[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

If [as it seems to be the case] that the Armata's sabot rounds are going to be the same length -or longer- than those found on Western tanks... then the Armata will undoubtedly be the best tank in the world once it becomes operational.

Cyrus the great wrote:If [as it seems to be the case] that the Armata's sabot rounds are going to be the same length -or longer- than those found on Western tanks... then the Armata will undoubtedly be the best tank in the world once it  becomes operational.

From what we know the Vacuum-1 will be *longer* than the M829A3/4.

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:If [as it seems to be the case] that the Armata's sabot rounds are going to be the same length -or longer- than those found on Western tanks... then the Armata will undoubtedly be the best tank in the world once it  becomes operational.

From what we know the Vacuum-1 will be *longer* than the M829A3/4.

...And the lady's love those long rods!

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:If [as it seems to be the case] that the Armata's sabot rounds are going to be the same length -or longer- than those found on Western tanks... then the Armata will undoubtedly be the best tank in the world once it  becomes operational.

From what we know the Vacuum-1 will be *longer* than the M829A3/4.

...And the lady's love those long rods!

Someone had to go there 

Mike E wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:If [as it seems to be the case] that the Armata's sabot rounds are going to be the same length -or longer- than those found on Western tanks... then the Armata will undoubtedly be the best tank in the world once it  becomes operational.

From what we know the Vacuum-1 will be *longer* than the M829A3/4.

...And the lady's love those long rods!

Someone had to go there 

T-14 will still need protection from STD's...err I mean PGM's, that's why you need Armata Pantsir which will have missile's with expanding rod warheads...

Armata hull so big. How the Tor 32x missle vls ?

Book. wrote:Armata hull so big. How the Tor 32x missle vls ?

More like Morfei. FoF and such.

Tor requires radar which requires a power source blah blah,

Morfei is just a thrust vectoring IIR missile, that is going to be very cool.

All you need for it is a 360 degree IR sensor, and a good optical ball,

and voila you are set.

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:If [as it seems to be the case] that the Armata's sabot rounds are going to be the same length -or longer- than those found on Western tanks... then the Armata will undoubtedly be the best tank in the world once it  becomes operational.

From what we know the Vacuum-1 will be *longer* than the M829A3/4.

BTW I want to know your thoughts about this:

Black Eagle/Object 640's turret bustle:






...Theoretically speaking you can store very long Sabot rounds in that bustle, if Armata ever gets a modular bustle that was that large don't you think?

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:If [as it seems to be the case] that the Armata's sabot rounds are going to be the same length -or longer- than those found on Western tanks... then the Armata will undoubtedly be the best tank in the world once it  becomes operational.

From what we know the Vacuum-1 will be *longer* than the M829A3/4.

BTW I want to know your thoughts about this:

Black Eagle/Object 640's turret bustle:






...Theoretically speaking you can store very long Sabot rounds in that bustle, if Armata ever gets a modular bustle that was that large don't you think?

You do know why the Cherniy Orel was made right?

A forecast for increased amount of small intensity wars was the reason for this design.

Armata with this bustle would be a disadvantage.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Mike E wrote:From what we know the Vacuum-1 will be *longer* than the M829A3/4.

BTW I want to know your thoughts about this:

Black Eagle/Object 640's turret bustle:

...Theoretically speaking you can store very long Sabot rounds in that bustle, if Armata ever gets a modular bustle that was that large don't you think?

True; http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/al-640.html

Armata doesn't need a bustle anywhere near that big and current one obviously uses a different layout v. this one.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
...And the lady's love those long rods!

give the T-14 a few more years to mature(drone version to appear) and the ladies will see even longer rods - how does 1.5m sound?

just replace the drums with a smaller version of the current T-14's AL ie two layers of projectile and propellant charge cassettes, but former outside and latter inside.
this way the projectile can stretch up to the drum's full length which is 1.5m, and the propellant charge cassettes can hold multiple propellant charges, if they havent switched to liquid propellant that is.

its exit for dud rounds.

It doesn't make sense to me still though... if you have to eject a faulty or dangerous charge or round then why rotate it 90 degrees and eject it sideways when it would be much faster the throw it out rearwards... forwards and rearwards are two directions you will already be moving charges and projectiles...

BTW I want to know your thoughts about this:

Black Eagle/Object 640's turret bustle:

I thought it was brilliant and it is the only model of the T-80 that I really love.

the whole concept of removing the ammo from the crew space is excellent and I personally think that if an enemy manages to hit your turret bustle then you should withdraw and check properly for damage anyway rather than remain on the front line. I don't think ammo in a turret bustle is an excessive risk like the Russian military did with their rejection of the Black eagle and the Burlak upgrade of the T-72 which used a similar turret bustle autoloader.

I thought the idea of a removable ammo cassette with autoloader built in that could be loaded onto the vehicle by crane already loaded was genius and the option to jettison it in combat if hit provides a sensible solution to the issue of what to do when the turret bustle is hit and a fire starts.

I did, however, think the whole concept was even better on the Burlak upgrade as the underfloor armoured autoloader can hold 22 rounds while the turret bustle loader with 31 rounds that can include much longer penetrators means up to 53 rounds ready to fire makes a lot of sense. You could even develop a 22 round ammo pack that just loads into the loading mechanism and down into the under floor magazine so the crane when loading a totally empty tank could fit the 22 round mag which can be fed via the autoloader into the underfloor mag and then get removed and the full 31 round device can be attached to load the tank main gun ammo much much faster than hand passing them in and manually loading them in as currently done.

Armata doesn't need a bustle anywhere near that big and current one obviously uses a different layout v. this one.

The purpose behind the bustle autoloader on the black eagle was to make the vehicle much safer by removing the flawed autoloader from the T-64/80 series that had exposed propellent charges on the floor. The drawback was the exposed location of the ammo in a turret bustle, which, after analysis of US experience with the Abrams led to them rejecting turret bustle ammo storage... armoured door or not, if all the propellent charges are ignited then the turret crew likely would not survive... roof blast doors or not.

this way the projectile can stretch up to the drum's full length which is 1.5m, and the propellant charge cassettes can hold multiple propellant charges, if they havent switched to liquid propellant that is.

Would love to see them go for a binary liquid propellent. Basically you get a very powerful liquid propellent and split it into two separate liquids that form an explosive propellent only when mixed together. When separated they might not even be flammable. this makes them much safer to store. Keep them widely separated inside the vehicle and only combine them in the guns chamber with the appropriate piping. then you just need to rack and move the projectiles from their storage area to the chamber.

Bear in mind that Coalition also has an unmanned turret and would have a fairly wide range of ammo types that need to be moved from storage racks into the autoloader and then into the gun chamber.

Nice  

"Armata" added a unique dynamic protection

"This protection can be called dynamic protection of new generation, it is outperforming dynamic protection" Kontakt-5 "and" Relic ", - the source said on the sidelines of an international military-technical forum" Army-2015 ", which opened in Moscow.

Russia's new Armata tank gets new-generation reactive armour

The Armata tank's armour ensures protection against all modern tank shells, anti-tank guided missiles and grenade launchers with the calibre of 100 to 150 mm

The armour of Armata ensures protection from all current and projected tank ammunition with 120-millimeter caliber,"

Wow, just wow. I am loving this tank more and more each day. The only supposed weakness inherent in an unmanned turret configuration is the loss of situational awareness -- the commander won't be able to poke his head out and observe the battlefield with his eyes. How useful is that in the heat of battle when dangerous projectiles [designed to kill you] are flying around?

Cyrus the great wrote:Wow, just wow. I am loving this tank more and more each day. The only supposed weakness inherent in an unmanned turret configuration is the loss of situational awareness -- the commander won't be able to poke his head out and observe the battlefield with his eyes. How useful is that in the heat of battle when dangerous projectiles [designed to kill you] are flying around?

Technically he still can, just not from the slightly elevated position of the turret.

OminousSpudd wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:Wow, just wow. I am loving this tank more and more each day. The only supposed weakness inherent in an unmanned turret configuration is the loss of situational awareness -- the commander won't be able to poke his head out and observe the battlefield with his eyes. How useful is that in the heat of battle when dangerous projectiles [designed to kill you] are flying around?

Technically he still can, just not from the slightly elevated position of the turret.

You're right, and since the T-14 Armata has that advanced radar on it, it will be able to detect, track and target enemy AFV's long before they know it's there, and so there's really no chance of it being outflanked anyway. Whatever happened to that incredibly futuristic looking turret that we saw next to those other mock-ups of the Armata program? Other than a lower profile, what advantages did it have over the one the T-14 Armata will presumably end up with?  Thanks for replying.

Pay attention to the 4 little sensors that we only saw covered on real Armatas, it looks like Radar array.

Could be MAWS/LWR sensors aswell.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:If [as it seems to be the case] that the Armata's sabot rounds are going to be the same length -or longer- than those found on Western tanks... then the Armata will undoubtedly be the best tank in the world once it  becomes operational.

From what we know the Vacuum-1 will be *longer* than the M829A3/4.

BTW I want to know your thoughts about this:

Black Eagle/Object 640's turret bustle:






...Theoretically speaking you can store very long Sabot rounds in that bustle, if Armata ever gets a modular bustle that was that large don't you think?

Putting such a thing on an Armata would be CATHASTROFICAL.  

Let's repeat it again,again and again: what you see around Armata gun mount is not a turret but just a protective cover connecting the well protected inner gun pod with the compartments containing the super high tech but in the very end not essential to tank survival APS components at its own sides.

Such a cover is to avoid them to be disabled by small caliber ammo or being collectively trashed by an HE projectile blast but a tank APDSFS round hitting straight there would just pass trought with ease from front to rear.
Also in this case however, damages would be limited just to those components being directly reached by penetrating rod (absit iniuria verbis )  but if someone would try to put the main ammo bustle just behind such a structure...

Shot was made on first open for public day during RusArmyExpo-2015. Nota Bene: no "black covers on radars/sensors. So it's dual-band/multichannel. Laser detection sensor + mini AESA? 

Werewolf wrote:Pay attention to the 4 little sensors that we only saw covered on real Armatas, it looks like Radar array.

Could be MAWS/LWR sensors aswell.

could someone tell me who do i have to kill just to get this sweet T-14 scale model?

ive noticed that the panoramic sight and its cover turn on their own. there is no cover so prolly the sight just turns inside the cover and the cover turns to the back when its the sight is to be protected/stored.

the loss of situational awareness -- the commander won't be able to poke his head out and observe the battlefield with his eyes. How useful is that in the heat of battle when dangerous projectiles [designed to kill you] are flying around?

Having a good view of the battlefield is critical... but sticking your head out of the turret will likely get it ventilated.

Rather than exposing a bit of critical flesh it would make more sense to launch a UAV and get a gods eye view of your tank and the things around it... patching in to the local feed makes more sense than popping a hatch and poking your bonce out... if there are no units operating nearby then launch a hand sized UAV down the barrel and have a look around...

Technically he still can, just not from the slightly elevated position of the turret.

the view from the hull is rubbish and half is blocked by that big turret behind you...

Let's repeat it again,again and again: what you see around Armata gun mount is not a turret but just a protective cover connecting the well protected inner gun pod with the compartments containing the super high tech but in the very end not essential to tank survival APS components at its own sides.

Such a cover is to avoid them to be disabled by small caliber ammo or being collectively trashed by an HE projectile blast but a tank APDSFS round hitting straight there would just pass trought with ease from front to rear.
Also in this case however, damages would be limited just to those components being directly reached by penetrating rod (absit iniuria verbis )What a Face but if someone would try to put the main ammo bustle just behind such a structure... Sad

I agree but also disagree. If the turret bustle autoloader can be designed to eject if hit then you have the potential for another 30-40 rounds of ready to fire ammo.

the fact that it is vulnerable to enemy fire is an argument, but being able to jettison it means it is much less a threat to the vehicle if actually hit and if it isn't it offers a lot more ready to fire rounds that wont be limited by length as they could be straight rammed right into the breach.

I liked the Burlak upgrade of the T-72 as well...

Nice

Modernization of the tank "Armata" will reduce the crew to two people

Why do people want a bustle autoloader on the T-14?


The only reason the Black Eagle adopted such a layout was because the there was a forecast for a series of low-intensity insurgent wars.

Western type ammo storage is excellent for preserving the crew if the tank gets hit, and subsequently getting out and move on foot towards a safe area.

This would not be possible in a WW3, and was correctly realized in the design of Soviet tanks, foreseeing that it would be better to simply place the ammo storage lower in the turret

and thus minimize the chances of the ammo storage hit.

With the realization of the T-14 and its crew module, we get the best of both worlds.

And now people that have been scarred with Western propaganda want to ruin the T-14.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
This would not be possible in a WW3, and was correctly realized in the design of Soviet tanks, foreseeing that it would be better to simply place the ammo storage lower in the turret

and thus minimize the chances of the ammo storage hit.

With the realization of the T-14 and its crew module, we get the best of both worlds.

And now people that have been scarred with Western propaganda want to ruin the T-14.

not the turret, but the hull. and yes, a turret bustle for T-14 is not ideal since the T-14's turret is likely made to not present that much resistance to apfds, just let em make a hole 2-3 inches across anything in their path. now with something explodey at the back it will leave more than holes, propellant fires that burn fiercely would likely damage the engine block beneath it if its now ejected immediately.

also dont the 4 sensor thingy on the scale model look only optical in nature? a mini AESA is not likely since this what an AESA for APS looks like:
the EL/M-2133 Windguard's radar face

Garry B:

I was under the impression that the T-14 Armata [without the bustle-loader] was going to feature sabot rounds that were comparable to the M829A3 in terms of length... If not, this changes everything. As you've already mentioned, bustle-loaders allow the war fighter to carry more rounds with the use of blow-off panels... but that would necessarily mean that the turret would have to be protected with more armour = heavier.