Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
chicken wrote:The gunner's sight was zeroed in but the hit was off by a few centimeters to the left and it happened twice. Why?
Someone did a measurement and got 45-degrees per second, which happens to be 8 seconds on the dot; and that may not be its' highest rotational speed. T-72B3 can already turn its' turret at 40 DPS.Khepesh wrote:It's difficult to get a precise measurement due to the way this video is edited, but I estimate turret traverse speed to be a full 360 rotation in no more than seven seconds, this is two seconds faster than any NATO tank and is a significant advantage. This should not be surprising due to lower weight of crewless turret. I will throw this observation as well. It may turn out that with gunner and commander in the hull, then there may be less disorientation due to sometimes loosing track, even with the turret traverse indicator, of where the turret is facing in relation to were the hull is facing. Of course only testing and practise will show if this is the case.
I know, it's why I think it may be a help as when you are in the turret and the hull goes one way, the turret another, and you are looking thro commanders sight in a third direction, sometimes, when tired for instance, you get a bit disoriented as to were you are heading and what direction you are looking at. I would also say that not being subjected to the phsyical effects of being in a rapidly rotating turret, but in the more stable environment of the hull will also help. I think as long as the various screens that the commander can pull up show a clear indication of what they are, for instance it being clear which is the view of where the turret points and which way the panoramic sight points, then maybe the commanders job may be easier. Certainly having a bank of screens and information laid out directly in front of you is a leap forward I think.Mike E wrote:
It's impossible for the TC & Gunner to move with the turret, when they are located in a "firm" capsule forward of the turret.
Firepower of Russia's new Armata tank may be demonstrated at next RAE arms show in 2017
(...)
The combat capabilities of the latest Russian military hardware, including the Armata platform, might be demonstrated at Russia Arms Expo 2017 in Nizhny Tagil , Alexey Zharich, deputy director general of the manufacturer, said at a news conference in TASS’s Urals Regional Information Center on Monday.
"We hope that the Defense Ministry in 2017 will permit us to demonstrate the tactical performance of the latest Russian armament, including the Armata," Zharich said.
Flyboy77 wrote:Just wondering with the Armata being shown at RAE, was there any reports/article/videos that answer the question why they decided not to integrate a coaxial machine gun into the tank?
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 31 S8zYBNJ](https://i.imgur.com/s8zYBNJ.jpg)
marcellogo wrote:Again? Armata has a coaxial machine gun, in the usual position at the right side of the gun elevation mechanism, you just can't see from the outside because you are still thinking the external structure you see is the real turret and not a simple covering. (...)
Mike E wrote:Someone did a measurement and got 45-degrees per second, which happens to be 8 seconds on the dot; and that may not be its' highest rotational speed. T-72B3 can already turn its' turret at 40 DPS.Khepesh wrote:It's difficult to get a precise measurement due to the way this video is edited, but I estimate turret traverse speed to be a full 360 rotation in no more than seven seconds, this is two seconds faster than any NATO tank and is a significant advantage. This should not be surprising due to lower weight of crewless turret. I will throw this observation as well. It may turn out that with gunner and commander in the hull, then there may be less disorientation due to sometimes loosing track, even with the turret traverse indicator, of where the turret is facing in relation to were the hull is facing. Of course only testing and practise will show if this is the case.
It's impossible for the TC & Gunner to move with the turret, when they are located in a "firm" capsule forward of the turret.
Thanks Spudd, lot of misinfo. over there.
Could be that there are situations where gunner can engage targets with co-axial and commander with the MG on the panoramic sight. Or gunner can engage with co-axial while commander is busy with some other task. Due to all sights now being remote TV it may be possible that the ability if necessary for gunner to operate the panoramic sight is built in, but that would seem to present opportunities for confusion. Also you could have the co-axial as 12,7 to better take out soft skinned vehicles and leave the other MG as anti personel.higurashihougi wrote:marcellogo wrote:Again? Armata has a coaxial machine gun, in the usual position at the right side of the gun elevation mechanism, you just can't see from the outside because you are still thinking the external structure you see is the real turret and not a simple covering. (...)
Correct me if I am wrong but since Armata machine gun can be electronically controlled, it can be programmed to be locked into the direction of the main gun. And in that case you won't need a coaxial gun anymore.
Mike E wrote:Werewolf, at the Armored Warfare forums.
Sorry for the -1, my phone is acting up right now. I'll fix it tonight.
flamming_python wrote:Mike E wrote:Werewolf, at the Armored Warfare forums.
Sorry for the -1, my phone is acting up right now. I'll fix it tonight.
Might register to put that Israeli troll in his place.
Can't figure out what's worse - his lack of knowledge about WW2 and its tanks, or his superiority complex against Russian technology in general. What a douche.
I tried to "debunk" that belief on multiple occasions, with no success. The funny thing is; when someone says it "now matches Western vehicles", they can never explain why it doesn't surpass them.OminousSpudd wrote:flamming_python wrote:Mike E wrote:Werewolf, at the Armored Warfare forums.
Sorry for the -1, my phone is acting up right now. I'll fix it tonight.
Might register to put that Israeli troll in his place.
Can't figure out what's worse - his lack of knowledge about WW2 and its tanks, or his superiority complex against Russian technology in general. What a douche.
The thing that got me riled the most was the insistence that the T-14 is simply an equalizer, that it is now simply a "Western" design. Out-fricken-standing.
from here.Gur Khan wrote:The T-14 will receive a 152-millimeter cannon and machine guns, including anti-aircraft.
OminousSpudd wrote:
Can't find any official data on the turret traverse speed with my desperate English searching.
ult wrote:According to the director general of the Uralvagonzavod the approximate price of T-14 is "almost 2 times lower than 500 mln rubles" (that was the number stated by the journalist).
http://svpressa.ru/war21/news/131826/
Militarov wrote:I must notice that FCS software on Armata is far more mature than one i observed in K25 even tho its more than obvious they use similar hardware and very (at the end i belive it will be almost identical) software. K25 FCS software in that documentary from few days ago was very clumsy, this here however looks alot smoother and suprisingly i see it has sort of ORD. For those wondering what i am talking about http://www.igp.ethz.ch/photogrammetry/publications/pdf_folder/leibe08pami.pdf
)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3 - Page 31 RyeAY](https://2img.net/h/s3.uploads.ru/ryeAY.jpg)
ult wrote:According to the director general of the Uralvagonzavod the approximate price of T-14 is "almost 2 times lower than 500 mln rubles" (that was the number stated by the journalist).
http://svpressa.ru/war21/news/131826/OminousSpudd wrote:
Can't find any official data on the turret traverse speed with my desperate English searching.
And you won't find it. Don't bother. It's classified. As well as top speed, weight, engine hp and so on. All numbers in the internet are just speculations.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
higurashihougi