

Other than that the article is not bad.

true, its almost suicide to be near a tank when its fighting. makes me laugh about people complaining about the lack of external telephone on tanks.

I would suggest to comment on his blog so that we get response from the author of the article