[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:I don't know if this has been posted hear yet, this seems to be a up-close look of Armata's multi-purpose grenade launcher and examples of it's grenades:






Supposedly this is a photo of Armata's radar:

First two pictures are not Armata but HAPS (Helicopter Active Protection System) with self correcting warheads to counter Stingers or RPG's by Orbital ATK.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150224005136/en/Orbital-ATK-Completes-Key-Test-Helicopter-Active#.VXW1bkZhdmg

O.K., thanks for the correction.

Infografics (from Vzglyad) Armata with 12,7mmgun instead of 7,62? Computer graphic imagination or ...

GarryB wrote:even under the one sided biased CFE agreement Russia was supposed to have 6,000 tanks in Europe, so clearly they wont be all Armata based MBTs...

equally Russia does not need nor can afford an all armata armed force... there will be plenty of lighter units.

They don't even have to all be MBT's... The K-25 125mm gun platform could replace the slot of the older tanks that are sitting around. - The tanks that no longer have enough armor to be relevant anyway... 

Equip it with the 2A82-1M and Afganit and the thing will still pose a *major* threat to all Western vehicles. The penetration to go through the turret front on a SEP and APS to stop any incoming round. 

 - I like "Russian soldier girl" a little bit more... 

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Infografics (from Vzglyad) Armata with 12,7mmgun instead of 7,62? Computer graphic imagination or ...

Gunship if the one on your avatar would really be the average of your soldier girls, you wouldn't need any weapon to conquer almost an half of the world

You can say that again. 

They don't even have to all be MBT's... The K-25 125mm gun platform could replace the slot of the older tanks that are sitting around. - The tanks that no longer have enough armor to be relevant anyway...

If they only intended to have armata based tanks there would be no need for the Armata based APC... armata would be the tank, kurganets the BMP, boomerang the BTR and typhoon the BRDM-4.

The fact is that there will be units based on each family, so an armata unit, a kurganets unit, a boomerang unit and a typhoon unit... the wheeled units wont be deployed in the middle of the tundra and the tracked units wont be in places where there are a lot of roads...

Only armata units will need armata tanks, kurganets units will need kurganets tanks and boomerang units will need boomerang tanks, while typhoon units will need typhoon gun platforms (I wont call them tanks because they will be in the 10-15 ton range with perhaps 6 wheels and might have a high velocity 45mm or 57mm gun and Kornets instead of a 125mm gun.

GarryB wrote:Only armata units will need armata tanks, kurganets units will need kurganets tanks and boomerang units will need boomerang tanks, while typhoon units will need typhoon gun platforms (I wont call them tanks because they will be in the 10-15 ton range with perhaps 6 wheels and might have a high velocity 45mm or 57mm gun and Kornets instead of a 125mm gun.

That's the idea behind the new designs but it's clear that we will still have T-72's and T-90's around for quite a while yet

I have yet another question... 

Is most of the actually "armor" on the T-14 located on/in the crew capsule, or more towards the front like most of the MBT's today? I've seen reports claiming most of the armor is in the capsule, but pictures make it look like the outer-armor is fairly thick itself.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

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?

Until now, I didn't really have much time to come back to this matter.

The mechanics of the subject is elementary and isn't the real point here. But regarding what matters, here is a bit of what transpired.
————————————————————————————————


7:56 PM, Thursday, 07 May 2015 (AEST):

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Mike E wrote:Does anyone here have a solid/confirmed number for the weight of the T-14? I've heard 48t through 55t, which one is closer to reality?

Very roughly:

T-90S is 46.5 t (tonne weight—metric) in its standard configuration. Of course, T-90S is slightly overweight. If we assume each of the 14 road wheels of T-14 has only as much weight-carrying capability as each of the 12 road wheels on T-90S, then

(Armata's weight) ≈ 46.5×14/12 ≈ 54 t

Another method would involve taking the track footprint of Armata and multiplying it by its ground pressure. The overweight T-90S, in its standard configuration, has a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2, which is high by the Russian standards. For Armata, the Russian's would use a fresh, lower ground pressure than that for T-90S, preferably as low as 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.

9:12 PM, Thursday, 07 May 2015 (AEST):

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Can someone please measure Armata' track footprint from its images.

Did a little scaling in photoshop.

The track width of Armata seems to be in order of 0.486-0.5 m With track pitch (Length of individual track segment) of 0.154m  The total length of the track that contact with ground is around 5 meter.  

Thanks a lot.

Your numbers indicate a very low weight, around 40 t at a ground pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2.

T-72, however, has a track width of 580 mm.

————————————————————————————————


9:47 pm, Thursday, 07 May 2015 (AEST):

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:T-72, however, has a track width of 580 mm.

If we assume a track width of 0.58 m, a track length on the ground of 5 m, and a ground-pressure of 0.8 kgs/cm^2 (nice low ground pressure for a tank), the total weight would be 46 t.  

At a ground pressure of 0.9 kgs/cm^2, the weight would be 52 t.

At a ground pressure of 0.94 kgs/cm^2 (same as that for T-90S but "unlikely"), the weight would be 55 t.

————————————————————————————————


7:58 PM, Friday, 08 May 2015 (AEST):

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Using this photo, the tack width seems to be 550 mm; however, in this day and age, there are many distorted photos, thanks to change in aspect ratios that can often happen.




Due to fundamental armor vehicle design requirements, I think, a track-width of 580 mm (that for T-72, T-80, or T-90) is an upper bound for a good tank design. That is the reason ob''ekt 279 had 4 tracks; having only 2 tracks wouldn't have worked for its weight without thinning the armor.

T-72 started life with a ground pressure of 0.85 kgs/cm^2; 0.8 kgs/cm^2 may be too good, in this day and age, for a tank.

Hence, for a track width of 0.58 m, a track length on the ground of 5 m, and a ground-pressure of 0.85 kgs/cm^2, the total weight would be 49 t.

5th Guards Tank Brigade of Buryatia first to receive "Armata"?

I'm sorry to have to ask a stupid question, but here I go.

I've read that the Armata MBT has 32 rounds in the auto-loader with a total of 45 rounds, so how would the crew access and use the rounds that are not located in the auto-loader without leaving the tank?

I don't know if this question has already been answered, and if it has, I apologise.

Cyrus the great wrote:

I'm sorry to have to ask a stupid question, but here I go.

I've read that the Armata MBT has 32 rounds in the auto-loader with a total of 45 rounds, so how would the crew access and use the rounds that are not located in the auto-loader without leaving the tank?

I don't know if this question has already been answered, and if it has, I apologise.

I have never heard any info about ammo storage, but going off your information, 32 in the autoloader and the 13 elsewhere inside a armored box that will require the crew to hop out and load it.

I rather doubt it.

My guess they will just have all autoloader ammo and then simply have a automated resupply vehicle, I believe Coalition has one, why not T-14?

George1 wrote:5th Guards Tank Brigade of Buryatia first to receive "Armata"?

Genghis Khan would be proud! aint these guys the one who closed the pocket in Debaltsevo? why were these guys sent and not the more local units?

[quote="2SPOOKY4U"]

Cyrus the great wrote:

I'm sorry to have to ask a stupid question, but here I go.

I've read that the Armata MBT has 32 rounds in the auto-loader with a total of 45 rounds, so how would the crew access and use the rounds that are not located in the auto-loader without leaving the tank?

I don't know if this question has already been answered, and if it has, I apologise.

I have never heard any info about ammo storage, but going off your information, 32 in the autoloader and the 13 elsewhere inside a armored box that will require the crew to hop out and load it.

I rather doubt it.

My guess they will just have all autoloader ammo and then simply have a automated resupply vehicle, I believe Coalition has one, why not T-14?[/quo

Thanks for answering my question.

Having to get out and physically reload the rounds into the tank would be a dangerous disadvantage and so I think the Russians might already have a solution for this. I'll read up on Garry B's posts because he seems to know everything.

Cyrus the great wrote:
I'll read up on Garry B's posts because he seems to know everything.

That be true.

Cyrus the great wrote:
Thanks for answering my question.

Having to get out and physically reload the rounds into the tank would be a dangerous disadvantage and so I think the Russians might already have a solution for this. I'll read up on Garry B's posts because he seems to know everything.

not really. there will always be lulls in the fighting that will allow you to retreat and reload.

also anyone else figured where the ammo port is? i think its the circular port at the back of the turret bustle:

its bolted shut i know, but it wont take someone with a good wrist and wrench to remove those 2 bolts in 30 secs.
more importantly when its opened it immediately leads to the waiting cassette for the projectile and  propellant charge:

you push the projectile in, tell the tank to load it, push the propellant charge in, and tell the it to load it again.
or you can have the resupply vehicle fill it up instead.
and since i cant see any hatch for the armored box to store the extra 13 rounds anywhere else- im assuming this is it:

(the metal panel at the vmiddle left of the pic)
you can only access it when the turret is turned to the side. incidentally this is the only way to be able to load the rounds through the ammo port ive just mentioned, if it is the ammo port.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
Thanks for answering my question.

Having to get out and physically reload the rounds into the tank would be a dangerous disadvantage and so I think the Russians might already have a solution for this. I'll read up on Garry B's posts because he seems to know everything.

not really. there will always be lulls in the fighting that will allow you to retreat and reload.

also anyone else figured where the ammo port is? i think its the circular port at the back of the turret bustle:

its bolted shut i know, but it wont take someone with a good wrist and wrench to remove those 2 bolts in 30 secs.
more importantly when its opened it immediately leads to the waiting cassette for the projectile and  propellant charge:

you push the projectile in, tell the tank to load it, push the propellant charge in, and tell the it to load it again.
or you can have the resupply vehicle fill it up instead.
and since i cant see any hatch for the armored box to store the extra 13 rounds anywhere else- im assuming this is it:

(the metal panel at the vmiddle left of the pic)
you can only access it when the turret is turned to the side. incidentally this is the only way to be able to load the rounds through the ammo port ive just mentioned, if it is the ammo port.

The only logical way the AL could be reloaded is the side port. It's wide enough to accomodate a slide for the rounds. You can't do that with the rear hole without at 3 or 9 o clock position. The engine deck doesn't allow it safely. for the rest, you just don't "need" more rounds than 32 anyway. If you are out of (32) rounds, there's something that went wrong way before and above a new complement. I know this is controversial, but it is what I think it is.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

The only logical way the AL could be reloaded is the side port. It's wide enough to accomodate a slide for the rounds. You can't do that with the rear hole without at 3 or 9 o clock position. The engine deck doesn't allow it safely. for the rest, you just don't "need" more rounds than 32 anyway. If you are out of (32) rounds, there's something that went wrong way before and above a new complement. I know this is controversial, but it is what I think it is.

doubt that there is anything waiting to catch for the stuff you push in the side port. afaik its been shown that its the ejector for the propellant stub so more likely there is only a catcher for the stub as the gun recoils which then throws it out the now opened port as the earlier T series did.

its also easier to load the port in the back of the turret. the only extra work is that you turn the turret to the 3 or 9 o clock as youve mentioned, then the port is within arm's reach(unless you're a manlet) without even standing on top of the tank(which you cant since the bustle overhang would block you).

collegeboy16 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

The only logical way the AL could be reloaded is the side port. It's wide enough to accomodate a slide for the rounds. You can't do that with the rear hole without at 3 or 9 o clock position. The engine deck doesn't allow it safely. for the rest, you just don't "need" more rounds than 32 anyway. If you are out of (32) rounds, there's something that went wrong way before and above a new complement. I know this is controversial, but it is what I think it is.

doubt that there is anything waiting to catch for the stuff you push in the side port. afaik its been shown that its the ejector for the propellant stub so more likely there is only a catcher for the stub as the gun recoils which then throws it out the now opened port as the earlier T series did.

its also easier to load the port in the back of the turret. the only extra work is that you turn the turret to the 3 or 9 o clock as youve mentioned, then the port is within arm's reach(unless you're a manlet) without even standing on top of the tank(which you cant since the bustle overhang would block you).

I think that port is for making sure nuts and bolts inside the turret are in working order and tightened as such. Side ejection as well as loading is IMHO much more likely.

I find the idea of the side ejection and loading port on the Armata MBT to be rather strange.

The suggestion that there is x amount of rounds in the autoloader and x more stored elsewhere is news to me, the whole concept of the separation of the weapons and ammo and fuel from the crew is to maximise the crews protection... making them get out to top up the ammo or the fuel runs counter to the whole concept.

I rather suspect extra ammo might be stored in the hull near the turret in a way that it could be autoloaded into the autoloader in the turret... that would be a bit like the 57mm cannon for the A-220 turret that has an autoloader with 20 rounds of ready to fire ammo and a main ammo load of 80-90 further rounds stored in the hull that can be loaded into the autofeed autoloader.

Going to some quiet area is strange... if you are going back to a safe rear area why top up another 15 rounds when you could just go to the staging area where you got your original load of ammo and top up the autoloader... ie 30 odd rounds instead of half a load.

Most hatches for shell cases are small and near the rear centre of the turret... the 125mm gun has a small stub case left over after firing... it is possible that it might just crush the stub casings and store them in the bustle...

collegeboy16 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

The only logical way the AL could be reloaded is the side port. It's wide enough to accomodate a slide for the rounds. You can't do that with the rear hole without at 3 or 9 o clock position. The engine deck doesn't allow it safely. for the rest, you just don't "need" more rounds than 32 anyway. If you are out of (32) rounds, there's something that went wrong way before and above a new complement. I know this is controversial, but it is what I think it is.

doubt that there is anything waiting to catch for the stuff you push in the side port. afaik its been shown that its the ejector for the propellant stub so more likely there is only a catcher for the stub as the gun recoils which then throws it out the now opened port as the earlier T series did.

its also easier to load the port in the back of the turret. the only extra work is that you turn the turret to the 3 or 9 o clock as youve mentioned, then the port is within arm's reach(unless you're a manlet) without even standing on top of the tank(which you cant since the bustle overhang would block you).

I don't think it's easier since the reloading sequence would be if at 3 or 9 O'clock:

1. Push round.
2. Rotate turret to store round in AL.
3. Repeat.

While with the side port which is right above the the magazine, you just push or lay the round on a slide and voila.

its exit for dud rounds.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
I don't think it's easier since the reloading sequence would be if at 3 or 9 O'clock:

1. Push round.
2. Rotate turret to store round in AL.
3. Repeat.

While with the side port which is right above the the magazine, you just push or lay the round on a slide and voila.

no you only rotate the turret to the side once, everything else is just push and wait for the loading sequence to do its thing in reverse which is give rounds to the AL cassettes.

(i know its a lot different than the past pic., for one the projectile are now sharp side up and the propellant charges are now on the outer layer of cassettes., but it still works for my example)
(also the port prolly ha a ramp since its not exactly inline with the loading tray- btw this loading tray is just the cassettes laid end to end.)
again, the projectile and propellant charge are pushed one at a time through the hole into the waiting loading tray. the same loading tray that holds one piece of the round for ramming into the breech after a mechanism takes it off the AL cassettes. as ive said only this time that same mechanism works in reverse - the rammer just pushes the pieces projectile and propellant charges into the loading tray since its kinda far away(maybe you need a stick to do this if the rammer cant be made to do it   ) and then the same loading tray folds up into halves to make up the cassettes for the round in the AL.

Rmf wrote:its exit for dud rounds.

afaik duds are very unlikely, plus no way they will let it in the turret again- thats a good way end up blowing the fighting module up.
not to mention there is no way of extracting the projectile from that far up in the breech- unless you grab onto it with sharp claws or something.

GarryB wrote:I find the idea of the side ejection and loading port on the Armata MBT to be rather strange.

The suggestion that there is x amount of rounds in the autoloader and x more stored elsewhere is news to me, the whole concept of the separation of the weapons and ammo and fuel from the crew is to maximise the crews protection... making them get out to top up the ammo or the fuel runs counter to the whole concept.

I rather suspect extra ammo might be stored in the hull near the turret in a way that it could be autoloaded into the autoloader in the turret... that would be a bit like the 57mm cannon for the A-220 turret that has an autoloader with 20 rounds of ready to fire ammo and a main ammo load of 80-90 further rounds stored in the hull that can be loaded into the autofeed autoloader.

Going to some quiet area is strange... if you are going back to a safe rear area why top up another 15 rounds when you could just go to the staging area where you got your original load of ammo and top up the autoloader... ie 30 odd rounds instead of half a load.

Most hatches for shell cases are small and near the rear centre of the turret... the 125mm gun has a small stub case left over after firing... it is possible that it might just crush the stub casings and store them in the bustle...

ive thought about this, the only problem is that the AL cassettes are in the way. though one solution is folding one pair of them( tho not the same pair in the 6 o clock since you use it for loading to and from the main AL) again into a single piece(the loading tray from before) then pushing the rounds to to that tray, which then folds up to add again. to add to this the box also has a chain drive to cycle another round for loading.

Thank you all for answering my question. The explanation provided by Garry makes a whole lot of sense. Gotta love the Russians and their ingenuity.