Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+70
fragmachine
par far
T-44
x_54_u43
JohninMK
ult
Khepesh
Project Canada
Neirdark
zg18
AlfaT8
OminousSpudd
Glyph
Cucumber Khan
Walther von Oldenburg
jhelb
PapaDragon
Berkut
Cyrus the great
VladimirSahin
Mak Sime
2SPOOKY4U
Mike E
Vann7
GunshipDemocracy
magnumcromagnon
Alex555
marcellogo
collegeboy16
Werewolf
Stealthflanker
Austin
volna
Brovich
berhoum
Big_Gazza
Cyberspec
George1
mack8
franco
THX-15
whir
Morpheus Eberhardt
Book.
Rmf
max steel
victor1985
Mindstorm
archangelski
Flanky
flamming_python
sepheronx
higurashihougi
Acheron
AJ-47
BKP
Kyo
Flyboy77
chicken
Viktor
KoTeMoRe
cracker
Dima
KomissarBojanchev
mutantsushi
kvs
alexZam
Zivo
Regular
xeno
74 posters

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5931
    Points : 6120
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:49 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    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.

    Yes, but the overall context was not specific and was not mentioning that the rounds in the turret are left out nowdays, which have been proven in 2nd Chechnya to increase safety significantly, leaving only capsuled carousel ammunition a very good crew survivability even by penetration to the turret on par with any other tank and can be even higher depending on situation.


    collegeboy16 wrote:
    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.

    The Infantry telephone station isn't used when the tank gets fired upon, it is used to provide information of the battlefield from infantry POW to the tank crew, since they have very limited observation of the field and the infantry might need to prioritize where the tank should provide fire support to achieve the necessary results.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1135
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 28
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:18 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    The Infantry telephone station isn't used when the tank gets fired upon, it is used to provide information of the battlefield from infantry POW to the tank crew, since they have very limited observation of the field and the infantry might need to prioritize where the tank should provide fire support to achieve the necessary results.
    what? wireless radios arent a thing anymore? maybe the men could tap morse on the hull while they are at it?

    also, the ad hoc solution of leaving out ammo not in the AL is, as i said ad hoc and not a regular procedure, like dudes sitting on top of their APCs.
    commanders have to choose between increasing survivability when hit while halving combat persistence or the opposite. for missions like Georgia the latter would be a much better choice, but for special assault on fortress city the former is better. its also not fair to attribute the increased survivability during the second war to losing the extra ammo not in AL- tactics played a much bigger part here. no longer were they going in thunder runs which even with no ammo outside of AL would get them slaughtered albeit it would take more rpg teams and time. no, they pulled back and played overwatch this time, and blasted any punks exposed by infantry. rarely would they be caught in an ambush by rpg teams and in most threats that presented themselves the tanks were able to put their most armored fronts to the enemy since they dont come in all directions.
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker


    Posts : 1459
    Points : 1535
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 36
    Location : Indonesia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Stealthflanker Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:28 am

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

    I did.. regarding the penetrator length. Given the turret now unmanned..There's considerable freedom in stowing ammo... It can do like M1TTB (stowing it vertically) or other configurations.. Even "2 stage" Carousel but this limit the length of the penetrator.

    I'm still believe though that Grifel was developed for the 2A82. While the 2A83 use something else.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Austin Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:31 am

    What is 2A82 and 2A83 are their two different guns ?
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1135
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 28
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:41 am

    Austin wrote:What is 2A82 and 2A83 are their two different guns ?
    2a82 is 125mm gun while 2a83 is T-95's 152mm gun.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5931
    Points : 6120
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:50 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    what? wireless radios arent a thing anymore? maybe the men could tap morse on the hull while they are at it?

    Radios are not existent in all troops or circumstances. When the tank is not fired upon from enemy forces, infantry can use it, not the best solution of course but a simple and non expensive solution, but not elegant or highly effective.


    collegeboy16 wrote:
    also, the ad hoc solution of leaving out ammo not in the AL is, as i said ad hoc and not a regular procedure, like dudes sitting on top of their APCs.
    commanders have to choose between increasing survivability when hit while halving combat persistence or the opposite. for missions like Georgia the latter would be a much better choice, but for special assault on fortress city the former is better. its also not fair to attribute the increased survivability during the second war to losing the extra ammo not in AL- tactics played a much bigger part here.

    The Autoloader (Carousel) ammunition isn't reduced or withdrawn it is always kept full, the ammunition that is stored openly without any protection inside the turret is the problem, this ammunition was left out only with 22 rounds in autoloader. The increased survivability wasn't counted in 2nd Chechen war by tactics, but soley on Penetrations to the turret without causing cook offs, even the 1st Chechen war showed only 3 out of 31 tanks had cook offs.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5931
    Points : 6120
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:53 am

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

    I did.. regarding the penetrator length. Given the turret now unmanned..There's considerable freedom in stowing ammo... It can do like M1TTB (stowing it vertically) or other configurations.. Even "2 stage" Carousel but this limit the length of the penetrator.

    I'm still believe though that Grifel was developed for the 2A82. While the 2A83 use something else.

    You are not the only one that beliefes grifel to be 125mm rounds. Looking at those figures that were linked before of roughly having 980-1000 mm RHAe penetration would be rather close to 125mm rather than 152mm. If a 152mm would fire a full length Sabot it would perforate singificantly more armor than just 1m, closer to 1400mm.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1135
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 28
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:21 am

    Werewolf wrote:

    You are not the only one that beliefes grifel to be 125mm rounds. Looking at those figures that were linked before of roughly having 980-1000 mm RHAe penetration would be rather close to 125mm rather than 152mm. If a 152mm would fire a full length Sabot it would perforate singificantly more armor than just 1m, closer to 1400mm.
    its the first of several apfsds for the 2a83 gun to use(if it entered production back then)- look at the vast chasm between mangos and vacuums.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 680
    Points : 686
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  marcellogo Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:00 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:

    You are not the only one that beliefes grifel to be 125mm rounds. Looking at those figures that were linked before of roughly having 980-1000 mm RHAe penetration would be rather close to 125mm rather than 152mm. If a 152mm would fire a full length Sabot it would perforate singificantly more armor than just 1m, closer to 1400mm.
    its the first of several apfsds for the 2a83 gun to use(if it entered production back then)- look at the vast chasm between mangos and vacuums.


    About Gun round for what I have understood, T-95, its 152mm gun and Grifel rounds are nineties/early 0 decades level of technology, while the 125mm gun and rounds of Armata are a decade ahead, able to whitstand a greater pressure and so almost equally effective than previous larger caliber ones.
    It doesn't means that there will not a six hinch gun on the Armata, just that they would wait until a more advanced version of it, comparable to the 125mm, would be ready.
    avatar
    Alex555


    Posts : 32
    Points : 34
    Join date : 2014-01-20

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Alex555 Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:41 am

    Google translate:

    The CSRI "Kurs" decided to develop a special set for the tanks on the platform of "Armata", giving the armor seaworthiness, the director of the Central Research Institute for Special Projects Valentin Rykov.

    According to him, for hanging of such a complex tank crews take 30 minutes. Furthermore, such a project already exists, but is designed for light technique for remaking for tanks require six months.

    "It is only necessary to change the design under certain parameters. Watercraft ensures the safety of navigation at sea up to five points and a speed of up to 14 - 16 kilometers per hour, "- said Rykov.

    http://www.vz.ru/news/2015/6/3/748815.html
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:22 pm

    Alex555 wrote:Google translate:

    The CSRI "Kurs" decided to develop a special set for the tanks on the platform of "Armata", giving the armor seaworthiness, the director of the Central Research Institute for Special Projects Valentin Rykov.

    According to him, for hanging of such a complex tank crews take 30 minutes. Furthermore, such a project already exists, but is designed for light technique for remaking for tanks require six months.

    "It is only necessary to change the design under certain parameters. Watercraft ensures the safety of navigation at sea up to five points and a speed of up to 14 - 16 kilometers per hour, "- said Rykov.

    http://www.vz.ru/news/2015/6/3/748815.html

    This article has me puzzled. Are they saying that they'll create an amphibious version of the Armata platform? There'll be some serious challenge developing it, but technology does advance over time. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm not holding my breath on this.

    ...But wouldn't that be hilarious if they made versions of the Armata platform that were both amphibious and air-droppable?!...lol1 It'd seem so improbable to pull off!
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6174
    Points : 6194
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:33 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Alex555 wrote:Google translate:

    The CSRI "Kurs" decided to develop a special set for the tanks on the platform of "Armata", giving the armor seaworthiness, the director of the Central Research Institute for Special Projects Valentin Rykov.

    According to him, for hanging of such a complex tank crews take 30 minutes. Furthermore, such a project already exists, but is designed for light technique for remaking for tanks require six months.

    "It is only necessary to change the design under certain parameters. Watercraft ensures the safety of navigation at sea up to five points and a speed of up to 14 - 16 kilometers per hour, "- said Rykov.

    http://www.vz.ru/news/2015/6/3/748815.html

    This article has me puzzled. Are they saying that they'll create an amphibious version of the Armata platform? There'll be some serious challenge developing it, but technology does advance over time. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I'm not holding my breath on this.

    ...But wouldn't that be hilarious if they made versions of the Armata platform that were both amphibious and air-droppable?!...lol1 It'd seem so improbable to pull off!


    Looks like Kurs institute is either making PR to get moar money or.. or they are really doing some great things. From tonight´s Sputnik

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150603/1022896127.html

    4. Amphibious Vehicles on Armata Platform
    Russia's New Armata Tank Can Be Upgraded to Robot - Official
    The institute is about to install the new Armata platform onto amphibious vehicles. Marine ships equipped with the new impenetrable armor can go as fast as 14 — 16 km/h, have a sea-keeping performance of up to grade 5 and carry 50 soldiers or 8 tons of equipment. Furthermore, there are rumors coming from "Kurs" that military engineers plan to make the new T-14 Armata tank amphibious. Now that would be crazy!



    However this one is also looking good not about Armata though:
    1. Ice-cutting Laser
    Why is the Arctic Important for Russia?
    As Russia sets its eye on developing the Arctic and making it a key region in the near future, the institute has developed an original method of breaking the Arctic ice — an ice-slashing laser. The powerful laser will cut through the thick Arctic ice like a hot knife through butter by cutting off the top layers. After that Russian icebreakers can easily go through the rest of the ice.

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6174
    Points : 6194
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:39 pm


    Media: China and India are interested in buying "Armata"


    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2018034


    MOSCOW, June 4. /TASS/. India, China and countries in Southeast Asia have shown interest in the new models of armored vehicles, shown in the May 9 Parade in honor of the 70th anniversary of Victory in the great Patriotic war. About this "news" told the assistant to the President on military - technical cooperation Vladimir Kozhin.
    Traditional partners of Russia are interested in buying infantry fighting vehicle and tank "Armata", he said. "The interest shown, new technology, it was expensive. Mostly it is our traditional partners: China, India and South-East Asia", - said Vladimir Kozhin.
    He explained that represented at the parade in the first place will go to the Russian Armed forces and only in the future will be supplied to the armies of other States. While foreign customers are satisfied with the Russian equipment that comes under current contracts.
    On red square on Victory Day in the composition of the mechanized column passed new items of military equipment armored vehicle "boomerang", infantry fighting vehicle "Kurganets", armored vehicles "Typhoon", a heavy infantry fighting vehicle on the platform "Armata" tank "Armata".
    The experts noted that the consignment can only speak in three years, the newspaper said.

    So time of big big shopping around the corner
    avatar
    Vann7


    Posts : 5385
    Points : 5485
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Vann7 Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:42 am

    So the Armata Tank armor protection is 900mm ?  
    Thats what an infograph says at RT spanish..

    Fuerza de blindaje = Armor Strength  = 900mm


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 556fc015c461885d578b45d9

    update..
    well actually there is a sign.. of > that could be is greater than.. 900mm

    it doesnt specify if that include the inside capsule for crew or the protection at sides and top
    armor protection..

    http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/176627-india-china-comprar-tanque-armata


    Last edited by Vann7 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:45 am; edited 1 time in total
    Mike E
    Mike E


    Posts : 2619
    Points : 2651
    Join date : 2014-06-18
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Mike E Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:45 am

    They list "greater than" 900 mm and not just "900 mm"... Big difference there.

    My guess would be ~1100 RHAe vs. KE.
    avatar
    Vann7


    Posts : 5385
    Points : 5485
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Vann7 Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 am

    Mike E wrote:They list "greater than" 900 mm and not just "900 mm"... Big difference there.

    My guess would be ~1100 RHAe vs. KE.

    Have it been published the Abram M1A2 gun power capability at 2km..?
    or the M1A3?
    Mike E
    Mike E


    Posts : 2619
    Points : 2651
    Join date : 2014-06-18
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Mike E Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:52 am

    Yes... The M829 has a penetration of just under 800 mm RHAe at 2 kilometers.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5931
    Points : 6120
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:16 am

    If anything then those figures are always wrong and never RHAe figures but LOS figures and i highly doubt those figures are from UVZ themselfs that is always top secret and never disclosed to anyone not even to export models.

    The LOS armor itself could range from 700 to 1200mm, hard to tell without pictures of the interior.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1135
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 28
    Location : Roanapur

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:46 am

    Mike E wrote:Yes... The M829 has a penetration of just under 800 mm RHAe at 2 kilometers.
    correction: its m829a3.

    the T-14's physical armor should be good enough for at least the next generation of rounds the west will field. if the T-14 itself will field apfsds that will burn through 1m of RHAe its safe to assume the armor should be at least that level.

    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Guest Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:52 am

    Looking through the estimated protection levels of previous Russian tanks with ERA, I'm not sure I buy the 900 mm RHAe. I would expect more armor protecting the crew. But that is just me...
    Mike E
    Mike E


    Posts : 2619
    Points : 2651
    Join date : 2014-06-18
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Mike E Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:52 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Yes... The M829 has a penetration of just under 800 mm RHAe at 2 kilometers.
    correction: its m829a3.

    the T-14's physical armor should be good enough for at least the next generation of rounds the west will field. if the T-14 itself will field apfsds that will burn through 1m of RHAe its safe to assume the armor should be at least that level.

    Yes...the A3 my mistake.

    The LOS armor should be around 1 meter...
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5931
    Points : 6120
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:24 am

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 File

    HE-frag Warheads of APS Afghanistan is designation is ZUOF-24G SB1.
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker


    Posts : 1459
    Points : 1535
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 36
    Location : Indonesia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Stealthflanker Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:25 am

    Werewolf wrote:[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 File

    HE-frag Warheads of APS Afghanistan is designation is ZUOF-24G SB1.

    what caliber ? 152mm ?

    and the image doesn't appear.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5931
    Points : 6120
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:27 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 File

    HE-frag Warheads of APS Afghanistan is designation is ZUOF-24G SB1.

    what caliber ? 152mm ?

    and the image doesn't appear.

    Don't know calibre but it is quite big. The picture doesn't appear because i just hotlinked it and it was deleted or moved on paralay.
    Kyo
    Kyo


    Posts : 494
    Points : 541
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 75
    Location : Brasilia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Kyo Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:23 am

    Both India and China are interested in buying Armata

    According to statements to "Izvestia" by the Assistant to the President, Vladimir Kozhin, after the demonstration of new models of armored vehicles in the May 9 parade in honor of the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, interest in innovations, and first of all of the armored infantry tank "Armata", were expressed by the traditional partners of Russia's military-technical cooperation.


    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 16 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:21 pm