[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
Collegeboy,

Do you have any idea about what you write in your posts? What are you majoring in?

For the time being, please don't spread disinformation, especially on this forum. When you write 8000 bar in your post, the next user would make it 10000 bar, and in no time it would be 10000000000 bar.

says the guy who said this:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
From memory all of the "non-Russian" 120 mm guns have maximum chamber pressures of much less that 6000 atm, closer to 5000 atm, and that includes all the embellishments (lie factor) also. I'll find out the correct numbers and post them.

i like you as a poster but then there are this parts where you insinuate that the other side overstates its capabilities and the russians understate theirs. sure there is history of it, but its not wise to assume it from the get go.
also, could you please do do me the honor to explain the drivel in my earlier post? im majoring in electrical btw, power systems and such, and i know at least beam loading concepts from at least HS.
oh and its misinformation - i dont have any intent to spread wrong info.(or motivation, but i think a chaika hug pillow delivered at my doorstep would change that   )
*EDIT: corrected that physics fail post - tho i still stand by the differing mass distribution or whatever the more correct term is.

Stealthflanker wrote:
and you missed this part of my reply.

"
But then, those performance subject to temperature. The maximum chamber pressure quoted above is for the highest temperature the gun will be fired. Which is around 50 Degrees Celcius. In 21 degrees Celcius however or room temperature, the chamber pressure is less. The L-7 gun above in 21 degrees Celcius reach chamber pressure of only 4300 Bar or 4200 atm."

My conclusion after reading that link is the test was done in lower temperature. Thus less chamber pressure.  Not indication of "Technology of tanks is lying, overstating value bla-bla-bla"  Have you ever read the book yourself ?

The same technology of tank book however do state that maximum chamber pressure sustainable by 120mm barrel is 7100 Bar.

you got it mixed up. think about this, if that were true in just a few tens of a degrees the chamber pressure it can support varies by such a high number(it goes from gar strength to gae strength) that above 50 degrees it would fail. its the round's pressure that varies a lot with temperature- the gun's max chamber pressure that it can support does not unless in the extremes of temperature where it affects the steel. point in Morpheus Eberhardt.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html

Peak Chamber Pressure: 96,000 psi @ 120°F. 82,650 psi @ 70°F.

and Morpheus Eberhardt, that one round's pressure happens at more or less 21 deg. celsius so Stealthflanker's right in that it was done in lower temp. also, there was no temp. associated with the one in your link, probably it was written with the convention when talking about round chamber pressure as being in 21 deg celsius.

AJ-47 wrote:
2. When you put the engine in the front of the tank, you can put a door at the rear of the tank like in the T-15. This door can help the crew to evacuate the tank if it gets hit.
A wounded soldier has a big problem to get out from the turret, and if he doesn’t get out he might burn inside. Even if he got lucky and get from the tank trough the turret, he might get hit from enemy MG. To get out trough the back door is much simple and safer, and you can use this door to load the tank with ammo, and even soldiers, if you need to.
The Israeli find, as part of the lessons from the war, that it’s easier to replace the tank’s engine, than get a new crew for the tank.

what? the wounded guy does not have any friends with his fellow crew members? they can like just grab him from the hatch, thats what normalfags do.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:The maximum chamber pressure quoted above is for the highest temperature the gun will be fired. Which is around 50 Degrees Celcius.

guns can reach way above 50 deg. in just a few shots  
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html

Peak Chamber Pressure: 96,000 psi @ 120°F. 82,650 psi @ 70°F.

Not involved in this debate, but just saying that
As 50*Centigrade (or Celsius) EQUALS 122*F in Amurikian terminology, your quoted #s seem odd to demonstrate that guns reach way above 50 deg.

mutantsushi wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:The maximum chamber pressure quoted above is for the highest temperature the gun will be fired. Which is around 50 Degrees Celcius.

guns can reach way above 50 deg. in just a few shots  
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html

Peak Chamber Pressure: 96,000 psi @ 120°F. 82,650 psi @ 70°F.

Not involved in this debate, but just saying that
As 50*Centigrade (or Celsius) EQUALS 122*F in Amurikian terminology, your quoted #s seem odd to demonstrate that guns reach way above 50 deg.

im comparing to the 5600 bars in Morpheus Eberhardt's link, in here 82650 psi equals ~5700 bars, close enough to 5600 bars.
btw 96000 psi equals ~6600 bars, since most rounds after this share basically same amount of propellant it's safe to say that a gun's max chamber pressure can safely handle shooting apfsds with temp. of up to 50degrees c. so i think thats where people get confused.

collegeboy16 wrote:
you got it mixed up. think about this, if that were true in just a few tens of a degrees the chamber pressure it can support varies by such a high number(it goes from gar strength to gae strength) that above 50 degrees it would fail. its the round's pressure that varies a lot with temperature- the gun's max chamber pressure that it can support does not unless in the extremes of temperature where it affects the steel. point in Morpheus Eberhardt.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html

Peak Chamber Pressure: 96,000 psi @ 120°F. 82,650 psi @ 70°F.

and Morpheus Eberhardt, that one round's pressure happens at more or less 21 deg. celsius so Stealthflanker's right in that it was done in lower temp. also, there was no temp. associated with the one in your link, probably it was written with the convention when talking about round chamber pressure as being in 21 deg celsius.

What do i mean is that Temperature of the round being fired contribute to how big the chamber pressure can be achieved. Not whether or not the barrel will fail.

The 120mm Rheinmetall gun however is designed to withstand 7100 Bar.


I Highly suggest you go search for Technology of Tanks Book and read it yourself..it will get yourself straight and clean.

Stealthflanker wrote:
What do i mean is that Temperature of the round being fired contribute to how big the chamber pressure can be achieved. Not whether or not the barrel will fail.

The 120mm Rheinmetall gun however is designed to withstand 7100 Bar.


I Highly suggest you go search for Technology of Tanks Book and read it yourself..it will get yourself straight and clean.

ah, damn, i really need to sleep . i thought you were saying something different. and thanks for the book recommendation.

Mike E wrote:

Austin wrote:IS 1 m good enough to penetrage frontal section of Western MBT ?

Yes....every single Western hull would be pentreated by that round. 

My only question is if that round will be available on the current 125 mm or not.

It seems yes.

The journalists have apparently jumped to conclussions regarding Rogozins statement. He didn't mention a 152mm gun (although he hints at a future upgrade)...he's talking about the ammo being able to defeat 1m of steel according to the transcript on Lifenews (I can't open the actual video of the interview for some reason)

Rogozin's statement:

«Сейчас у «Арматы» пушка 125 мм, для первой партии она пригодится, но у нас уже есть для этого танка снаряд, который прожигает метр стали, будем ставить на «Армату», — сказал Рогозин, отметив, что новый танк «побьет все реально существующие сейчас в мире танки».

Currently the Armata is armed with a 125 mm gun, which is sufficient for the first party, but we already have for this tank a round which burns through a meter steel, which we will put on the Armata - Rogozin said, noting that the new tank beats all existing in the world tanks.

http://lifenews.ru/news/153895

sepheronx wrote:

According to this: http://rg.ru/2015/05/14/armata-site.html

Rosatom is involved in the making of ammunition for Armata.

Interesting....for a moment I thought they were going to use depleted uranium

So not much details (it's all clasified), but Rosatom was chosen because of their expertise with special explosives used in the detonation of nuclear weapons

Cyberspec wrote:

Interesting....for a moment I thought they were going to use depleted uranium  

So not much details (it's all clasified), but Rosatom was chosen because of their expertise with special explosives used in the detonation of nuclear weapons

uh, so HEAT weapons then. which is great since the other side still has to design armors against two different modes of defeat.

higurashihougi wrote:Okay so the West claimed that Armata's protection system are copied from and inspired by Western doctrine and idea...    

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/russia-s-new-super-tank

Complete propaganda site; they seem to be butthurt about everything and busy quoting non-truths and twisting statistics. This is some Nork-level stuff right here.

However that being said, it is quite correct that the whole thing is a Western idea/concept or that it could well be; I remember seeing US Powerpoint slides 10 years ago about the idea of a unified chassis for tracked vehicles, etc...

The Russians are the first ones who have put the idea into practise

flamming_python wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:Okay so the West claimed that Armata's protection system are copied from and inspired by Western doctrine and idea...    

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/russia-s-new-super-tank

Complete propaganda site; they seem to be butthurt about everything and busy quoting non-truths and twisting statistics. This is some Nork-level stuff right here.

However that being said, it is quite correct that the whole thing is a Western idea/concept or that it could well be; I remember seeing US Powerpoint slides 10 years ago about the idea of a unified chassis for tracked vehicles, etc...

The Russians are the first ones who have put the idea into practise

Both sides of the Cold War were looking at unified chassis concepts before the 90's...

higurashihougi wrote:Okay so the West claimed that Armata's protection system are copied from and inspired by Western doctrine and idea...    

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/russia-s-new-super-tank

nigga pls! the 1940s called, they want their manual loading back.

Every single Main Battle Tank technology that defines today tanks was copied by western countries from Russia not the other way around, of course they need to keep the propaganda of "russia junk and must copying us to catch up" while it is the exact opposite.

While Russia had autoloaders, APFSDS and HEAT charges the western countries still had AP and later APDS rounds while no autoloader and inferior HESH rounds to deal with tanks, then russia has develoeped T-64 composite armor that doubled the protection to previous generation tanks which made all existing AT weapons of the west obsolete and non effective which also can be read in CIA analysis of Soviet armor.

The soviets have already had studies during WW2 for Explosive Reactive Armor, but during that time money was tight and one General was quoted "I am not a lunatic to strip TNT to my tanks" and the studies were put on ICE untill 50'-60's. Same case with APS systems that were first time used in Afghanistan while the west just in the recent years has put money and effort to develope such systems without much of success except trophy of Rafael.

What we can see is that the west has been 10-20 years behind in making modern ammunition, composite armor, more than 30 years for ERA in active service most don't have it or some 1st generation ERA like ARAT and smearing nonsense and using Iraq as an example to indoctrinate guillable people to believe russia uses the same shitty export models like iraq had.

Media (Rossyiskaya Gazeta) reported about the participation of Rosatom in creating ammo for Armata

Article's in Russian, but then the armour piercing ammunition for the 152mm Armata MBT gun is far more complex than originally thought of. Since it's an unmanned turret with autoloader, DU anyone?

Kyo wrote:Media (Rossyiskaya Gazeta) reported about the participation of Rosatom in creating ammo for Armata

Article's in Russian, but then the armour piercing ammunition for the 152mm Armata MBT gun is far more complex than originally thought of. Since it's an unmanned turret with autoloader, DU anyone?

As mentioned in the previous page, DU:?: - possibly....although they seem to talking about a new type of explosive mainly

_________________

Interview of Viktor Murakhovski on the possiblity of upgunned T-14 (with 152mm gun)....lets call it a T-14/152

http://www.irk.kp.ru/daily/26381.4/3259466/


He envisions the role of a breakthrough tank for the T-14/152 similar to the role of the IS-2 / IS-3 tanks in WWII.....for example, a Tank Brigade could consist of 1 x battalion of T-14/152 and 2 x battalions of "regular", T-14/125

He says the 152mm tank gun already exists called 2A83 which was developed for the Obj. 195 (T-95) and has already passed tests.

By paralay's guys:

Some speculative variations.

By user Pavelkor-o from otvaga forum:

Cyberspec wrote:
Interview of Viktor Murakhovski on the possiblity of upgunned T-14 (with 152mm gun)....lets call it a T-14/152

http://www.irk.kp.ru/daily/26381.4/3259466/


He envisions the role of a breakthrough tank for the T-14/152 similar to the role of the IS-2 / IS-3 tanks in WWII.....for example, a Tank Brigade could consist of 1 x battalion of T-14/152 and 2 x battalions of "regular", T-14/125

speaking of breakthrough tanks, the T-95 was meant to be one, with the T-90 as the exploitation tank. now if they were to use the setup the guy above suggested the armatas would be better than the former since their armor, and mobility attributes are not too far off from the T-95.

Cyberspec wrote:
He says the 152mm tank gun already exists called 2A83 which was developed for the Obj. 195 (T-95) and has already passed tests.

wont be needed for at least 10 years, much better to further it even more , wasnt there stuff like the 152mm gun being ETC?

Cyberspec wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

According to this: http://rg.ru/2015/05/14/armata-site.html

Rosatom is involved in the making of ammunition for Armata.

Interesting....for a moment I thought they were going to use depleted uranium  

So not much details (it's all clasified), but Rosatom was chosen because of their expertise with special explosives used in the detonation of nuclear weapons

Sorry Cyberspec, sepheronx, this thread is running so fast that I completely missed it.

Kyo wrote:Sorry Cyberspec, sepheronx, this thread is running so fast that I completely missed it.

No big deal mate...happens to me too

Sooo. what's the probable contents of the bustle ? All speculations so far depicts turret "naked" Without bustle.

Werewolf wrote:Every single Main Battle Tank technology that defines today tanks was copied by western countries from Russia not the other way around, of course they need to keep the propaganda of "russia junk and must copying us to catch up" while it is the exact opposite.

While Russia had autoloaders, APFSDS and HEAT charges the western countries still had AP and later APDS rounds while no autoloader and inferior HESH rounds to deal with tanks, then russia has develoeped T-64 composite armor that doubled the protection to previous generation tanks which made all existing AT weapons of the west obsolete and non effective which also can be read in CIA analysis of Soviet armor.

The soviets have already had studies during WW2 for Explosive Reactive Armor, but during that time money was tight and one General was quoted "I am not a lunatic to strip TNT to my tanks" and the studies were put on ICE untill 50'-60's. Same case with APS systems that were first time used in Afghanistan while the west just in the recent years has put money and effort to develope such systems without much of success except trophy of Rafael.

What we can see is that the west has been 10-20 years behind in making modern ammunition, composite armor, more than 30 years for ERA in active service most don't have it or some 1st generation ERA like ARAT and smearing nonsense and using Iraq as an example to indoctrinate guillable people to believe russia uses the same shitty export models like iraq had.

+1